3 ms·
This is plain disgusting. I've known RMS for years and he clearly doesn't respect social norms in many aspects. It's not a secret, there are also many stories a
by dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
This is plain disgusting. I've known RMS for years and he clearly doesn't respect social norms in many aspects. It's not a secret, there are also many stories about it on the Internet.
But to paint him as a pedophile and a molester - that's really crossing a line. I disagree with RMS on many topics, but the mass hysteria going on right now is mind boggling.
- notus 7y agohttps://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_Janua...
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y agoYeah, but what is mind-boggling is not so much his comments but the content of the Guardian article itself: > A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes". > Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist". I find even thinking about these things disgusting, but if we want to be fair, he just repeated what the article says. If the SWJs feel outraged (why now? his page has been public for decades), they should attack the scientists who presented the findings of these studies.