4 ms·

I'm sorry, but functionally the problem witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults. While I think there is a good argument to

I'm sorry, but functionally the problem witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults. While I think there is a good argument to be made that kids can and should have control of their own sexuality, suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing." No one in a position to cause this outcome didn't read the original statements. Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding (or that this was an isolated incident of RMS's sexism, for that matter) is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.

dependenttypes 7y ago
> witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults With what sentence? > was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults Legally in most places they can, legally in the place that this happened I think that they could not. Is there a problem with this statement? > suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing." Appeared entirely willing (to Minsky and to anyone else that Epstein invited in his island) != being entirely willing herself. > RMS's sexism Would you mind showing to me where is the sexism in anything that Stallman said regarding Epstein?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  No, I am not going to restate widely available and widely read public documents for your pleasure. I do not believe that you are confused about this.
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    I am confused because I have read said publicly available documents myself and I was unable to find any instance of sexism by Stallman in them.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      Perhaps you should use a better search engine. Several people have gone to great lengths to document this adequately and in public. If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism, you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time.
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
        > Perhaps you should use a better search engine Not sure what search engines have to do with the topic. I have read the two medium posts, the vice article, and the pdf. > If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism I am not doing that. You claimed that RMS was sexist in this incident. I am asking you what he said specifically to make you believe that. > you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time Why post in hackernews if you are not interested in discussion?
        KirinDave 7y ago
        I am intrested discussion. Just not with you any further because I don't think that you're engaging in good faith. Have a nice day.
        dependenttypes 7y ago
        So wait, I am not engaging in good faith because I read what Stallman posted and did not detect anything that seemed sexist? Is everyone who disagrees with you arguing in bad faith? Isn't the one who "holds forbidden knowledge" on sexists thing that Stallman said regarding the Epstein incident but refuse to say what exactly these are the one engaging in bad faith?
        balaksakrionon 7y ago
        KirinDave's definition of "in good faith" only includes positions/arguments/opinions they agree with.

dependenttypes 7y ago

> witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults With what sentence? > was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults Legally in most places they can, legally in the place that this happened I think that they could not. Is there a problem with this statement? > suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing." Appeared entirely willing (to Minsky and to anyone else that Epstein invited in his island) != being entirely willing herself. > RMS's sexism Would you mind showing to me where is the sexism in anything that Stallman said regarding Epstein?

KirinDave 7y ago
No, I am not going to restate widely available and widely read public documents for your pleasure. I do not believe that you are confused about this.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  I am confused because I have read said publicly available documents myself and I was unable to find any instance of sexism by Stallman in them.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Perhaps you should use a better search engine. Several people have gone to great lengths to document this adequately and in public. If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism, you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      > Perhaps you should use a better search engine Not sure what search engines have to do with the topic. I have read the two medium posts, the vice article, and the pdf. > If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism I am not doing that. You claimed that RMS was sexist in this incident. I am asking you what he said specifically to make you believe that. > you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time Why post in hackernews if you are not interested in discussion?
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        I am intrested discussion. Just not with you any further because I don't think that you're engaging in good faith. Have a nice day.
        dependenttypes 7y ago
        So wait, I am not engaging in good faith because I read what Stallman posted and did not detect anything that seemed sexist? Is everyone who disagrees with you arguing in bad faith? Isn't the one who "holds forbidden knowledge" on sexists thing that Stallman said regarding the Epstein incident but refuse to say what exactly these are the one engaging in bad faith?
        balaksakrionon 7y ago
        KirinDave's definition of "in good faith" only includes positions/arguments/opinions they agree with.