4 ms·

There are two things going on here. (Well, more, I'll focus on two.) Legal drafting always leads to absurdities. It is not possible to draft laws that don't; t

by _jal 7y ago

There are two things going on here. (Well, more, I'll focus on two.) Legal drafting always leads to absurdities. It is not possible to draft laws that don't; the practical need for unambiguous rules combined with complex reality means there are always edge cases. Illustrating this general fact with the highly specific case of old rich men screwing young, powerless kids is going to cause other people to wonder about why it seems like you're only interested arguing about legal absurdities in this specific context. After all, you could illustrate your point with, say, the catch 22s inherent in the modern debt peonage systems in the US, or how pro-bono plaintiffs are regularly abused for not following rules they have no access to see, or a nearly endless parade of other examples. Let's just say that if defending rich old men screwing young kids is apparently your hill to die on, a lot of folks are going to be less focused on your nuanced legal argumentation.

lostjohnny 7y ago
> Legal drafting always leads to absurdities Agree, and that's exactly the kind of absurd RMS was talking about. That's it, just that. He can't concive that something is illogical. Does he deserve the blame for it? > let's just say that if defending rich old men screwing young kids is apparently your hill to die on It never happened though. That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it.
- _jal 7y ago
  No, it is not just that. You are apparently intent on ignoring the point of my post, so let me rephrase: If someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum. (It may be a tacky example to use, but that's a different question.) On the other hand, if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, and, having never before shown any interest in a particular legal argument, trots it out to defend (and yes, that exactly what it was) abhorrent behavior, people are going to take it differently. > That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it. You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Well sure. In the US, people can sue over anything they like. But if that's what you meant, I still have no idea what "charges" you're talking about.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    > if someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum that's a big IF and BTW Stallman notoriously complained about absurd legal result, that's his real life achievement: a legal framework for free software! that's his bread and butter. > if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, that's false premise > You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Yes. Because "defending rich old men screwing young kids" never happened. It's a fabricated lie.

by _jal 7y ago

lostjohnny 7y ago

> Legal drafting always leads to absurdities Agree, and that's exactly the kind of absurd RMS was talking about. That's it, just that. He can't concive that something is illogical. Does he deserve the blame for it? > let's just say that if defending rich old men screwing young kids is apparently your hill to die on It never happened though. That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it.

_jal 7y ago
No, it is not just that. You are apparently intent on ignoring the point of my post, so let me rephrase: If someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum. (It may be a tacky example to use, but that's a different question.) On the other hand, if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, and, having never before shown any interest in a particular legal argument, trots it out to defend (and yes, that exactly what it was) abhorrent behavior, people are going to take it differently. > That's the point: in court you could be charged for saying it. You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Well sure. In the US, people can sue over anything they like. But if that's what you meant, I still have no idea what "charges" you're talking about.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > if someone has a history of complaining about absurd legal results, it would not be surprising to hear them use this situation as an example while beating that drum that's a big IF and BTW Stallman notoriously complained about absurd legal result, that's his real life achievement: a legal framework for free software! that's his bread and butter. > if someone has a history of doing and saying things that other people take indicative of treating women as less than fully equal, that's false premise > You lost me here. Do you mean to say someone could claim I libeled them? Yes. Because "defending rich old men screwing young kids" never happened. It's a fabricated lie.