3 ms·
> pointing out inaccuracies But, he wasn't? 1. "Minsky has been accused of assault" 2. RMS: "you shouldn't call it assault - might give people the wrong idea
by rrss 7y ago
> pointing out inaccuracies
But, he wasn't?
1. "Minsky has been accused of assault"
2. RMS: "you shouldn't call it assault - might give people the wrong idea"
3. "It would have been literally rape in the relevant territory, 'assault' is a fine word for it"
4. RMS: "ok, even if it's legally rape, it shouldn't morally be considered rape, so don't call it assault if it was 'just' statutory rape."
What inaccuracies did he point out? I see that he expressed his opinion that 'assault' is too strong a word for some cases of rape, but what inaccuracy was there in the original statement regarding the allegations about minsky?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- balaksakrionon 7y agoDo you mind avoiding paraphrasing? It seems a lot of the confusion is stemming from the editorializing / paraphrasing done by the media outlets and throughout the ensuing discussions so it may be best to litigate the direct quotations to keep the discussion as fact based as possible