3 ms·

>But you should not expect to be free from the consequences. No one does. its not about not prosecuting anyone for what happened on that Island. Its about Stal

>But you should not expect to be free from the consequences. No one does. its not about not prosecuting anyone for what happened on that Island. Its about Stallmans response to the allegations against someone else. Did you respond to the wrong comment by any chance?

yibg 7y ago
The parents comment was about it being ok to have sex with a 17 year old because that’s ok in some jurisdictions. I’m saying that’s not how laws work.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  I am the parent and its not what i wrote. I would recommend reading it again. I also dont see where you made the jump to the legal/illegal argument. Since we are talking about Stallmans speech, we are clearly not discussing illegal behavior but free speech. Or is what Stallman said illegal by now?
  - yibg 7y ago
    “Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything.” What is this trying to say?
    - cf141q5325 7y ago
      Good pointer, that was some misleading wording on my part. OP mentioned after the part that I quoted that >This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. I think you could make the argument that what he said wasnt that "inappropriate", but only in the frame of reference of a rather puritanical American society. Hence the reference to a more far out frame of reference in form of Saudi Arabia. His original quote is >The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. That might not make him a great person, but you can make that argument. That the equivalence of assault and prostitution is a rather American one and not universally. And that the distinction in the form of the age of consent of a 17 year old isnt universally either.

yibg 7y ago

The parents comment was about it being ok to have sex with a 17 year old because that’s ok in some jurisdictions. I’m saying that’s not how laws work.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cf141q5325 7y ago
I am the parent and its not what i wrote. I would recommend reading it again. I also dont see where you made the jump to the legal/illegal argument. Since we are talking about Stallmans speech, we are clearly not discussing illegal behavior but free speech. Or is what Stallman said illegal by now?
- yibg 7y ago
  “Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything.” What is this trying to say?
  - cf141q5325 7y ago
    Good pointer, that was some misleading wording on my part. OP mentioned after the part that I quoted that >This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. I think you could make the argument that what he said wasnt that "inappropriate", but only in the frame of reference of a rather puritanical American society. Hence the reference to a more far out frame of reference in form of Saudi Arabia. His original quote is >The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. That might not make him a great person, but you can make that argument. That the equivalence of assault and prostitution is a rather American one and not universally. And that the distinction in the form of the age of consent of a 17 year old isnt universally either.