5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

_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.