3 ms·

But here the reasoning was weak. He tried to say that assault shouldn't be called assault if it didn't involve force, because assault requires force. That's a

by DanBC 7y ago

But here the reasoning was weak. He tried to say that assault shouldn't be called assault if it didn't involve force, because assault requires force. That's a definition of assault that is incorrect in English usage and incorrect in law. Assault does not require use of force. 30 seconds of web searching, or reading a dictionary, would have told him this. If this was the only time he'd said something fucking idiotic about sexual violence maybe he'd have got away with it, but it isn't, is it? He keeps on saying stupid shit about abuse of children. When it comes to sexual abuse against women and children he doesn't know what he's talking about; he knows he doesn't know what he's talking about; but he keeps doing it.

taylodl 7y ago
Except he wasn't talking about Jeffrey Epstein, he was talking about Marvin Minsky. He was trying to portray a scenario where Jeffrey Epstein would have been committing a crime while Marvin Minsky was not. Minsky's presumed guilt is predicated on two things: 1. His knowing what Epstein was doing, i.e. knowing these were sex slaves 2. The girl was under age RMS defended Minsky against (2) by stating it's morally absurd having a law differing in different jurisdictions by age. There are many places in the civilized world where (2) wouldn't apply due to the girl's age. With regards to (1) all RMS mused was what if the girl presented herself willingly? How do we know Minsky knew Epstein was committing a crime and thus making himself complicit in that crime? Does Minsky not have plausible deniability? Too bad he's dead and can't defend himself. In the end RMS was painting a picture where Epstein is a monster, the girl was a victim, and Minsky was innocent. The media completely misrepresented this portraiture.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Where did I say he was talking about Epstein? There's a bunch of people across these threads saying "he wasn't talking about Epstein" as if that excuses what he was saying. > How do we know Minsky knew Epstein was committing a crime and thus making himself complicit in that crime? Does Minsky not have plausible deniability? If you're a 70 year old man you should understand that a 17 year old girl is not going to want to have sex with you. He was at the minimum hugely reckless. > In the end RMS was painting a picture where [...] Minsky was innocent. Yes, I know, and this is enough for most people to realise that RMS is not a suitable figurehead for any project.
  - taylodl 7y ago
    The presumption is Minsky wouldn't have known she was 17 and with regards to your other point - you know many men have been having affairs with girls 40 to 50 years their junior. Pablo Picasso was the first to come to mind. There have been many others. I presume they feel flattered rather than suspicious.
    - rurban 7y ago
      We still don't know exactly if she was 17 or already 18 at that time. Someone found out that she actually was 18 already, but it's unclear yet.
- eesmith 7y ago
  But while trying to make that argument, his messed up on basic definitions. "Sexual assault" as is generally understood does not mean that violence was necessarily involved, while Stallman said it was required. He further went on to say that it was "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation", and said that people should use more precise terms. However, "sexual assault" is the precise term, or at the very least the encompassing term for a sexual act with someone unable to give consent. I don't think it's a misrepresentation to say Stallman doesn't understand what people mean by "sexual assault", as its generally legally defined. With regards to (1), we also don't if Minksy thought she was a prostitute that Epstein got <wink>, <wink> for him, or why Minsky didn't think he was being set up for blackmail. Commercial sex with a minor is different from consensual non-commercial sex with a minor. Why did 73-year-old Minksy think that a teenager wanted to have sex with him? We don't know. He can't defend himself. Stallman doesn't either. But he presents only one possible scenario - the one which puts Minksy in the best light. Minsky also can't be hurt, so, why waste any social capital on this topic? There are many age-related laws which differ around the world (drinking, driving age, and more). His complaint about the lack of world-wide agreement doesn't just make it "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation", which is what he (wrongly) asserts. It makes it absolutely wrong to use any legal term. Which is absurd.
  - taylodl 7y ago
    Seeing as how being branded a pedophile makes you a pariah you would think we'd have come to some consensus as to what exactly pedophilia is. Seeing as how reasonable people around the world have been unable to agree upon such a definition then we should be careful before applying that label. If truth and morals are things that actually exist and are discernible then we should be able to figure this out. Discussions such as this are the means for how we go about that.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      Epstein clearly wasn't treated as pariah even after a pedophile conviction so your statement is not always correct. Ditto Roman Polanski. Kissinger is a war criminal. He's not treated as such. Truth and morals therefore aren't the only factors in the political-legal system. I still want there to be a definition of war criminal, even if there isn't an agreement. Ditto for pedophile. Discussions are worthless if people don't don't listen. Stallman wasn't listening to the existing discussion when he made up his definition of what "sexual assault" means.

by DanBC 7y ago

taylodl 7y ago

Except he wasn't talking about Jeffrey Epstein, he was talking about Marvin Minsky. He was trying to portray a scenario where Jeffrey Epstein would have been committing a crime while Marvin Minsky was not. Minsky's presumed guilt is predicated on two things: 1. His knowing what Epstein was doing, i.e. knowing these were sex slaves 2. The girl was under age RMS defended Minsky against (2) by stating it's morally absurd having a law differing in different jurisdictions by age. There are many places in the civilized world where (2) wouldn't apply due to the girl's age. With regards to (1) all RMS mused was what if the girl presented herself willingly? How do we know Minsky knew Epstein was committing a crime and thus making himself complicit in that crime? Does Minsky not have plausible deniability? Too bad he's dead and can't defend himself. In the end RMS was painting a picture where Epstein is a monster, the girl was a victim, and Minsky was innocent. The media completely misrepresented this portraiture.

DanBC 7y ago
Where did I say he was talking about Epstein? There's a bunch of people across these threads saying "he wasn't talking about Epstein" as if that excuses what he was saying. > How do we know Minsky knew Epstein was committing a crime and thus making himself complicit in that crime? Does Minsky not have plausible deniability? If you're a 70 year old man you should understand that a 17 year old girl is not going to want to have sex with you. He was at the minimum hugely reckless. > In the end RMS was painting a picture where [...] Minsky was innocent. Yes, I know, and this is enough for most people to realise that RMS is not a suitable figurehead for any project.
- taylodl 7y ago
  The presumption is Minsky wouldn't have known she was 17 and with regards to your other point - you know many men have been having affairs with girls 40 to 50 years their junior. Pablo Picasso was the first to come to mind. There have been many others. I presume they feel flattered rather than suspicious.
  - rurban 7y ago
    We still don't know exactly if she was 17 or already 18 at that time. Someone found out that she actually was 18 already, but it's unclear yet.
eesmith 7y ago
But while trying to make that argument, his messed up on basic definitions. "Sexual assault" as is generally understood does not mean that violence was necessarily involved, while Stallman said it was required. He further went on to say that it was "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation", and said that people should use more precise terms. However, "sexual assault" is the precise term, or at the very least the encompassing term for a sexual act with someone unable to give consent. I don't think it's a misrepresentation to say Stallman doesn't understand what people mean by "sexual assault", as its generally legally defined. With regards to (1), we also don't if Minksy thought she was a prostitute that Epstein got <wink>, <wink> for him, or why Minsky didn't think he was being set up for blackmail. Commercial sex with a minor is different from consensual non-commercial sex with a minor. Why did 73-year-old Minksy think that a teenager wanted to have sex with him? We don't know. He can't defend himself. Stallman doesn't either. But he presents only one possible scenario - the one which puts Minksy in the best light. Minsky also can't be hurt, so, why waste any social capital on this topic? There are many age-related laws which differ around the world (drinking, driving age, and more). His complaint about the lack of world-wide agreement doesn't just make it "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation", which is what he (wrongly) asserts. It makes it absolutely wrong to use any legal term. Which is absurd.
- taylodl 7y ago
  Seeing as how being branded a pedophile makes you a pariah you would think we'd have come to some consensus as to what exactly pedophilia is. Seeing as how reasonable people around the world have been unable to agree upon such a definition then we should be careful before applying that label. If truth and morals are things that actually exist and are discernible then we should be able to figure this out. Discussions such as this are the means for how we go about that.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Epstein clearly wasn't treated as pariah even after a pedophile conviction so your statement is not always correct. Ditto Roman Polanski. Kissinger is a war criminal. He's not treated as such. Truth and morals therefore aren't the only factors in the political-legal system. I still want there to be a definition of war criminal, even if there isn't an agreement. Ditto for pedophile. Discussions are worthless if people don't don't listen. Stallman wasn't listening to the existing discussion when he made up his definition of what "sexual assault" means.