RSM did not say 1 or 2. There are other people in that thread besides him... all names have been redacted except his. He did say 3. He did say 4, but (perhap

RSM did not say 1 or 2. There are other people in that thread besides him... all names have been redacted except his. He did say 3. He did say 4, but (perhaps I misunderstand?) you seem to have colored it. Epstein as a coercer remains a factor; the assertion is that this cannot be morally on Minsky if one assumes he didn't know about it. 4.2 He also argues that, morally speaking, rape is rape, and not-rape is not-rape, irrespective of location and whether a girl was 17 or 18. This is also not part of his primary argument; it was a response to someone else (a student, I've heard?) bringing these exact legal details to the table. 5. The thing is, depending on whether you say that "Minsky is accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims", and "Minsky is accused of having sex with a 17-year old victim of Epstein's sex trafficking", or even some other title besides, people are going to have different reactions. Some people might have the same reaction to both, but other people might envision something different when presented with the former title, than when presented with the latter. RMS argues for a more specific title, arguing that the original is prone to accusation inflation. > How far must our credulity stretch to believe that Minsky foresaw most of modern AI, only to fall for "hot willing 17-year-olds in your area"? Well, I imagine the figurative advertisement was probably more like "hot willing 18-year-olds in your area", possibly coupled with an exchange of money. I'm not saying you don't have any points. I can follow most of your reasoning. But maybe you might adjust your 1-5, then re-evaluate your position from there? Is it possible that you don't arrive at an identical conclusion?