4 ms·

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating again

by CPLX 7y ago

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means that the mere facts of the act taking place mean that the conduct is off limits. Things like "consent" or even a misrepresentation of the person's age are generally considered irrelevant. As a society we've decided that there aren't really exceptions to this. If sex with minors occurs it's not OK, there isn't much need to further investigate why it happened. Stallman, and anyone else commenting here, has really no basis to claim ignorance of this phenomenally clear social norm, which if broken will result in being fired from just about any public facing institution. It's on a pretty short list of such norms, alongside things like displaying your genitals in a board meeting. While I appreciate the efforts to make this into some kind of principled argument, I don't find "first they came for the people advocating for sex with minors" to be particularly compelling.

kjksf 7y ago
This is perfect example of mob mentality in action. At no point Stallman was defending sex with minors. And yet, here you are, extremely offended at him for something he didn't say.
- CPLX 7y ago
  "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." - Richard Stallman Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pioneer-quits-mit-over-his-comments-on-epstein-sex-trafficking-cas https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pione...
  - tzs 7y ago
    The first quote isn't defending sex with minors. It's criticizing inconsistent definitions of minor. Do you disagree that it makes no sense morally for, say a 19 year old and 17 year old having sex together to be OK in one place, and rape if they had first moved a few feet over, if that movement happens to cross a border where the laws change?
  - scooble 7y ago
    As I understand it, the latter 2 quotes are now rather old and Stallman has publicly renounced those views. While I'm sure it wasn't your intention, a casual reader of your post might get the impression that they were all part of the conversation he appears to have been fired for.
  - NotATroll 7y ago
    Don't forget the good old. > The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness. Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html Just ctrl+f for necro. You'll find it.
verroq 7y ago
>Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with people of the same sex is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
While I agree what RMS said was incorrect, let's recast CPLX's arguments into the Middle Ages and see what happens: > Our culture has made a very bright line decision that being an atheist is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted.... While I appreciate the efforts to make this into some kind of principled argument, I don't find "first they came for the people advocating for not believing in God" to be particularly compelling." Does the problem become clear now? (Substitute abolitionism, suffragism, civil rights, etc. for atheism if you like.) Ironically, much like the conservatives they oppose, progressives are arguing that it is acceptable to crucify people who say something that is agains the status quo and tradition.
- hsk823 7y ago
  This argument has no sway, because the passage of time has occurred since the Middle Ages. We no longer live in the Middle Ages. We will deal with what is unconscionable in 2019 using 2019 standards. Equating literally a currently criminal act that negatively affects individuals we consider defenseless because of their legal minor status, to social movements that have found validity after it's initial dismissal is just not rationale. Unless the argument is that sex with a child should be socially acceptable.
- CPLX 7y ago
  Yes. You have aptly demonstrated two things here: 1) There are social norms 2) They change sometimes Neither of those is relevant though here. Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? Assuming we agree that advocating for some things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with my observations: 1) Saying it’s cool for adults to fuck minors is definitely on that list 2) I’m ok with that
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
javagram 7y ago
Stallman made those questionable, problematic statements on his blog a decade ago. He was cancelled because of a email thread related to Epstein that media outlets lied about. If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago?
- CPLX 7y ago
  > If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago? Probably because people just noticed them? Saying “he’s been doing this unacceptable thing forever and appears to be consistent” is not really compelling either.
  - javagram 7y ago
    They were public statements on his blog, people certainly noticed them earlier. It just wasn’t considered enough whereas media headlines (falsely) stating he defended Epstein resulted in immediate action

by CPLX 7y ago

kjksf 7y ago

This is perfect example of mob mentality in action. At no point Stallman was defending sex with minors. And yet, here you are, extremely offended at him for something he didn't say.

CPLX 7y ago
"I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." - Richard Stallman Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pioneer-quits-mit-over-his-comments-on-epstein-sex-trafficking-cas https://www.npr.org/2019/09/17/761718975/free-software-pione...
- tzs 7y ago
  The first quote isn't defending sex with minors. It's criticizing inconsistent definitions of minor. Do you disagree that it makes no sense morally for, say a 19 year old and 17 year old having sex together to be OK in one place, and rape if they had first moved a few feet over, if that movement happens to cross a border where the laws change?
- scooble 7y ago
  As I understand it, the latter 2 quotes are now rather old and Stallman has publicly renounced those views. While I'm sure it wasn't your intention, a casual reader of your post might get the impression that they were all part of the conversation he appears to have been fired for.
- NotATroll 7y ago
  Don't forget the good old. > The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness. Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html Just ctrl+f for necro. You'll find it.

verroq 7y ago

>Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with people of the same sex is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

While I agree what RMS said was incorrect, let's recast CPLX's arguments into the Middle Ages and see what happens: > Our culture has made a very bright line decision that being an atheist is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted.... While I appreciate the efforts to make this into some kind of principled argument, I don't find "first they came for the people advocating for not believing in God" to be particularly compelling." Does the problem become clear now? (Substitute abolitionism, suffragism, civil rights, etc. for atheism if you like.) Ironically, much like the conservatives they oppose, progressives are arguing that it is acceptable to crucify people who say something that is agains the status quo and tradition.

hsk823 7y ago
This argument has no sway, because the passage of time has occurred since the Middle Ages. We no longer live in the Middle Ages. We will deal with what is unconscionable in 2019 using 2019 standards. Equating literally a currently criminal act that negatively affects individuals we consider defenseless because of their legal minor status, to social movements that have found validity after it's initial dismissal is just not rationale. Unless the argument is that sex with a child should be socially acceptable.
CPLX 7y ago
Yes. You have aptly demonstrated two things here: 1) There are social norms 2) They change sometimes Neither of those is relevant though here. Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? Assuming we agree that advocating for some things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with my observations: 1) Saying it’s cool for adults to fuck minors is definitely on that list 2) I’m ok with that
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

javagram 7y ago

Stallman made those questionable, problematic statements on his blog a decade ago. He was cancelled because of a email thread related to Epstein that media outlets lied about. If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago?

CPLX 7y ago
> If the blog statements were enough to cancel him, why now and not a few weeks ago or a year ago? Probably because people just noticed them? Saying “he’s been doing this unacceptable thing forever and appears to be consistent” is not really compelling either.
- javagram 7y ago
  They were public statements on his blog, people certainly noticed them earlier. It just wasn’t considered enough whereas media headlines (falsely) stating he defended Epstein resulted in immediate action