4 ms·

> I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him It's not "people in the community", it's one

by smsm42 7y ago

> I used that particular claim as an example of the negative reactions people in the community seem to have to him It's not "people in the community", it's one person calling him what people usually call socially maladjusted males who dared to exist in their vicinity. It is a bad word, demeaning, devoid of content and only expressing hate and revulsion. > He did say that. Nope, he did not. And I say it because not only I read the email, I actually understood it. You didn't. Not RMSs fault. > He literally did say it. He literally did not. As I explained below, it makes as much sense as saying something who objects to the use of the term "piracy" thinks intellectual property laws should not exist. And the word "literally" does not mean what you think it means.

bscphil 7y ago
You're going to have to do better than that. It really just comes across as trolling since you're making the claim that he didn't say something he very clearly seems to say, without any evidence. Abbreviated, for anyone else who can't be bothered to go read it: >The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: >The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. >The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. >We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. So the claim is that (assuming Minsky had sex with an underage sex trafficking victim), we shouldn't say he assaulted her. Why shouldn't we say he assaulted her? Because it "presumes that he applied force". Why is it the case that he didn't apply force? Because ("plausibly") "she presented herself to him as entirely willing." So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force". That is exactly what I've said this entire thread. My original claim, which apparently was inciting enough to cause this furor: > He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.
- bscphil 7y ago
  For the record, I think it's really adorable that someone has gone through and downvoted every one of my comments with 4-5 accounts (my top level comment used to be at +8, this one is -6 from where it used to be), but has nothing to say in the thread. Because there's nothing you can say to overturn the plain meaning of the text. I'm really not complaining. It's just that cute that someone is so loyal to Stallman that they feel the need to do this.
  - Sacho 7y ago
    I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point. I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes. Having thought about it, I downvoted your initial comment as well, because I no longer believe that your interpretation of RMS's argument was in good faith. I hope this explanation of downvotes helps you. Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault; I know that at least in some states, sexual assault of a minor is a strict liability offense, similar to possessing child porn. I also know that in other countries this isn't necessarily the case(e.g. in the UK there's strict liability only for ages under 13), so it is a contentious issue. Stepping away from the legality, there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be made about handling such horrific situations as child sex trafficking vs the obvious downsides of ignoring the lack of criminal intent.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      > I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point. I don't need to make "progress" from my initial point, because my initial point was simple (and correct), and no one in this thread has bothered responding to it. Stallman said what he said in very simple terms. I made a claim that Stallman said what he in fact said, and this whole thread has been full of trolls claiming he did not say what he patently did say. I'm not sure what "progress" I could possibly make from that. Hell, I'm the only person in this chain of comments who bothered quoting Stallman and commenting on it. It's pretty telling that the comment in which I actually quoted Stallman's words is the most downvoted in the thread - the truth hurts - and that's the point I was making with the follow-up comment.. > I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes. I explicitly said, in the damn comment itself, that I wasn't complaining about the downvotes. I genuinely do think it's hilarious that a simple statement about what Stallman did in fact actually say has brought so many trolls out of the woodwork who have no ability whatsoever to defend their "position". >Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault And this is how I know that you're here to troll too, because I have been extraordinarily clear about the fact that I'm not arguing with anyone about this. The only thing I'm interested in defending is that Stallman said that Minsky couldn't have committed sexual assault if we assume that his victim "presented herself as willing". Stallman said that. You can't get out of that. Frankly, in this comment, you didn't even try.
- Hitton 7y ago
  So let me see if I get your definition of assault right: It doesn't depend at all on alleged attacker's intentions or actions, it doesn't depend on alleged victim's actions, only thing that matters is if the alleged victim did it for one motivation (wanted it) or other (didn't want it, was forced to do it by some external factor). I would say that any reasonable person disagrees with such definition.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    Where, in this entire thread, do you see me define assault? I don't understand what you're responding to. My claim, through the entire mess this thread has become, was and remains that Stallman said something.
    - DSingularity 7y ago
      Man, I read your entire thread of comments. You are all over the place. Your insistence made me repeat my reading of the RMS email and I think you should just drop this.
      - bscphil 7y ago
        The email is extremely clear, and in fact I'm not all over the place. I keep repeating myself so much precisely because no one is bothering to respond to the same, repeated point, which has never changed since my first post in this thread. Do you have any dispute with my characterization of RMS's comments? Can you defend any alternative reading to the plain meaning of his statements, as I set them out above?
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  If we take "she presented herself to him as entirely willing" as a fact then we can deduce that Minsky did not rape her.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force". And here is where you make the switch. The first part is where you repeat RMS argument why he thinks what Minsky presumably did should not be called by the word "assault". The second part is where you attribute to Stallman that he said Minsky didn't do what we call "sexual assault". That's not what he said. What he said is that we shouldn't call what he did "sexual assault" because of reasons, not that he didn't commit the deed. That's different things - just as saying "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license this shouldn't be called piracy" is different from "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license it's not a crime". You start with the first one and then try to make it looks like the second one. That's where the problem is.

by smsm42 7y ago

bscphil 7y ago

You're going to have to do better than that. It really just comes across as trolling since you're making the claim that he didn't say something he very clearly seems to say, without any evidence. Abbreviated, for anyone else who can't be bothered to go read it: >The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky: >The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. >The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. >We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. So the claim is that (assuming Minsky had sex with an underage sex trafficking victim), we shouldn't say he assaulted her. Why shouldn't we say he assaulted her? Because it "presumes that he applied force". Why is it the case that he didn't apply force? Because ("plausibly") "she presented herself to him as entirely willing." So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force". That is exactly what I've said this entire thread. My original claim, which apparently was inciting enough to cause this furor: > He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault.

bscphil 7y ago
For the record, I think it's really adorable that someone has gone through and downvoted every one of my comments with 4-5 accounts (my top level comment used to be at +8, this one is -6 from where it used to be), but has nothing to say in the thread. Because there's nothing you can say to overturn the plain meaning of the text. I'm really not complaining. It's just that cute that someone is so loyal to Stallman that they feel the need to do this.
- Sacho 7y ago
  I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point. I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes. Having thought about it, I downvoted your initial comment as well, because I no longer believe that your interpretation of RMS's argument was in good faith. I hope this explanation of downvotes helps you. Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault; I know that at least in some states, sexual assault of a minor is a strict liability offense, similar to possessing child porn. I also know that in other countries this isn't necessarily the case(e.g. in the UK there's strict liability only for ages under 13), so it is a contentious issue. Stepping away from the legality, there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be made about handling such horrific situations as child sex trafficking vs the obvious downsides of ignoring the lack of criminal intent.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    > I downvoted your previous comments because I think you haven't made any progress from your initial point. I don't need to make "progress" from my initial point, because my initial point was simple (and correct), and no one in this thread has bothered responding to it. Stallman said what he said in very simple terms. I made a claim that Stallman said what he in fact said, and this whole thread has been full of trolls claiming he did not say what he patently did say. I'm not sure what "progress" I could possibly make from that. Hell, I'm the only person in this chain of comments who bothered quoting Stallman and commenting on it. It's pretty telling that the comment in which I actually quoted Stallman's words is the most downvoted in the thread - the truth hurts - and that's the point I was making with the follow-up comment.. > I flagged this comment because it is complaining about downvotes. I explicitly said, in the damn comment itself, that I wasn't complaining about the downvotes. I genuinely do think it's hilarious that a simple statement about what Stallman did in fact actually say has brought so many trolls out of the woodwork who have no ability whatsoever to defend their "position". >Given good faith, I could initially respond positively to your comment. While I believe you did not phrase it well, I think there's an argument to make there - if mens rea should be part of determining whether a crime is sexual assault And this is how I know that you're here to troll too, because I have been extraordinarily clear about the fact that I'm not arguing with anyone about this. The only thing I'm interested in defending is that Stallman said that Minsky couldn't have committed sexual assault if we assume that his victim "presented herself as willing". Stallman said that. You can't get out of that. Frankly, in this comment, you didn't even try.
Hitton 7y ago
So let me see if I get your definition of assault right: It doesn't depend at all on alleged attacker's intentions or actions, it doesn't depend on alleged victim's actions, only thing that matters is if the alleged victim did it for one motivation (wanted it) or other (didn't want it, was forced to do it by some external factor). I would say that any reasonable person disagrees with such definition.
- bscphil 7y ago
  Where, in this entire thread, do you see me define assault? I don't understand what you're responding to. My claim, through the entire mess this thread has become, was and remains that Stallman said something.
  - DSingularity 7y ago
    Man, I read your entire thread of comments. You are all over the place. Your insistence made me repeat my reading of the RMS email and I think you should just drop this.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      The email is extremely clear, and in fact I'm not all over the place. I keep repeating myself so much precisely because no one is bothering to respond to the same, repeated point, which has never changed since my first post in this thread. Do you have any dispute with my characterization of RMS's comments? Can you defend any alternative reading to the plain meaning of his statements, as I set them out above?
dependenttypes 7y ago
If we take "she presented herself to him as entirely willing" as a fact then we can deduce that Minsky did not rape her.
smsm42 7y ago
> So if an underage trafficking victim presents herself as entirely willing to a man she has sex with, that man did not commit sexual assault. Because sexual assault "presumes that he applied force". And here is where you make the switch. The first part is where you repeat RMS argument why he thinks what Minsky presumably did should not be called by the word "assault". The second part is where you attribute to Stallman that he said Minsky didn't do what we call "sexual assault". That's not what he said. What he said is that we shouldn't call what he did "sexual assault" because of reasons, not that he didn't commit the deed. That's different things - just as saying "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license this shouldn't be called piracy" is different from "if I copy Microsoft Word without paying the license it's not a crime". You start with the first one and then try to make it looks like the second one. That's where the problem is.