3 ms·

Stallman defended adults having sex with children in 2013.[1] He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know. [1] https://stallman.org/archiv

Stallman defended adults having sex with children in 2013.[1] He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know. [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...

zajio1am 7y ago
In this post he just linked The Guardian article that described lack of solid empirical evidence. Also note that it is a difference between an empirical claim and a moral claim. While empirical claim that some action almost always leads to negative outcome to others could be used as an argument for that action being immoral, it is still perfectly valid to attack the supporting empirical claim, while not attacking the moral claim.
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  The point is that his opinion wasn't decades old.
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    My point is that this Stallman's comment is not 'defending aduls havings sex with children', but statement about empirical facts. There are Stallman's statements defending non-coercive sex with children, but they are older: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%202003%20() https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...
acqq 7y ago
> He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know. At least there is this one from 14th September, also on his site: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... " Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."

zajio1am 7y ago

In this post he just linked The Guardian article that described lack of solid empirical evidence. Also note that it is a difference between an empirical claim and a moral claim. While empirical claim that some action almost always leads to negative outcome to others could be used as an argument for that action being immoral, it is still perfectly valid to attack the supporting empirical claim, while not attacking the moral claim.

pseudalopex 7y ago
The point is that his opinion wasn't decades old.
- zajio1am 7y ago
  My point is that this Stallman's comment is not 'defending aduls havings sex with children', but statement about empirical facts. There are Stallman's statements defending non-coercive sex with children, but they are older: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%202003%20() https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...

acqq 7y ago

> He didn't say anything else about it until now, as far as I know. At least there is this one from 14th September, also on his site: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... " Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."