4 ms·

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

by 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.
- denton-scratch 7y ago
  "Stallman said what he said in very simple terms." Actually, the terminology he used was not simple. For example: "Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it)." He's not saying he believes Minsky had sex with the girl; he's granting that it's possible, absent any contrary evidence, for the purposes of argument. That type of reasoning is called a hypothetical argument; the words "Let's presume" are the clue. And indeed there is contrary evidence, of which RMS was aware: an eye-witness has stated that he saw Minsky being propositioned, and that Minsky rejected the advance. So RMS adopted, for the purpose of defending his friend (a man who could not defend himself), an unsubstantiated hypothesis which he knew was contradicted by other evidence. Is this what you are calling "very simple terms"? It's actually a sophisticated bit of reasoning, and it's easy to misunderstand it if you don't read carefully. Note that it was addressed to a bunch of very clever people - people who can be expected to be able to parse such an argument - the subscribers to the CSAIL list. It was not addressed to the general public, nor the readership of pop-tech websites like Vice and TechCrunch.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    > He's not saying he believes Minsky had sex with the girl; he's granting that it's possible, absent any contrary evidence, for the purposes of argument Nothing about what I said is even remotely related to whether or not Minsky actually had sex with her. You don't need to be condescending and pretend to tell me what a hypothetical argument. I know what a hypothetical argument is. What I am claiming is that RMS said that (given Minsky did have sex with her), if she presented herself as willing, then Minsky did not commit sexual assault. I have been clear about this from the very first comment (please take a second to go back and re-read it). Whether he actually had sex with her is irrelevant. My claim is about what RMS said about assault. Do you deny that RMS said this?
    - denton-scratch 7y ago
      I have not actually addressed the comments RMS made about the use of the word "assault" - I haven't used that word in any of my remarks. And I don't think that in any of my comments, I have denied any quotation you have attributed to RMS. Straw man. FWIW, he evidently said that he thinks it's wrong to use the word "assault" when no coercion is involved. I think he may be wrong about that, if the word is being used as part of a term of art in law. It might also be something that depends on jurisdiction. RMS is instead complaining that the use of the term "assault" to refer to an act that (if it occurred at all) Minsky believed to be consensual, is prejudicial and unfair. I was once told that in Common Law, "assault" occurs when you ball your fist and wave it in someone's face; "battery" occurs when you hit them with it. So in common language, assault means a physical threat of force. In the context of sexual assault, however, things look different. If you fiddle sexually with a three-year-old, you commit a serious sexual assault, even though no threat might have been involved.

by Sacho 7y ago

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.

denton-scratch 7y ago
"Stallman said what he said in very simple terms." Actually, the terminology he used was not simple. For example: "Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it)." He's not saying he believes Minsky had sex with the girl; he's granting that it's possible, absent any contrary evidence, for the purposes of argument. That type of reasoning is called a hypothetical argument; the words "Let's presume" are the clue. And indeed there is contrary evidence, of which RMS was aware: an eye-witness has stated that he saw Minsky being propositioned, and that Minsky rejected the advance. So RMS adopted, for the purpose of defending his friend (a man who could not defend himself), an unsubstantiated hypothesis which he knew was contradicted by other evidence. Is this what you are calling "very simple terms"? It's actually a sophisticated bit of reasoning, and it's easy to misunderstand it if you don't read carefully. Note that it was addressed to a bunch of very clever people - people who can be expected to be able to parse such an argument - the subscribers to the CSAIL list. It was not addressed to the general public, nor the readership of pop-tech websites like Vice and TechCrunch.
- bscphil 7y ago
  > He's not saying he believes Minsky had sex with the girl; he's granting that it's possible, absent any contrary evidence, for the purposes of argument Nothing about what I said is even remotely related to whether or not Minsky actually had sex with her. You don't need to be condescending and pretend to tell me what a hypothetical argument. I know what a hypothetical argument is. What I am claiming is that RMS said that (given Minsky did have sex with her), if she presented herself as willing, then Minsky did not commit sexual assault. I have been clear about this from the very first comment (please take a second to go back and re-read it). Whether he actually had sex with her is irrelevant. My claim is about what RMS said about assault. Do you deny that RMS said this?
  - denton-scratch 7y ago
    I have not actually addressed the comments RMS made about the use of the word "assault" - I haven't used that word in any of my remarks. And I don't think that in any of my comments, I have denied any quotation you have attributed to RMS. Straw man. FWIW, he evidently said that he thinks it's wrong to use the word "assault" when no coercion is involved. I think he may be wrong about that, if the word is being used as part of a term of art in law. It might also be something that depends on jurisdiction. RMS is instead complaining that the use of the term "assault" to refer to an act that (if it occurred at all) Minsky believed to be consensual, is prejudicial and unfair. I was once told that in Common Law, "assault" occurs when you ball your fist and wave it in someone's face; "battery" occurs when you hit them with it. So in common language, assault means a physical threat of force. In the context of sexual assault, however, things look different. If you fiddle sexually with a three-year-old, you commit a serious sexual assault, even though no threat might have been involved.