3 ms·

> 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 Nothin

> 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.
- bscphil 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. OK, sure? I guess in that case I'm just confused about why you replied to the comment you did. My comment was that what RMS said [about assault] was simple and straightforward. You replied, saying, "it's actually not so simple". If you weren't actually disputing my claims about RMS, I guess I'm just totally lost on the point of what you were replying to in my comment.
  - denton-scratch 7y ago
    Well, yeah, pretty sure. I don't think you have attributed any quotation to RMS. You are being a little bit slippery, though. RMSs entire post to the CSAIL list concerned his objections to the accusations levelled against his late friend and colleague. He specifically objected to the use of the word "assault". You said that RMS had expressed his defence "in simple terms"; I questioned that, pointing out that his post was sophisticated, and required a close reading. Now you are saying I have denied things that I have not denied; and asking me to re-read your posts, as if I have mis-read your remarks; but I have not.

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.

bscphil 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. OK, sure? I guess in that case I'm just confused about why you replied to the comment you did. My comment was that what RMS said [about assault] was simple and straightforward. You replied, saying, "it's actually not so simple". If you weren't actually disputing my claims about RMS, I guess I'm just totally lost on the point of what you were replying to in my comment.
- denton-scratch 7y ago
  Well, yeah, pretty sure. I don't think you have attributed any quotation to RMS. You are being a little bit slippery, though. RMSs entire post to the CSAIL list concerned his objections to the accusations levelled against his late friend and colleague. He specifically objected to the use of the word "assault". You said that RMS had expressed his defence "in simple terms"; I questioned that, pointing out that his post was sophisticated, and required a close reading. Now you are saying I have denied things that I have not denied; and asking me to re-read your posts, as if I have mis-read your remarks; but I have not.