3 ms·

> 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 he

by Sacho 7y ago

> 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" Well, your initial argument was different (and nonsensical, which is why I tried to reinterpret it). I quote: > He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault. The determination whether something was rape is intrinsically linked to whether something is a sexual assault(since rape is a kind of sexual assault...). If using legal terminology, your interpretation is just plainly incoherent. Otherwise, this kind of sloppy usage of terminology is exactly what Stallman was arguing against. The words "sexual assault" and "rape", outside their legal definitions, evoke quote Stallman: "moral vagueness of the nature of the criticism". This is quite clearly demonstrated by the myriad of commentary on the issue, which would blame Minsky for: - this was strictly rape, it doesn't matter whether he knew or not - he was recklessly careless, given the oddity of the situation, he should have done more due diligence - he was creepy for accepting the proposal from the girl This "accusation inflation", as Stallman puts it, leads to a classic motte-and-bailey doctrine, where one presents the strongest accusation, and when challenged, falls back to the lesser offenses, which can garner much more support. As soon as the challenger disappears, the accuser usually reverts back to the strongest accusation. I believe this is what Stallman was arguing against - if you dislike Minsky's conduct, be explicit in what you dislike about it. Once you put both "sexual assault" and "rape" on the same side in Stallman's argument, it becomes much less controversial. Yet you characterized it as: "While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse" How can it possibly be "so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse" if it is the legal reality in a notable number of states and many countries? This was even brought up in the mailing list, I paraphrase: "if he had sex with her, and she was a minor, it was rape - that's the law". To give examples, in Massachusetts, the age of consent is 16; in California, there is no strict liability; in the UK, there is only strict liability for children under 13. I can imagine reasonable arguments for or against strict liability(as I already mentioned earlier), but what I can't imagine is categorically declaring that this is "beyond the pale of responsible discourse". None of your replies expanded on this point.

bscphil 7y ago
>Well, your initial argument was different (and nonsensical). I quote: >> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault. Well, first of all, this is a factual claim I'm making on the basis of evidence, not an "argument". Either RMS said it or he didn't. I'm describing it as rape because that's what it legally is, and that's also what I believe it is ethically, but that's actually irrelevant to the point about RMS. If you insist, you can read my statement as "the people who had sex with her did not commit sexual assault". If you want to get technical, "who raped her" is a clarifying statement of fact (which "people"? those who raped her), not a claim about what RMS thinks. Obviously he doesn't think Minsky raped her, because he thinks (it's plausible that) Minsky did not even sexually assault her. That is, I'm saying RMS said the people [the ones who raped her] did not commit sexual assault, not RMS said "the people who raped her didn't commit sexual assault." (I think I was a good bit more clear than this in the OP, but I'm doing my best to draw out the ambiguity here.) >I believe this is what Stallman was arguing against - if you dislike Minsky's conduct, be explicit in what you dislike about it. Well, as I've pointed out so many times already in this thread (not exasperated at you specifically, but the piling on and trollery is getting quite old), my point is not about whether Stallman's claims are correct or not. The point is that I claimed in my OP that Stallman said P. A hundred people have come out of the woodwork to tell me he did not say P, but have consistently provided zero evidence, while I've been quite clear, providing links and analysis of his actual statements. And I've been downvoted to hell for saying these things about a community hero. For the last time, to be as clear as possible, the only thing I want to defend in this thread is that RMS made this argument: 1. If X has sex with Y, but X does not coerce Y to have sex, X does not sexually assault Y. 2. (Assume) M had sex with Y, but Y presented herself as entirely willing to M. C. M did not sexually assault Y. So it's a defense that even if Minsky had sex with her, he (probably) didn't assault her, because she (probably) presented herself as willing. That is what RMS said. That's also what I said he said. It's something many people think is a very offensive and false statement (which is why he was fired), though I'm not really interested in defending the fact that it's offensive and false. (I said I thought this was irrelevant in my OP, go check.) I'm only interested in defending the fact that this is what he said. (You've been downvoted, but not by me, you can't downvote replies. This thread is toxic as hell, but someone will probably be along to upvote you shortly.)

by Sacho 7y ago

bscphil 7y ago

>Well, your initial argument was different (and nonsensical). I quote: >> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means that the people who raped her did not commit sexual assault. Well, first of all, this is a factual claim I'm making on the basis of evidence, not an "argument". Either RMS said it or he didn't. I'm describing it as rape because that's what it legally is, and that's also what I believe it is ethically, but that's actually irrelevant to the point about RMS. If you insist, you can read my statement as "the people who had sex with her did not commit sexual assault". If you want to get technical, "who raped her" is a clarifying statement of fact (which "people"? those who raped her), not a claim about what RMS thinks. Obviously he doesn't think Minsky raped her, because he thinks (it's plausible that) Minsky did not even sexually assault her. That is, I'm saying RMS said the people [the ones who raped her] did not commit sexual assault, not RMS said "the people who raped her didn't commit sexual assault." (I think I was a good bit more clear than this in the OP, but I'm doing my best to draw out the ambiguity here.) >I believe this is what Stallman was arguing against - if you dislike Minsky's conduct, be explicit in what you dislike about it. Well, as I've pointed out so many times already in this thread (not exasperated at you specifically, but the piling on and trollery is getting quite old), my point is not about whether Stallman's claims are correct or not. The point is that I claimed in my OP that Stallman said P. A hundred people have come out of the woodwork to tell me he did not say P, but have consistently provided zero evidence, while I've been quite clear, providing links and analysis of his actual statements. And I've been downvoted to hell for saying these things about a community hero. For the last time, to be as clear as possible, the only thing I want to defend in this thread is that RMS made this argument: 1. If X has sex with Y, but X does not coerce Y to have sex, X does not sexually assault Y. 2. (Assume) M had sex with Y, but Y presented herself as entirely willing to M. C. M did not sexually assault Y. So it's a defense that even if Minsky had sex with her, he (probably) didn't assault her, because she (probably) presented herself as willing. That is what RMS said. That's also what I said he said. It's something many people think is a very offensive and false statement (which is why he was fired), though I'm not really interested in defending the fact that it's offensive and false. (I said I thought this was irrelevant in my OP, go check.) I'm only interested in defending the fact that this is what he said. (You've been downvoted, but not by me, you can't downvote replies. This thread is toxic as hell, but someone will probably be along to upvote you shortly.)