3 ms·

>Well, your initial argument was different (and nonsensical). I quote: >> He said that an underage sex trafficking victim's "plausible" apparent consent means

>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.)

Sacho 7y ago
FWIW, I fully agree with your interpretation of RMS's argument here(to be fair, I think his argument as presented was worse, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I arrive at your interpretation). However, I don't see how that argument can be "beyond the pale of responsible discourse". This is a legit legal defense! From what I can see, it would be an admissable defense in the Virgin Islands(strict liability for only under 13), and irrelevent in Massachusets(age of consent > 16), etc. But I don't mean to wade too deply in the legal correctness - it's quite possible I'm wrong(not a lawyer), my point simply being that I can't see how this argument is out of line, given the controversial[1] nature of strict liability, and the differing statutes from state to state and country to country. [1] - Here's a quote demonstrating its controversial status: > The Supreme Court proclaimed that "[t]he contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by [mens rea] is no provincial or transient notion. It is ... universal and persistent in mature systems of law ...." Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952). See also United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 98 S. Ct. 2864, 57 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1978) (offenses that do not contain a mens rea element have a "generally disfavored status"). (Taken from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2336454/francis-v-government-of-virgin-islands/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2336454/francis-v-gove...)
- bscphil 7y ago
  So ... the only people who have taken the time to actually go through my interpretation of RMS agree with me about how I'm interpreting him? Then why am I being relentlessly trolled and downvoted in this thread, when I have repeatedly stated that this is the only point I wish to defend? As I said in the OP, I wanted to make a fairly simple point about RMS's leadership of GNU. My claim that it was beyond the pale was something that I explicitly said is "not really relevant for this particular thread". Maybe a reasonable debate could be had on this point, but it wasn't one that I was interested in having when I wrote the OP (and I said as much), and I definitely don't feel like getting into it now after hours of this miserable slog of a thread. It's also worth pointing out that you're the first person (I think) to debate this point: most comments (go through and read them!) are denying that RMS said these things. Thank you for at least saying you agree with my interpretation.

Sacho 7y ago

FWIW, I fully agree with your interpretation of RMS's argument here(to be fair, I think his argument as presented was worse, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I arrive at your interpretation). However, I don't see how that argument can be "beyond the pale of responsible discourse". This is a legit legal defense! From what I can see, it would be an admissable defense in the Virgin Islands(strict liability for only under 13), and irrelevent in Massachusets(age of consent > 16), etc. But I don't mean to wade too deply in the legal correctness - it's quite possible I'm wrong(not a lawyer), my point simply being that I can't see how this argument is out of line, given the controversial[1] nature of strict liability, and the differing statutes from state to state and country to country. [1] - Here's a quote demonstrating its controversial status: > The Supreme Court proclaimed that "[t]he contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by [mens rea] is no provincial or transient notion. It is ... universal and persistent in mature systems of law ...." Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952). See also United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 98 S. Ct. 2864, 57 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1978) (offenses that do not contain a mens rea element have a "generally disfavored status"). (Taken from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2336454/francis-v-government-of-virgin-islands/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2336454/francis-v-gove...)

bscphil 7y ago
So ... the only people who have taken the time to actually go through my interpretation of RMS agree with me about how I'm interpreting him? Then why am I being relentlessly trolled and downvoted in this thread, when I have repeatedly stated that this is the only point I wish to defend? As I said in the OP, I wanted to make a fairly simple point about RMS's leadership of GNU. My claim that it was beyond the pale was something that I explicitly said is "not really relevant for this particular thread". Maybe a reasonable debate could be had on this point, but it wasn't one that I was interested in having when I wrote the OP (and I said as much), and I definitely don't feel like getting into it now after hours of this miserable slog of a thread. It's also worth pointing out that you're the first person (I think) to debate this point: most comments (go through and read them!) are denying that RMS said these things. Thank you for at least saying you agree with my interpretation.