2 ms·

You are using phrases 'commit sexual assault' and 'guilty of sexual assault', which in my reading implicates legal level of analysis. Stallman does not use thes

You are using phrases 'commit sexual assault' and 'guilty of sexual assault', which in my reading implicates legal level of analysis. Stallman does not use these phrases, and plain reading of his mail clearly expresses semantic argument. Therefore, your original post could be read as misinterpretation of Stallman semantic argument as legal argument. Also your original claim "While I believe that what he said[2] is so far beyond the pale of responsible discourse that removing him from his positions" would IMHO make more sense when your post is read as Stallman making (wrong) legal argument. Everyone is entitled about per opinion on proper usage of language so it does not make sense why a semantic argument in general or this one in particular would be 'far beyond the pale', considering that his semantic argument makes (IMHO) perfect sense.

bscphil 7y ago
Surely any charitable reading of my comment would have to assume that I'm responding on the same frequency as Stallman? After all, RMS himself just says > The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. He doesn't spell it out for you that he's speaking about the semantics of "assault". In quoting / responding to Stallman, there's no reason I should have to either. I could (uncharitably) assume RMS meant the legal definition of assault too! I don't think most of the people who have a problem with what Stallman said misunderstood him. I also don't think you're entitled to just use words however you want; semantics isn't the same thing as defining words for yourself. Even if you really try to force that position, at best you end up with the view that Stallman thinks someone might be misled into thinking Minsky did something worse than he actually did, where what he actually did was have sex with an underage sex trafficking victim, and what you were misled into thinking he did was physically force an underage sex trafficking victim to have sex with him. He thinks the claims against Minsky are "inflated". But ... if the former is what Minsky did, that's a really fucked up thing to do. It's assault, as the majority of people seem to understand it. Trying to diminish the nature of the assault by saying that she appeared to consent comes across at best, even under the kindest interpretation, as a really weird point to make. It's incorrect to say that you can't assault someone if they appear to consent. That's what people are upset about. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not particularly interested in defending the wrongness of RMS's statement. (I made that point in my OP, actually.) What I'm trying to defend (and rather bemused by the responses to) is the claim that he actually said these things.

bscphil 7y ago

Surely any charitable reading of my comment would have to assume that I'm responding on the same frequency as Stallman? After all, RMS himself just says > The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. He doesn't spell it out for you that he's speaking about the semantics of "assault". In quoting / responding to Stallman, there's no reason I should have to either. I could (uncharitably) assume RMS meant the legal definition of assault too! I don't think most of the people who have a problem with what Stallman said misunderstood him. I also don't think you're entitled to just use words however you want; semantics isn't the same thing as defining words for yourself. Even if you really try to force that position, at best you end up with the view that Stallman thinks someone might be misled into thinking Minsky did something worse than he actually did, where what he actually did was have sex with an underage sex trafficking victim, and what you were misled into thinking he did was physically force an underage sex trafficking victim to have sex with him. He thinks the claims against Minsky are "inflated". But ... if the former is what Minsky did, that's a really fucked up thing to do. It's assault, as the majority of people seem to understand it. Trying to diminish the nature of the assault by saying that she appeared to consent comes across at best, even under the kindest interpretation, as a really weird point to make. It's incorrect to say that you can't assault someone if they appear to consent. That's what people are upset about. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not particularly interested in defending the wrongness of RMS's statement. (I made that point in my OP, actually.) What I'm trying to defend (and rather bemused by the responses to) is the claim that he actually said these things.