5 ms·

Well there were also those posts about having sex with children sometimes being quite fine. Edit: The downvotes are interesting given that this is how Stallman

Well there were also those posts about having sex with children sometimes being quite fine. Edit: The downvotes are interesting given that this is how Stallman himself characterized those posts: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it."

meerita 7y ago
What posts are you talking about? He didn't state anything related to child sex, plus, Eptein wasn't only offering that so it is unclear that Minsk had sex with minors. It's obvious that Stallman condemn that, but to his eyes, nothing is crystal clear and he is not the kind of person who will fall so easily in any logic fallacy. I think people is mob lawing him without any reason more than "he just stated some facts".
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“
  - makomk 7y ago
    That second quote is a summary of this Guardian article that he's linking to, published on the same day in 2013: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-... What's more interesting is the reason that Guardian article exists. It's basically an attempt to justify why Liberty (then the National Council for Civil Liberties), a respectable British political pressure group with close ties to our Labour party, was lobbying the government to legalise sex between adults and children a few decades ago. (They were also affiliated with the Paedophile Information Exchange, which was exactly what the title suggests.) Why does something that happened a few decades ago matter now? Obviously it was relevant to the whole scandal over historic allegations of childhood sexual abuse, especially since PIE was run by pedophiles in important political positions. On top of that, one of the most important current-day Labour politicians Harriet Harman bootstrapped her political career using the important roles her and her husband played in the National Council for Civil Liberties during the exact time period where they had those ties to PIE and were doing that lobbying. She's still relevant today; various journalists and politicians are trying to wrangle her a position as Speaker or maybe even Prime Minister. We could well end up with someone building a path to one of the most important positions in UK government on her role in an organisation lobbying in support of pedophilia a few decades ago whilst Stallman is made homeless based, in part, on his summary of the apologia for that lobbying printed in the mainstream press. (Stallman completely missed this subtext, but that's not surprising; I don't think the full details became public knowledge until some time later.)
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      That's certainly a link you've made. Any thoughts on the first quote? The one where he writes "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children". Do you think he's just factually summarizing some news article there as well?
      - makomk 7y ago
        Presumably that was his actual views back then. People have relied heavily on that second quote to prove that he still holds those views though.
        foldr 7y ago
        If he hasn't very publicly retracted that view and apologized (and: he hasn't), then he shouldn't be surprised that people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he talks about sex crimes.
        flukus 7y ago
        > If he hasn't very publicly retracted that view and apologized (and: he hasn't) Except he has (https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html): > 14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong) Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
        foldr 7y ago
        That was only posted after he came under pressure, and contains no apology.
  - meerita 7y ago
    Can you link those posts?
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20... https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
      - hizanberg 7y ago
        For context, please also link to what his current thoughts are, where he's since changed his mind after being convinced he was wrong. https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_%28Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        Good point, thanks. I'll also add some more context: These current thoughts on pedophilia were posted two days after the "Remove Richard Stallman" Medium post went up.
        AsyncAwait 7y ago
        Are you talking about the post that intentionally misquoted him?
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        I would appreciate if you presented your arguments up front instead of sneaking them inside a loaded question. This is as impossible to answer as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
  - meerita 7y ago
    He is not stating pedophilia is good. If you assume he is doing that, then you don't understand the claims he does. (i dissagree with what he posted).
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine. Which is what I said.
      - Kbelicius 7y ago
        > No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all.
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        "I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children, because sometimes it's voluntary and therefore isn't harmful. Do I really need to explain how "Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" can be summarized as "Sometimes sex with children is fine"?
        Kbelicius 7y ago
        > He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children No, he is not saying that. In that quote that you used he isn't even saying that pedophilia isn't harmful when it is consensual. I'm really interested how you reached that conclusion while reading the same text I'm reading. > Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children As far as I can see those are your words and not his. Where does he say that? Besides, not harmful and fine are to completely different things.
- praptak 7y ago
  It's a public post from 2003. Funny how nobody has dug it up for 16 years.
  - argaba 7y ago
    I don't really have a side here, I am not surprised in the slightest that people say things that others can find offensive (what a shocker). However since we're in the era of unerasable past, its kind of expected for people to do dig up the past. I do wonder if "society" will start applying a consistency stick to what people say. I.e. if they have had a consistent view on say pedophilia in this instance. On that note was Stallman consistent over time to this day?
    - chappi42 7y ago
      Time to work on the unerasability!
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        In that case I suggest you apply for a job at NSA.
  - tokai 7y ago
    The post has been widely disseminated on 4chan's /g/ for many years. So it wasn't totally forgotten.
    - praptak 7y ago
      I meant nobody has dug it up for the purpose of ousting Stallman. The fact that it's from 2003 and not exactly secret makes me doubt that it had any significance in Stallman being forced to step down. It looks more like the pitchforks & torches mob first decided they want his head and then looked for justification.
sgt 7y ago
Not trying to be pedantic, but we're not exactly talking about children here. I believe the girl was 17 and probably gave the impression (when put in a group with other girls) to be older. And 17 is not illegal in most countries, so morally that age by itself is and should not be a major issue.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  I wasn't referring to those posts, but these for example: “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“
  - sgt 7y ago
    He's entitled to have an opinion. He's not promoting pedophilia, merely stating that he's skeptical to the current opinions about pedophilia. It could be that in 300 years from now, pedophilia or rather hebephilia (what most people mean) is perfectly accepted by society. I honestly hope it won't, and I don't agree with RMS on these points, but he's allowed to be skeptical.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      Oh absolutely he's allowed to be skeptical. He's allowed to say whatever he wants, and he certainly has used that freedom.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >Oh absolutely he's allowed to be skeptical. Just not to be skeptical and keep his job... Oh, the hypocrisy...
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
Have you actually read the contents of the Guardian article Stallman linked? No? Here come a few quotes: > If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm. > A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. > And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes". > Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist". So why nobody attacks The Guardian for publishing such statements? Yes, these things are against common sense, against natural feelings, and I refuse to believe them. But Stallman was just repeating what someone else researched.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." Was he repeating anyone here? Could you take the posts as a whole and resist the urge to cherry pick?

meerita 7y ago

What posts are you talking about? He didn't state anything related to child sex, plus, Eptein wasn't only offering that so it is unclear that Minsk had sex with minors. It's obvious that Stallman condemn that, but to his eyes, nothing is crystal clear and he is not the kind of person who will fall so easily in any logic fallacy. I think people is mob lawing him without any reason more than "he just stated some facts".

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
“I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“
- makomk 7y ago
  That second quote is a summary of this Guardian article that he's linking to, published on the same day in 2013: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-... What's more interesting is the reason that Guardian article exists. It's basically an attempt to justify why Liberty (then the National Council for Civil Liberties), a respectable British political pressure group with close ties to our Labour party, was lobbying the government to legalise sex between adults and children a few decades ago. (They were also affiliated with the Paedophile Information Exchange, which was exactly what the title suggests.) Why does something that happened a few decades ago matter now? Obviously it was relevant to the whole scandal over historic allegations of childhood sexual abuse, especially since PIE was run by pedophiles in important political positions. On top of that, one of the most important current-day Labour politicians Harriet Harman bootstrapped her political career using the important roles her and her husband played in the National Council for Civil Liberties during the exact time period where they had those ties to PIE and were doing that lobbying. She's still relevant today; various journalists and politicians are trying to wrangle her a position as Speaker or maybe even Prime Minister. We could well end up with someone building a path to one of the most important positions in UK government on her role in an organisation lobbying in support of pedophilia a few decades ago whilst Stallman is made homeless based, in part, on his summary of the apologia for that lobbying printed in the mainstream press. (Stallman completely missed this subtext, but that's not surprising; I don't think the full details became public knowledge until some time later.)
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    That's certainly a link you've made. Any thoughts on the first quote? The one where he writes "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children". Do you think he's just factually summarizing some news article there as well?
    - makomk 7y ago
      Presumably that was his actual views back then. People have relied heavily on that second quote to prove that he still holds those views though.
      - foldr 7y ago
        If he hasn't very publicly retracted that view and apologized (and: he hasn't), then he shouldn't be surprised that people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he talks about sex crimes.
        flukus 7y ago
        > If he hasn't very publicly retracted that view and apologized (and: he hasn't) Except he has (https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html): > 14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong) Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
        foldr 7y ago
        That was only posted after he came under pressure, and contains no apology.
- meerita 7y ago
  Can you link those posts?
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20... https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia) https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2...
    - hizanberg 7y ago
      For context, please also link to what his current thoughts are, where he's since changed his mind after being convinced he was wrong. https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_%28Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong%29 https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        Good point, thanks. I'll also add some more context: These current thoughts on pedophilia were posted two days after the "Remove Richard Stallman" Medium post went up.
        AsyncAwait 7y ago
        Are you talking about the post that intentionally misquoted him?
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        I would appreciate if you presented your arguments up front instead of sneaking them inside a loaded question. This is as impossible to answer as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
- meerita 7y ago
  He is not stating pedophilia is good. If you assume he is doing that, then you don't understand the claims he does. (i dissagree with what he posted).
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine. Which is what I said.
    - Kbelicius 7y ago
      > No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all.
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        "I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children, because sometimes it's voluntary and therefore isn't harmful. Do I really need to explain how "Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" can be summarized as "Sometimes sex with children is fine"?
        Kbelicius 7y ago
        > He's rejecting the arguments that pedophilia causes harm to children No, he is not saying that. In that quote that you used he isn't even saying that pedophilia isn't harmful when it is consensual. I'm really interested how you reached that conclusion while reading the same text I'm reading. > Pedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children As far as I can see those are your words and not his. Where does he say that? Besides, not harmful and fine are to completely different things.
praptak 7y ago
It's a public post from 2003. Funny how nobody has dug it up for 16 years.
- argaba 7y ago
  I don't really have a side here, I am not surprised in the slightest that people say things that others can find offensive (what a shocker). However since we're in the era of unerasable past, its kind of expected for people to do dig up the past. I do wonder if "society" will start applying a consistency stick to what people say. I.e. if they have had a consistent view on say pedophilia in this instance. On that note was Stallman consistent over time to this day?
  - chappi42 7y ago
    Time to work on the unerasability!
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      In that case I suggest you apply for a job at NSA.
- tokai 7y ago
  The post has been widely disseminated on 4chan's /g/ for many years. So it wasn't totally forgotten.
  - praptak 7y ago
    I meant nobody has dug it up for the purpose of ousting Stallman. The fact that it's from 2003 and not exactly secret makes me doubt that it had any significance in Stallman being forced to step down. It looks more like the pitchforks & torches mob first decided they want his head and then looked for justification.

sgt 7y ago

Not trying to be pedantic, but we're not exactly talking about children here. I believe the girl was 17 and probably gave the impression (when put in a group with other girls) to be older. And 17 is not illegal in most countries, so morally that age by itself is and should not be a major issue.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
I wasn't referring to those posts, but these for example: “I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.“
- sgt 7y ago
  He's entitled to have an opinion. He's not promoting pedophilia, merely stating that he's skeptical to the current opinions about pedophilia. It could be that in 300 years from now, pedophilia or rather hebephilia (what most people mean) is perfectly accepted by society. I honestly hope it won't, and I don't agree with RMS on these points, but he's allowed to be skeptical.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    Oh absolutely he's allowed to be skeptical. He's allowed to say whatever he wants, and he certainly has used that freedom.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Oh absolutely he's allowed to be skeptical. Just not to be skeptical and keep his job... Oh, the hypocrisy...
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

Have you actually read the contents of the Guardian article Stallman linked? No? Here come a few quotes: > If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm. > A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. > And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes". > Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist". So why nobody attacks The Guardian for publishing such statements? Yes, these things are against common sense, against natural feelings, and I refuse to believe them. But Stallman was just repeating what someone else researched.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." Was he repeating anyone here? Could you take the posts as a whole and resist the urge to cherry pick?