8 ms·

“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, whi

“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.

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.