6 ms·

This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun

This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun them as well.

mjg59 6y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" as a suggestion that there are circumstances under which paedophilia is OK. Suggesting that someone doing so is willfully, blatantly lying seems like an unsupported claim.
- phkahler 6y ago
  There is another sentence after the one you quote which takes the edge off it. Dropping that part could be construed as willfully taking his words out of context to makes them sound worse. IMHO taken as a whole I think it says more about his lack of understanding than him endorsing anything. But as you say, that's not blatant lying.
  - davidcbc 6y ago
    > 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. This doesn't take the edge off, it makes it sound worse
    - gizmo686 6y ago
      How does it make it sound worse? As I read it, he is saying: Original quote: "I am skeptical about <widely believed thing". Added context: "because <the arguments people present to not actually address the issue in question>" The added context moves him even further away from saying anything about pedophilia itself, and further into saying stuff about other people who are saying something about pedophilia.
      - davidcbc 6y ago
        He's saying parents are just blowing pedophilia out of proportion. How is that an improvement?
      - kelnos 6y ago
        If the "widely believed thing" he was disagreeing with was that children are often forced into pedophilia, that might be defensible. Horribly naive, but maybe defensible. But that's not it; he does seem to accept that children are forced into pedophilia in at least some instances, but somehow believes that those are few enough, and "consensual pedophilia" (which, no, that's not a thing) is common enough that we should just throw out age-of-consent laws (he links to an article about a Dutch group who wants to do just that). But... no. He's just absolutely wrong here. And the swipe at allegedly-hysterical parents in the second half of the sentence just illustrate how ignorant he is.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Except that it’s literally not a suggestion that there are circumstances under which it is ok. You’re not stupid. You know what he meant. And you know what he meant wasn’t what he is being smeared as.
  - mjg59 6y ago
    Under what circumstances is something that does no harm not ok?
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Feel free to quote or link the passage where he says it does no harm. If you cannot find one, you’ll issue an apology to RMS for falsely defaming him, right? That’s what it’s called when you claim someone says pedophilia does no harm when they didn’t say that.
      - mjg59 6y ago
        "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" - if it's not harming children, who or what is it harming?
        mjg59 6y ago
        And if you can't make a coherent argument on that point, maybe you should apologise for suggesting that JohnHaugeland was "willfully, blatantly lying"?
        lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        As you’re aware, this isn’t a claim that pedophilia does no harm. Keep looking.
        mjg59 6y ago
        Who or what is harmed in this case if not the children?
- adrian_b 6y ago
  The problem is that pedophilia has a much wider meaning in the USA that in many other parts of the world. I do not believe that any sane human being believes that pedophilia in the sense understood by himself/herself is OK in any circumstances. Nevertheless there are millions or billions of humans who do not consider as pedophilia some acts that are considered pedophilia in USA, therefore they consider that those acts are OK, because they are not pedophilia. For example, until recently few countries had such a high age of consent as USA. Where I was born and I have grown, the age of consent was 14. So any consensual activity with someone e.g. 17-year old was considered OK and not pedophilia. I have certainly never seen or heard any undesirable consequence of this lower age of consent, so I do not believe that there exists any proof that the belief of the US citizens, that consensual sexual relations with someone under the age of 18 are pedophilia, is right. As another example, until recently, the consensual relations between an adolescent boy (i.e. older than 14) and a mature woman, unlike the opposite sex case, were never considered as pedophilia in most of the world, unlike in USA were there were many highly-publicized convictions in such cases. I have still not seen any valid argument about why this American belief, that such relations must be considered pedophilia, is correct.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Stallman was talking about actual children.[1] [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(Plea_deal_for_Epstein) https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...
    - visitor1 6y ago
      That's the post where RMS says "sexual offender" is not the right term for Epstein, and suggests "serial-rapist" instead. He was right. In fact, Epstein himself declared "I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an “offender.” It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel." https://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im-a-sex-offender-not-a-predator/ https://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im...
      - 6y ago

This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun them as well.

mjg59 6y ago

I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" as a suggestion that there are circumstances under which paedophilia is OK. Suggesting that someone doing so is willfully, blatantly lying seems like an unsupported claim.

phkahler 6y ago
There is another sentence after the one you quote which takes the edge off it. Dropping that part could be construed as willfully taking his words out of context to makes them sound worse. IMHO taken as a whole I think it says more about his lack of understanding than him endorsing anything. But as you say, that's not blatant lying.
- davidcbc 6y ago
  > 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. This doesn't take the edge off, it makes it sound worse
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    How does it make it sound worse? As I read it, he is saying: Original quote: "I am skeptical about <widely believed thing". Added context: "because <the arguments people present to not actually address the issue in question>" The added context moves him even further away from saying anything about pedophilia itself, and further into saying stuff about other people who are saying something about pedophilia.
    - davidcbc 6y ago
      He's saying parents are just blowing pedophilia out of proportion. How is that an improvement?
    - kelnos 6y ago
      If the "widely believed thing" he was disagreeing with was that children are often forced into pedophilia, that might be defensible. Horribly naive, but maybe defensible. But that's not it; he does seem to accept that children are forced into pedophilia in at least some instances, but somehow believes that those are few enough, and "consensual pedophilia" (which, no, that's not a thing) is common enough that we should just throw out age-of-consent laws (he links to an article about a Dutch group who wants to do just that). But... no. He's just absolutely wrong here. And the swipe at allegedly-hysterical parents in the second half of the sentence just illustrate how ignorant he is.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Except that it’s literally not a suggestion that there are circumstances under which it is ok. You’re not stupid. You know what he meant. And you know what he meant wasn’t what he is being smeared as.
- mjg59 6y ago
  Under what circumstances is something that does no harm not ok?
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Feel free to quote or link the passage where he says it does no harm. If you cannot find one, you’ll issue an apology to RMS for falsely defaming him, right? That’s what it’s called when you claim someone says pedophilia does no harm when they didn’t say that.
    - mjg59 6y ago
      "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" - if it's not harming children, who or what is it harming?
      - mjg59 6y ago
        And if you can't make a coherent argument on that point, maybe you should apologise for suggesting that JohnHaugeland was "willfully, blatantly lying"?
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        As you’re aware, this isn’t a claim that pedophilia does no harm. Keep looking.
        mjg59 6y ago
        Who or what is harmed in this case if not the children?
adrian_b 6y ago
The problem is that pedophilia has a much wider meaning in the USA that in many other parts of the world. I do not believe that any sane human being believes that pedophilia in the sense understood by himself/herself is OK in any circumstances. Nevertheless there are millions or billions of humans who do not consider as pedophilia some acts that are considered pedophilia in USA, therefore they consider that those acts are OK, because they are not pedophilia. For example, until recently few countries had such a high age of consent as USA. Where I was born and I have grown, the age of consent was 14. So any consensual activity with someone e.g. 17-year old was considered OK and not pedophilia. I have certainly never seen or heard any undesirable consequence of this lower age of consent, so I do not believe that there exists any proof that the belief of the US citizens, that consensual sexual relations with someone under the age of 18 are pedophilia, is right. As another example, until recently, the consensual relations between an adolescent boy (i.e. older than 14) and a mature woman, unlike the opposite sex case, were never considered as pedophilia in most of the world, unlike in USA were there were many highly-publicized convictions in such cases. I have still not seen any valid argument about why this American belief, that such relations must be considered pedophilia, is correct.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Stallman was talking about actual children.[1] [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(Plea_deal_for_Epstein) https://stallman.org/notes/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_2019_(...
  - visitor1 6y ago
    That's the post where RMS says "sexual offender" is not the right term for Epstein, and suggests "serial-rapist" instead. He was right. In fact, Epstein himself declared "I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an “offender.” It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel." https://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im-a-sex-offender-not-a-predator/ https://nypost.com/2011/02/25/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-im...
    - 6y ago