3 ms·

He dismissed opposition to it as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing". And he said it's "illegal only because of prejudice

He dismissed opposition to it as "parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing". And he said it's "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] The article says what most people would call the age of consent in Brazil is 14. [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%202003%20 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html#28%20June%20...()

roenxi 6y ago
Stallman routinely misjudging what other people are thinking and why they are acting is not a matter of debate. Everyone agrees that he is bad at that. Terrible, even.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Mocking anyone who opposes something goes beyond skepticism. So does saying people oppose something "only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".
  - roenxi 6y ago
    If you want that to be the standard you can try to uphold it but you'll have little luck. These are political opinions and we just finished the Trump presidency. Political scepticism is frequently uncivil. There is a real and difficult skill to telling someone they might be wrong politely and Stallman does not have it. Furthermore Stallman isn't mocking them. He is making a claim about why people are acting the way they are and is probably serious in his claim. He's also probably wrong, but being wrong and mocking someone are different things. The full quote you're referencing is about a long list of things including "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia". Most of that is disgusting, but not anyone's business. I vehemently disagree with the idea that prostitution should be illegal, especially if my money is being wasted prosecuting it. Talk about bailing out a sinking ship trying to stop prostitution. Stallman was also probably wrong on pedophilia - even then depending on what he meant, he didn't flesh that one out very much. It isn't exactly a damning case against the man when there is one questionable (and vague) addition in an otherwise non-notable list midway down a very long page of random political opinions. Stuff like that being a major line of attack is why he is back on the board of the FSF - the attacks are over trivialities, especially compared to the remarkable success and prescience of his life's work.

roenxi 6y ago

Stallman routinely misjudging what other people are thinking and why they are acting is not a matter of debate. Everyone agrees that he is bad at that. Terrible, even.

pseudalopex 6y ago
Mocking anyone who opposes something goes beyond skepticism. So does saying people oppose something "only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".
- roenxi 6y ago
  If you want that to be the standard you can try to uphold it but you'll have little luck. These are political opinions and we just finished the Trump presidency. Political scepticism is frequently uncivil. There is a real and difficult skill to telling someone they might be wrong politely and Stallman does not have it. Furthermore Stallman isn't mocking them. He is making a claim about why people are acting the way they are and is probably serious in his claim. He's also probably wrong, but being wrong and mocking someone are different things. The full quote you're referencing is about a long list of things including "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia". Most of that is disgusting, but not anyone's business. I vehemently disagree with the idea that prostitution should be illegal, especially if my money is being wasted prosecuting it. Talk about bailing out a sinking ship trying to stop prostitution. Stallman was also probably wrong on pedophilia - even then depending on what he meant, he didn't flesh that one out very much. It isn't exactly a damning case against the man when there is one questionable (and vague) addition in an otherwise non-notable list midway down a very long page of random political opinions. Stuff like that being a major line of attack is why he is back on the board of the FSF - the attacks are over trivialities, especially compared to the remarkable success and prescience of his life's work.