3 ms·

Stallman said pedophilia is "illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[1] He must have meant the act because the paraphilia isn't illegal. He dis

• nobody9999 6y ago
  You have ignored and omitted context from each of the statements you linked above. And so I can only assume you're not posting in good faith. That's sad, as it's something I really like about HN. I had responded in detail to each of the claims you made and expounded on the fact that age of consent is wildly different in all those countries you mention. Sadly, it was all lost with a <ctrl>-w[1] in Firefox. In fact, in 20 US states, there is no lower limit on the age of marriage[0], which explicitly allows sexual activity. I don't expect anything from you. I'm just disappointed in the (I can only assume deliberate) way you omitted and distorted Stallman's statements to suit your point of view. That's sad. [0] https://www.equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us https://www.equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us [1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1238895 https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1238895
  • pseudalopex 6y ago
    I'm not trying to convince you. You already said no one could reach a different conclusion in good faith. I linked Stallman's comments so other people can decide for themselves. Maybe you don't like I only mentioned in passing Stallman said anything about consent. But it's irrelevant to the claim he didn't advocate pedophilia. And now he understands why people say children can't consent.[1] Your source says 20 states have no minimum age "with a parental or judicial waiver". You left out that detail. The minimum age without a waiver is 18 or over in all states.[2] Wikipedia's source says only 13 states don't have a statutory minimum age. And at least 1 of them has a minimum age through case law.[3] This usually affects but doesn't necessarily eliminate the age of consent. California has a law against "any lewd or lascivious act" with a child under 14 for example. Spouses aren't exempt.[4] I didn't mention any countries. But Wikipedia listed only 4 countries with a general age of consent below 13. So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough. [1] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta... [3] https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-Statutory-Compilation_Final_July-2019.pdf https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-Sta... [4] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=288 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
    • nobody9999 6y ago
      >So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough. You won't get any argument about that from me. Consent is never optional and if an individual isn't able to consent (for whatever reason), then sexual activity with that individual is both inappropriate and, as you pointed out, a crime in most places. The discussion as to when a person should be legally able to consent to sexual activity is one that's hotly debated and the laws concerning that varies greatly around the world. Such variation causes a great deal of confusion. I can legally have (consensual) sex with a 12 year-old in Brazil, but in the Virgin Islands, I could go to jail. But reality is rarely as cut and dried as that. Teenage boys in the US have been branded sex offenders for life because they engaged in consensual sexual activity (and not just sexual acts either. There have been cases where sexting between teenagers has landed children in jail) with teenage girls. It's wholly inappropriate, and IMHO, should be a crime for adults to manipulate children into sexual activity. Sadly, that happens all too often. On the larger issue, I expect that we are in violent agreement. However, I choose not to demonize someone for having a conversation about the setting of arbitrary age limits WRT the ability to consent, especially given the wide variation in those arbitrary limits. It seems clear to me that age limits need to be set to deter the manipulation and abuse of vulnerable individuals (in this case, young people) and it seems unworkable to address those on a case-by-case basis. As such we're back to setting arbitrary limits. Simply discussing what those limits should be isn't harmful to anyone, and no one should be demonized for just having that conversation. There's a big difference between contemplating what range of ages should be considered appropriate for consent to sexual activity and actively abusing those without the ability to consent. To quote the eminent philosopher[0], those two things: "...ain't the same fucking ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport." [0] https://youtu.be/TD1CNqghN7Q?t=170 https://youtu.be/TD1CNqghN7Q?t=170
      • pseudalopex 6y ago
        Naming what someone did isn't demonizing them. And you're portraying what he said as something different than it was. He didn't engage in conversation. He declared opposing ideas prejudiced and narrow minded. He invented a story about who disagreed with him and mocked them. When adolescents can consent legally is arbitrary and varies greatly. The idea children too young for puberty lack the understanding and independence to give consent varies not much at all. Even Stallman seems to understand that now. Prosecuting teenagers for sexting is draconian but a different issue completely.