3 ms·

> I'm fairly supportive of RMS and his movement but are you seriously failing to see why someone who is not "woke" might have a problem with somebody playing ap

> I'm fairly supportive of RMS and his movement but are you seriously failing to see why someone who is not "woke" might have a problem with somebody playing apologetics for their friend for committing statutory rape? What apologetics are there here? What is there to apologize for? Sex with a physically mature person male or female who proffers themselves voluntarily is not considered rape in any social settings. The fact that the "rape" has to be prefixed by "statutory" only shows that it is not rape in the colloquial sense. There is nothing to defend in regards to such an opinion. "Statutory rape" with a consenting 17 year old is like "gay marriage". It may be a statutory definition, but marriage means "matrimony" such as Christian "Holy matrimony" to a lot of people and for them "gay marriage" is simply an oxymoron. Statute is not the sole arbiter of morality. You are simply demanding that people conform to moral sensibilities which are not universally hled. Consider the concept of trying juveniles as an adult. How many people who consider that there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 17 year old ever object to the concept of trying the same juveniles as adults? Apparently teenagers are mature enough to be tried as adults when it suits them and immature youths being preyed upon by older people when it doesn't. If Victoria Giuffre had a normal life which did not involve being pimped by wealthy socialites and committed a cold calculated murder at the age of 17 would any of the people yelling "statutory rape" object if she was tried as an adult? The very same society which yells statutory rape is the very same one which applauds and fetes entertainment stars like Beyonce, Rihanna, Ariana Grande etc, singing saucy lyrics and gyrating to preteens and feigns shock when the very same girls engage in those acts with adults. Why the double standards? Offending sensibilities is not a crime. It is actions that constitute crime and whether he has different opinions on sex with legal minors and has no objections to necrophilia does not necessarily mean an interest or commitment to participating in them. Many American Muslims in believe in Islamic teachings on homosexuality, sex with in minors and a whole load of edicts which are objectionable by contemporary human rights standards, even if they don't act on them. How many of the people offended by RMS has ever confronted American Muslims who hold such beliefs?

rbanffy 6y ago
> It may be a statutory definition, but marriage means "matrimony" such as Christian "Holy matrimony" to a lot of people and for them "gay marriage" is simply an oxymoron. Other religions have marriages. What the law says cannot be restricted to what Christianity (some of it) believe to be the Only Right Thing.
vimacs2 6y ago
So you think a young prostitute flown into a remote Island by a billionaire is able to consent with 100% impartiality? It's not the specific age that is the biggest issue here - the age of consent in my country is 16. It's the age gap between the parties and the fact that she was flown into private property entirely at the mercy of Epstein. I don't agree that consent magically becomes a possibility at the age of 18 but not 17 and neither do most advocates for an age of consent for that matter. The reason for having one is because there does need to be a line drawn somewhere and pitching it higher than the onset of puberty is not a bad safety margin. Also, may states and countries have laws that dictate cases underage sex between parties with smaller age gaps so the motivations here is not some infantalisation of the young, it's to try to have some level of checks against the often overwhelming power difference between minors and adults. I also never claimed that RMS had any interest in participating in pedophilia or necrophilia himself. My claim was that his view on the morality these acts betray a lack of understanding as to why they are considered so objectionable. Your point on American Muslims is just plain disingenuous and relies on trickery by omission. They believe in scripture that has views on those matters but the same is in fact true of American Christians yet if you took them aside and asked either the average Christian or Muslim on the street if they thinks sex with minors is ok, they would likely say no. Contrary to your delusions, there are a lot of practices in both the Quran and the Bible that are not widely practised by their adherents today. The vast majority of Muslims do not practice polygamy for example and the vast majority of Christians don't hold a vehement hatred for the consumption of shellfish.

rbanffy 6y ago

> It may be a statutory definition, but marriage means "matrimony" such as Christian "Holy matrimony" to a lot of people and for them "gay marriage" is simply an oxymoron. Other religions have marriages. What the law says cannot be restricted to what Christianity (some of it) believe to be the Only Right Thing.

vimacs2 6y ago

So you think a young prostitute flown into a remote Island by a billionaire is able to consent with 100% impartiality? It's not the specific age that is the biggest issue here - the age of consent in my country is 16. It's the age gap between the parties and the fact that she was flown into private property entirely at the mercy of Epstein. I don't agree that consent magically becomes a possibility at the age of 18 but not 17 and neither do most advocates for an age of consent for that matter. The reason for having one is because there does need to be a line drawn somewhere and pitching it higher than the onset of puberty is not a bad safety margin. Also, may states and countries have laws that dictate cases underage sex between parties with smaller age gaps so the motivations here is not some infantalisation of the young, it's to try to have some level of checks against the often overwhelming power difference between minors and adults. I also never claimed that RMS had any interest in participating in pedophilia or necrophilia himself. My claim was that his view on the morality these acts betray a lack of understanding as to why they are considered so objectionable. Your point on American Muslims is just plain disingenuous and relies on trickery by omission. They believe in scripture that has views on those matters but the same is in fact true of American Christians yet if you took them aside and asked either the average Christian or Muslim on the street if they thinks sex with minors is ok, they would likely say no. Contrary to your delusions, there are a lot of practices in both the Quran and the Bible that are not widely practised by their adherents today. The vast majority of Muslims do not practice polygamy for example and the vast majority of Christians don't hold a vehement hatred for the consumption of shellfish.