3 ms·

I'm struggling to understand how the author of this page thought Stallman's "voluntary pedophilia is fine" statement would seem better with them providing the c

I'm struggling to understand how the author of this page thought Stallman's "voluntary pedophilia is fine" statement would seem better with them providing the context that he wrote that in reference to a movement to lower the age of consent in the Netherlands to from 16 to 12 and from there eliminate it entirely.

teddyh 4y ago
Firstly, it is slightly disingenuous of you to bring that up, since RMS has not held that opinion for more than seven years now¹. Secondly, you are mischaracterizing what he actually wrote¹. The context, that this was a debate specifically about the age of consent, is relevant. Otherwise you seem to imply that any discussion of the age of consent is reprehensible. The age of consent differs quite a lot over the world, and you could declare every citizen of those countries to be terrible people, which would at least be consistent, or you could concede that there was a debate to be had. You might not agree with what RMS wrote (neither does RMS, now), but would you declare every person in a debate to be a terrible person who does not argue the side of the prevailing one? Even if they have since changed their minds? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184
- zerocrates 4y ago
  Well, what Stallman actually wrote in his post referenced by this portion of the page I was referring to was: "I am skeptical 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 are no links in this original post besides the one to the news article about the Dutch party pushing to lower the age of consent to 12. The page defending Stallman quotes from the news article (omitting the detail about the party's goal to go on to remove the age limit entirely) and then adds this comment: "When people talk about pedophilia, what usually comes to mind is prepubescent children. Not what Stallman was referring to." I'd say my previous comment contained an accurate statement of the view Stallman expressed there (and later retracted): that pedophilia is fine, if it's voluntary. Stallman's own later distillation of his prior view in his own words was "I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it." This page was written in the context of Stallman already having disavowed those earlier posts, but its tack for defending Stallman in relation to this quote is still to essentially say "12? misleading to call that pedophilia." On the one hand, this statement is itself misleading (Stallman offered no lower age limit for his views on voluntariness, in the context of discussing an article that included the idea of completely removing the age of consent, and further, the idea that he didn't really mean pedophilia here rests on the idea that famous language pedant Stallman repeatedly misused the word). Beyond that though, my point in my previous comment was more that, as an implied statement of the author's idea of what the public generally believes and as a matter of rhetorical tactics for defending Stallman it was... a choice.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > "When people talk about pedophilia, what usually comes to mind is prepubescent children. Not what Stallman was referring to." Yes, that was what they actually wrote. > "12? misleading to call that pedophilia." Mischaracterization of that same sentence. However, what you are actually criticizing is apparently not actually Stallman, but the defense of Stallman? In that case, perhaps this page does a better job: https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-against-richard-stallman.html#pedophilia https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai...

teddyh 4y ago

Firstly, it is slightly disingenuous of you to bring that up, since RMS has not held that opinion for more than seven years now¹. Secondly, you are mischaracterizing what he actually wrote¹. The context, that this was a debate specifically about the age of consent, is relevant. Otherwise you seem to imply that any discussion of the age of consent is reprehensible. The age of consent differs quite a lot over the world, and you could declare every citizen of those countries to be terrible people, which would at least be consistent, or you could concede that there was a debate to be had. You might not agree with what RMS wrote (neither does RMS, now), but would you declare every person in a debate to be a terrible person who does not argue the side of the prevailing one? Even if they have since changed their minds? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184

zerocrates 4y ago
Well, what Stallman actually wrote in his post referenced by this portion of the page I was referring to was: "I am skeptical 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 are no links in this original post besides the one to the news article about the Dutch party pushing to lower the age of consent to 12. The page defending Stallman quotes from the news article (omitting the detail about the party's goal to go on to remove the age limit entirely) and then adds this comment: "When people talk about pedophilia, what usually comes to mind is prepubescent children. Not what Stallman was referring to." I'd say my previous comment contained an accurate statement of the view Stallman expressed there (and later retracted): that pedophilia is fine, if it's voluntary. Stallman's own later distillation of his prior view in his own words was "I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it." This page was written in the context of Stallman already having disavowed those earlier posts, but its tack for defending Stallman in relation to this quote is still to essentially say "12? misleading to call that pedophilia." On the one hand, this statement is itself misleading (Stallman offered no lower age limit for his views on voluntariness, in the context of discussing an article that included the idea of completely removing the age of consent, and further, the idea that he didn't really mean pedophilia here rests on the idea that famous language pedant Stallman repeatedly misused the word). Beyond that though, my point in my previous comment was more that, as an implied statement of the author's idea of what the public generally believes and as a matter of rhetorical tactics for defending Stallman it was... a choice.
- teddyh 4y ago
  > "When people talk about pedophilia, what usually comes to mind is prepubescent children. Not what Stallman was referring to." Yes, that was what they actually wrote. > "12? misleading to call that pedophilia." Mischaracterization of that same sentence. However, what you are actually criticizing is apparently not actually Stallman, but the defense of Stallman? In that case, perhaps this page does a better job: https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-against-richard-stallman.html#pedophilia https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai...