4 ms·

His issue is that saying "assault" to mean "sex with someone" is dishonest, even if that person is 17. Which is obviously is. Any sane person hears "assault" a

His issue is that saying "assault" to mean "sex with someone" is dishonest, even if that person is 17. Which is obviously is. Any sane person hears "assault" and thinks that means "assault" instead it means something else. What is happening is that the meaning of words are being changed for the purpose of using pre-existing laws. Example, you think that Bla is very bad and isn't punished enough by the law. There's law that severaly punishes Fleem. So, whenever you see Bla you call it Fleem and argue that the anti-Fleem law applies. That way you can effectively re-purpose a law. Specific example: "catcalling" is now "sexual assault" in the UK. It's easier to do it this way, than to argue that people should be punished for catcalling.

dminik 1y ago
Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording. It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry. Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured. But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.
- ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
  > Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording. Correct, it's the abuse of the legal system. > Though legally a sexual assault still occured. Just because something is true legally doesn't mean it's ok, good, correct, moral or ethical.
  - dminik 1y ago
    If the victim really was coerced/forced, then there is no wordplay going on here. No legal tricks. No abuse of the legal system. We're talking about sex trafficking, which we know did occur and Epstein was convicted of. Twice. And possibly rape/sexual assault, even though the "perpetrator" did not know about it. You're getting awfully close to defending Epstein there. I also can't help but notice that you ignored everything else in my comment?
    - ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
      > If the victim really was coerced/forced Coerced/forced by whom? Are you actually stupid or just pretending?
      - dminik 1y ago
        What do you mean by whom? This conversation isn't about Mickey Mouse. Epstein was convicted for trafficking (eg. coercing/forcing) women.
        ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
        The specific point I'm talking about is the accusation of Minsky. To my point (and Stallman's) doesn't matter if coersion was done by Epstein or Mickey Mouse. Anyway, I get that you're confused. However, I've lost interest in talking to you.

dminik 1y ago

Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording. It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry. Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured. But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.

ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
> Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording. Correct, it's the abuse of the legal system. > Though legally a sexual assault still occured. Just because something is true legally doesn't mean it's ok, good, correct, moral or ethical.
- dminik 1y ago
  If the victim really was coerced/forced, then there is no wordplay going on here. No legal tricks. No abuse of the legal system. We're talking about sex trafficking, which we know did occur and Epstein was convicted of. Twice. And possibly rape/sexual assault, even though the "perpetrator" did not know about it. You're getting awfully close to defending Epstein there. I also can't help but notice that you ignored everything else in my comment?
  - ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
    > If the victim really was coerced/forced Coerced/forced by whom? Are you actually stupid or just pretending?
    - dminik 1y ago
      What do you mean by whom? This conversation isn't about Mickey Mouse. Epstein was convicted for trafficking (eg. coercing/forcing) women.
      - ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
        The specific point I'm talking about is the accusation of Minsky. To my point (and Stallman's) doesn't matter if coersion was done by Epstein or Mickey Mouse. Anyway, I get that you're confused. However, I've lost interest in talking to you.