Free and Open Source Software

17937 readers

151 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

Richard Stallman's political discourse on sex (drewdevault.com)

submitted 11 months ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/foss@beehaw.org

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Stallman said

As an example of exaggeration: one mailing referred to these teenagers as “children”, even the one that was 18 years old. Many teenagers are minors, but none of them are children.

So I believe that he thinks that a "minor" is someone who is below the age of 18. "Many teenagers are minors" meaning not all of them since 18 and 19 year-olds are not minors but the rest are. I think this is a good-faith interpretation of what Stallman means. Stallman also said

In this case, the effect of that mislabeling is to smear Wilson. It is rare, and considered perverse, for adults to be physically attracted to children. However, it is normal for adults to be physically attracted to adolescents. Since the claims about Wilson is the latter, it is wrong to present it as the former.’

Thus, he most likely means that the adolescents he was referring to are minors. Unless he counts 18-25 year-olds as adolescents which is very unlikely in my opinion. Unless something is wrong here with my interpretation, DeVault asserting that Stallman thinks being attracted to minors is normal is a totally reasonable thing to say.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Unless something is wrong here with my interpretation, DeVault asserting that Stallman thinks being attracted to minors is normal is a totally reasonable thing to say.

Something is wrong with your interpretation. I hoped the examples I gave of non sequiturs would convey to you the nature of the logical mistake you're making. I'm stunned that you don't get this. Perhaps the failure is mine. Perhaps you're trolling. Assuming the former, let me state it very basically and clearly:

If someone says that adolescents are minors and that adult attraction to adolescents is normal, they are not saying that adult attraction to minors is normal.

I'll expand a bit, perhaps this will help:

If someone says that adolescents are minors and that adult attraction to adolescents is normal, they are not saying that adult attraction to all minors is normal, they are saying only that adult attraction to the specific group of minors they have identified is normal.

To put it another way:

If a person claims 'Stallman says that attraction to some minors is normal' then they are right.

If a person claims 'Stallman says that attraction to minors is normal' then they are wrong.

[–] spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

OK I see the problem here. When I see the word "minor" I think of a teenager. Usually when someone says minor they mean not-quite-an-adult, not necessarily all people under 18. I don't think your interpretation of DeVault is fair here to be honest.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't think your interpretation of DeVault is fair here to be honest.

It's not an interpretation. DeVault used a different word in place of the word that Stallman used, with a different and broader meaning. Regardless of your understanding of how DeVault's word is used, the defined meaning of the word implies that Stallman supports pedophilia. DeVault's use of the word is an outrageous slander which has the potential to be disasterous for Stallman. Indeed that seems to have been DeVault's intent.

I don't think DeVault's interpretation of Stallman is fair. Indeed, I think it was malicious and deceitful. I think your interpretation of DeVault is naive and fails to take into account just how serious the consequences of accusing someone of supporting pedophilia can get.