What did stallman do, exactly?

Show me where and when he "defended pedophilia".

Attached: FB_IMG_1498181817285.jpg (960x956, 29K)

>What did stallman do, exactly?
Stated a mildly out there opinion.

But he didn't get cancelled because of the specific things he said, he got cancelled because he is an old white autistic male in tech and a certain female got angry at his opinions.
Then the Jurno establishment not only bought her smear campaign, but even invented lies about what he said, thus ultimately resulting in the majority of tech which is ideologically aligned with the Press starting to shit on him.

he didn't do anything; that's the problem.

I am wondering as well. I thought bullshit until I've read that piece from FSF members
archive.is/6N7A0
I'd like to read a compilation of the former allegedly litigious statements from Stallman before I form an opinion about the event

Anyone who knows Stallman can tell he is very skeptical towards anything. Just a bunch of low iq idiots are mad at him because their brain are to small to understand basic human communication.

That's not even close to what he said.

The story is that Epstein was trafficking girls and basically pimping them out as prostitutes to other rich guys. Stallman was saying that it's probable that the girls would appear willing to the client, so it wouldn't make sense to accuse them of rape if they didn't know the girls were being trafficked.

okay? still seems reasonable enough?

But that's not what happened. To suggest that these girls, who were stolen, intimidated, and threatened, somehow werent unwilling victims is nonsense.

It doesn't matter, the corporate executives who literally support every "GNU" project are tired of him. Some mentally ill new-school corporate-commie fusion person will take over and shit will go to hell.

Maybe Stallman will finish Guilemacs finally now that he has some time. As for me? I'm installing OpenBSD.

Minsky was accused of sexually assaulting an 17 year old. Stallman said that 1 he didn't "assault" anyone, and 2 maybe she was manipulated into appearing willing by Epstein. Not only was Stallman right but Minsky flat out refused anyway.

Yeah, it's a very reasonable thing to say, although media outlets misrepresented him as saying "victims were willing."

I mean hey when globohomo wants you out of the way, it's gonna happen. Stallman's just lucky he didn't get murdered.

>these girls, who were stolen, intimidated, and threatened
is that true though? i thought that the reports said there was no physical violence involved? but there clearly was if they were abducted like that

Yes. But the big headline was "Stallman said Epstein victims were willingly having sex", which is literally a lie.

This is NOT what he said you shill. Go read the email and maybe read it slowly enough for your brain to comprehend what its reading.

I still don't really know why this thing with stallman blew up so quickly and now of all times. He's advocated for much more offensive and controversial things in the past, and has been mostly ignored by mainstream media. I'm curious as to why that wasn't the case this time. It isn't as if he had much influence from either of his positions on MIT or in the FSF.

Because some blogger wrote a novel about how much his email triggered her after someone forwarded it to her.

>the girls had sex with him entirely out of their own will
>the girls had sex with him entirely out of their own will

There's also this.
Stallman didn't defended "a sexual predator", he "defended" a person who refused to have sex with a girl that he may not even had know that was a minor, much less a "sex slave".

no, actually, he is not

files.catbox.moe/06k4ui.pdf

For those who lack basic reading skills:
>deceased AI "pioneer" Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims)
The article quote, saying that Minsky is accused of "assault".
>The word "assaulting" presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex.
Stallman's response, saying "assault" is a vague term that implies force and being misused.
>We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most his associates.
If Epstein forced her, he probably also forced her to __PRETEND__ to be willing towards Minsky. If Minsky was unaware of this, this would not have been a case of "assault", but something else.
>Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed.
Journies BTFO

Yes, Stallman cares a bit much about specific word usage. In this case it's not unjustified though.

Attached: 1558776530760.png (561x730, 91K)

stallman said they presented themselves as willing not that they were willing

>FB_IMG
thats gay senpai

Stallman defended Minsky, who he argued may not have known the girl was being coerced. He did /not/ defend Epstein, and noted that Epstein likely instructed the girl to "present herself willing", i.e. give false consent, nor did he imply that the girl was partially to blame.
He has argued that it hasn't been proven that pedophilia is harmful in 100% of cases. And he's not wrong, although arguing that the age of consent should be removed because pedophilia isn't always harmful is like saying you don't need seatbelts because sometimes people survive car accidents without them.

Even back in the 2000s one could hold controversial opinions without getting witch-hunted.

Last year in Norway, an infamous supreme court lawyer passed away. This dude was the living incarnation of contrarianism. He was completely pro-pedo, arguing that he went cruising for men to have sex with when he was 12 (back in the 1940s) and just found it "fun and educational". When he died, of course the two-faced media was praising and honoring him, probably well aware that if some young up-and-comer said even a quarter of what this guy did, he'd be out of work forever.

I forgot to mention: this guy was also Varg Vikernes' lawyer back in the day.

post the part where she says "im not even sure i had sex with minsky"

he wasn't talking about Epstein in the mailing list, he was talking about Minsky.
he has repeatedly stated pedophilia is not inherently immoral, and laws should be repealed. it's on his own blog/link page, just fucking google it.

link me to where he used the words not immoral, or even, "pedophilia is morally ok" then, accuser

>that Epstain
He didn't say shit about Epstein, where the fuck you people get your info?

it was a coordinated attack which was planned in advance obviously

they just had to wait for him to say something offensive to the nuleft

what he has actually said is that it has not been proven that consensual sex regardless of age would harm participants. scroll up for the seatbelt/driver if you like car analogies.

2 5 year olds engage in intercourse. now both are guilty of intercourse with a minor. send them both to jail for pedophilia? i love logic.

Actually he did say shit about Epstein, in fact he even said that Epstein coerced Giuffre into having sex. Fake journalists overlooked this.

there is no such thing as intercourse with someone who cant consent, therefore before the ripe age of 6 both are registered sex offenders (rapists)

Sane countries have close age exemptions (as well as Romeo and Juliet laws so that 18-year-olds don't go to jail for having sex with 17-year-olds.)

>Minsky
Supposedly didn't even touch the girl, as per witnesses.
He was also dear to Stallman, as he was his supervisor and let him work on GNU.

Attached: 1562517785887.png (1920x1080, 1.9M)

Social terrorists, call them by what they are.

minors cant consent, and sex without consent is rape, you are literally being a rape apologist

Brainlet.

show me where im wrong? unless you believe minors can consent, or that laws are a guide for morality...

The problem with that analogy is that "not wearing a seatbelt" isn't a fundamental drive. If two people are together who want to have sex, it's gonna take more than the law to stop them. They still throw gays off buildings in the Middle-East, no?

I'm salty about this as I know a girl who's bf got thrown in jail because she was underage, so I've seen the fallout of this up-close. With a law like that there's bound to be collateral damage, where the lives of people who would otherwise be totally happy are ruined. I'm thinking there's got to be some better way of handling it, but even asking questions about it will make you a pariah.

relax baby its totally legal in this 'sane' country :^)

he's being pedantic and ignoring "assault" has different connotation, legally, when describing "sexual assault." some are angry because sexual assault can happen without physical violence, as he is arguing.
>hand holders
stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)
stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia)
stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
how does he not understand that these laws protect children? does he mean that the age should be lowered? why doesn't he provide more context on this aspect? how the fuck can an 11 year old "voluntarily" participate in this kind of relationship? also fucking lel at the necrophilia statement. there's more, just search his site, brainlets.

be salty but you will either be factually accurate or you will feel cognitive dissonance.

do you believe minors can consent?

FYI he used to have a website with his own quotes and among them was the stance that children should be allowed to choose to have sex with adults.
>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.

stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)

Some can, yes.

>laws are a guide for morality
That's what you're doing, moron.
it might be 18 somewhere, but it is 16 elsewhere, and 20 elsewhere.
Why would it be immoral to do it with a 16yo where consent is at 20? The right word is _illegal_.
And of course it isn't immoral if you're 16 and the boy is 15, either.
What's immoral is for a 40yo to do it with a 12 yo. That's statutory rape and it should be.
Still, statutory rape != rape, because not being legally able to consent but consenting anyway is not the same as being *assaulted*.

thats fucking sick dude you are a pedo enabler

Just so you know he made this comment after a news item about actual pedophiles who go after very young children wanted their deviation legalized. It's not about 15 year old girls. It was about children.

why are we hunting rms when this dude exists

Sorry dude, I don't debate brainwashed Americans.

Which article was this?

There is no such thing as mutual rape, dumbass.

>unless you believe minors can consent
Minors can consent to a lot of things, eg. purchasing certain goods and in many countries a minor is legally allowed to engage in sex, as far as I know even in some US states.

Journos will mix up pedophilia with ephebophilia all the time.
They'll also confuse people who are attracted by children with people who have sex with children. The former group is large and majorly harmless, the latter group is fortunately small and should really be in jail.

See if you want an explanation of my reasoning

i mean below Age of consent minor, not minor below drinking age or driving age or gun owning age america

isn't that pretty much hate fucking

riddle me this what is the age of consent (not the number what is the legal principle)

is it not the age at which someone can decide for themself, without any reprocussion inherent to the other party(s), that they wish to engage in sexual acts?

but youre saying people BELOW this age can also consent, so youre saying wait a minute, the laws arent correct?

The consent law is there with the idea that older men can easily coerse vulnerable girls into having sex with them.

so "laws" that are enforced ie by jail time, financial remunerations, or i dunno being shot in the fuckin head by a police officer, arent a guide for what is factually or more accurately morally aceptable in any given situation?

>quoting the language used by the person in question
how's the start of your 10th grade year going?

Or just that laws aren't perfect. Brainlets can't comprehend that, even though we may have to draw a line somewhere, that doesn't mean that there can't be consensual (albeit not legally) encounters between someone over and under that line.

sounder with whose authority (and possibly most importantly how) do you choose which laws to obey and which not to obey, i guess, is my long winded and final question?

since we have proven not all laws are morally correct, or just, even today.

there are men who make a lot of money off of this fact; sex trafficking is very real and effects a pretty wide age group, including younger girls.

A "minor" is a person which is not yet an adult, in many countries a person becomes an adult at age 18, at which point the person has to assume full legal responsibility for his actions.

Minors can, again, consent to a lot of things, but below a certain age (or age difference to the partner) they aren't granted the legal right and responsibility to decide for themselves whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse.

The "age of consent" is the age at which a society expects it's minors to be able to decide for themselves who to have sex with, without that relationship becoming exploitative.
Much like the "drinking age", which are based on the exact same principle, obviously many 17 year olds can drink responsibly.

voiced his opinion on proper vernacular

and who grants you then, the authority, to supercede the legal definitions of your nation, and say, nay, that law does not apply to me?

this isnt aimed at any one post, feel free to answer

>he is an old white autistic male in tech
* white-presenting POC autistic male

The age of consent is the minimum age of a person that a legal adult can legally have sex with. The concept generally doesn't apply to children, as children typically do not have the same power of discreet coercion as an adult (do note, however, that children can still be found guilty of sex offenses.)

>children can still be found guilty of sex offense
children cant have sex, you just said that, they cant consent, therefore any act they engage in is offensive aka rape

Nobody?
I am bound to the laws of my country and in general I choose to obey them either because I deem them to be moral (or at least partially justified) or because obedience is necessary for social cohesion.

In general I believe that for people to live together they have to agree to follow certain rules, so I am willing to an extent to surrender my own beliefs in favor of the ones of the people surrounding me.

Who was it Sarah Mei works for again?

mercurynews.com/2019/03/26/salesforce-among-the-vilest-of-rogue-companies-for-helping-backpage-sex-traffickers-pimps-lawsuit/

OH NO NO NO

so shall it be done

here
one more (you), hope my handholding didn't make you climax and lose track of mind

judge: so you werent home and person 2 stole all your belongings?
person 1: yes your honour
judge: and at the same time, person 2, you werent home and person 1 stole all YOUR belongings?
person 2: yes your honour
judge: the thefts cancel each other out and no one goes to jail

Since this discussion was originally was about the age of consent, then riddle me this: how would your logic apply to pedophiles/hebephiles? They are rejected and hated by society for their very nature, so what reason have they to care about "social cohesion?"

Are you retarded? If you were actually using the legal definitions you'd be writing "statutory rape" rather than just "rape" to define sex between a minor and an adult.

>stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
thats cooland all but you are arguing that sex with a child means someone should be charged criminally
so what happens when 2 childs have sex
who ya gonna charge then