[claudiawerner]

>The law is that an enslaved child cannot consent to sex in this way, so cannot be regarded as being "entirely willing."

Stallman's defense of Minsky was that she appeared "entirely willing" to Minsky, probably on the orders of Epstein. He does not say at any point that she was "entirely willing" - only that Minsky was probably ignorant of the fact. Going from all the previously observed good character of Minsky to judge that probability is reasonable.

>As the topic is an accusation of sexual assault, which is a legal definition, and which seems to be correctly applied for this case, it is irrelevant to bring up a personal view that the law is wrong.

Why? He is making direct reference to the fact he thinks the law is problematic. He thinks it's morally absurd. It is very likely that you, too, have issues with the way certain laws are defined.

>Since Stallman doesn't seem to accept that concept of consent, can we assume that if Prof. X of MIT had sex with an "entirely willing" 5 year old, it would have been okay according to his morals?

No, because he specifically mentions the issue of being "whether the victim was 18 years old or 17" - at the very most you can draw from this that he views 17 years old as a more appropriate age of consent. Nowhere is he embarking on a "slippery slope" or "where do you draw the line?" or a gradient/heap of sand fallacy.

>by having sex with Bar while Bar was drunk and asleep, and who did not previously give consent, would Stallman respond that that wasn't assault, and not address the actual issue

Perhaps he would, though he would also most likely view it as a heinous act, just as he views the abuse of minors to be a heinous act.

[DanBC]

> just as he views the abuse of minors to be a heinous act.

Note that he only thinks that after people spoke to him. He hasn't always held this view.

[claudiawerner]

He said that he was skeptical of the claim that "voluntary pedophilia" (sloppy terminology on his part, ironically) harms children. There is nothing wrong with skepticism. That skepticism was later revoked. I was once skeptical of the idea that capitalism is inherently exploitative, and after having it explained to me, I am not any more.

[DanBC]

Scepticism requires work. He had done no work before supporting abuse of children. He hadn't bothered to look for any research; he hadn't talked to survivors of abuse; he hadn't spoken to people who work with survivors of abuse. He didn't know what he was talking about, but he still felt it was fine to say that fucking children isn't a problem.

[claudiawerner]

It doesn't necessarily require work; in fact, the default position on many things is skepticism, and he provided at least one reason to be a skeptic in this case (i.e. that the stigma around pedophilia emerges around parents being afraid of their children growing up). He even supported it with some reasoning (discussing how he thinks "voluntary peodphilia" between a child and an adult in a position of power does not count as abuse-free).

I don't need to consult theology to be skeptical of God, I don't need to consult Marx to be a skeptic of capitalism's exploitation, etc. Nobody had hitherto presented him with an argument he found sufficiently compelling. I can probably pick any topic outside of my field of knowledge (or yours) which is well established within the field but we are skeptical of, simply because we haven't heard the argument.

Lets say you publish somewhere saying "I am skeptical that Emacs is the best editor." Are you skeptical that Emacs is the best editor? That requires work. You haven't bothered to look for any research; you haven't talked to users of Emacs; you haven't spoken to people who work with Emacs. You don't know what you're talking about. The issue here isn't that he published it (and you didn't publish your skepticism about Emacs). The issue here is being skeptical whether you express that to others or not. With the amount of things Stallman comments on, it's unreasonable to expect him to research every topic he's skeptical of.

[eesmith]

Is having sex with a 17 year old girl who an enslaved child subject to strict liability, in which case Minsky's views don't make a difference to the crime, or is it mens rea, where it can?

I don't know. Stallman doesn't address it. Hence, if he's really trying to change minds, he's doing a bad job of it. If he researched the issue - which I don't think he did - he would have known to cover issues like this before using 'appeared "entirely willing"', and qualified things appropriately.

> Why?

Because others have the personal view that it's sexual assault.

It's a very weak argument to say they are wrong, based on your views, when they can say that you are wrong based on their views.

The thing is, the current law backs their interpretation that this is sexual assault, or at the very least would be some some jurisdictions.

Hence, his personal view that it's absolutely unreasonable is bogus.

> at the very most you can draw from this

Correct. The point is, he doesn't offer any replacement viewpoint, other than "the current law is wrong." Therefore, it's very easy to interpret his statement as promoting sex with minors.

Which is what happened.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the issue would know this - to start with, in trying to understand why those laws exist in the first place, before making a claim that they are immoral. Then would need to show how the existing laws are actually immoral.

Stallman did not do that.

> Perhaps he would

The FSF is small enough that it doesn't fall under federal EEOC training requirements.

Does it fall under MA ones? Who is responsible for FSF EEOC training? Who can reprimand Stallman for violating EEOC laws regarding sexual harassment?

Has he had EEOC training? How often? Does he have enough understanding to be able to follow the relevant law, even if it doesn't believe it to be correct?

> just as he views the abuse of minors to be a heinous act

Sure. Now, what does he consider to be "abuse of minors"? Because apparently his definition doesn't include what the US VI law would now define as second degree rape.

As an example to show what I mean about the importance of knowing what "abuse" means, I could say that spousal abuse is wrong, yet reject the idea that raping my spouse is possible. The logic, which once held in the US, was that the wife's marriage contract was also consent to sex any time the wife wanted.

Or, "child abuse" is bad, but many in the US think that spanking a child is not abuse - though it is illegal in some countries.

Hence why it's useless to say that "abuse is bad" without knowing what counts as abuse.

[claudiawerner]

>I don't know. Stallman doesn't address it. Hence, if he's really trying to change minds, he's doing a bad job of it.

I agree, and after the media started to gather around his comments, he regretted that he did such a poor job of communicating.

>It's a very weak argument to say they are wrong, based on your views, when they can say that you are wrong based on their views.

Firstly, it is not as "absolute" as you make it sound. Nowhere does he actually use that word or imply that his moral judgements are handed down from heaven. He explicitly says "I think" - and as a moral claim, it only requires as much justification as our other moral claims, which all reduce to "ought", which cannot be gained from an "is". Your moral view is that all humans are of equal moral worth, your view is that murder is wrong, etc. - all of these reduce to matters of opinion which are difficult if not impossible to justify absolutely. Stallman, for one, does not appear to be a moral realist. If Stallman had proclaimed that he was actually a subscriber to the doctrine of moral error theory (perhaps even with good reason, say he read a paper on the doctrine which he found convincing), he wouldn't have to justify "That's morally wrong" any more than he'd have to justify "I don't like bananas".

>Correct. The point is, he doesn't offer any replacement viewpoint, other than "the current law is wrong." Therefore, it's very easy to interpret his statement as promoting sex with minors.

His statement is more than that, it claims (a) that the law is wrong (again from his point of view) that it is of consequence if the victim is 17 or 18, (b) that the law (perhaps globally) is wrong that whether this act in particular is permissible depends on the specific location of the act. Whatever misunderstanding comes about from these two points is only from reading more into what he said than what he actually expressed, a chain of inferences that build up until someone on HN can say that by the same logic he'd be OK with the rape of a five year old.

>Then would need to show how the existing laws are actually immoral.

It's immoral according to his system of morality. You don't have to listen to it, and he doesn't have to listen to yours. The law is a different matter.

>Now, what does he consider to be "abuse of minors"?

I did not put that part in quotes myself because he never uses that term, even so, I apologize for the misattribution on my part. He says,

"Since then, through personal conversations, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."

That is to say, he thinks that "sex with a child" can harm them psychologically, and as such, "adults should not do that". Granted, this is not a comment on the law (there are many things we should not do which are not illegal), but they are comments on his moral system (by the use of "should" in this apparently non-instrumental sense).

[eesmith]

You wrote: "Firstly, it is not as "absolute" as you make it sound. Nowhere does he actually use that word"

Stallman wrote: "I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.

How is "absolutely wrong" not a use of "absolute"?

You'll note that I have the context correct too.

[claudiawerner]

Ah, I did think he used it somewhere but I must have missed it, you're right. But in this case he is not referring to a moral principle as much as a terminological point. "Absolutely wrong" here refers to rhetoric and writing, it's not clear to me that he thinks people who use the term "sexual assault" in an accusation are morally bankrupt.

[eesmith]

Nor did I claim it was in reference to a moral principle. I wrote specifically about his terminological point, which is clearly incorrect, saying:

> The thing is, the current law backs their interpretation that this is sexual assault, or at the very least would be some some jurisdictions.

> Hence, his personal view that it's absolutely unreasonable is bogus.

You misread Stallman, and misread me, which makes it hard to have any sort of discussion.

[claudiawerner]

I said:

>Why? He is making direct reference to the fact he thinks the law is problematic. He thinks it's morally absurd. It is very likely that you, too, have issues with the way certain laws are defined.

The context of this is that he thinks there is a moral problem with someone being able to provide sex without it being classified as assault at 18 but not at 17. We are talking about a moral principle here. You responded to this point (by quoting me asking "Why?") with:

>Hence, his personal view that it's absolutely unreasonable is bogus.

I believe we're still talking about a moral principle when you introduce the word "absolutely". My response to that, in turn, was:

>Firstly, it is not as "absolute" as you make it sound. Nowhere does he actually use that word or imply that his moral judgements are handed down from heaven. He explicitly says "I think" - and as a moral claim, it only requires as much justification as our other moral claims, which all reduce to "ought", which cannot be gained from an "is".

The whole time the usage of the word "absolute" in the way I referred to it in my last quote has been in reference to what Stallman thinks of morality, and my claim is that he does not consider it "absolutely immoral" or anything else "absolute". This is because he prefaces it with "I think", but also because he just doesn't use that word when speaking about morality. The fact he uses the word in another context, namely the notion of accusation inflation, has nothing to do with his metaethics.