[dropit_sphere]

>Stallman quibbled over the definition of rape.

Hell yes he did. Wouldn't you? If I made my own country where "rape" was defined as "sex without first doing twenty jumping jacks," wouldn't you "quibble"?

>everyone admits knowingly slept with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that constituted rape.

So what? I drove 37 in a 35 today, who cares? You can't outsource your morality to the legal system like that.

If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through the VI's laws.

[nullc]

> If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through some country's laws.

It's hard for anyone to do that because virtually everything on this is speculation. The whole thing about Minsky stems from a single sentence in a recently unsealed enormous deposition ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ) where one of Epstein's victims included Minsky in a list of people that epstein's assistant directed her to have sex with. She wasn't asked if sex actually happened with Minsky, and didn't claim it did, she was asked about the dates and couldn't recall.

A witness who claims to be present reported Minsky turning her down and complaining about the advance, additionally on the date that conference was held-- in 2002, Epstein's victim was 18. ( https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ )

But since there are essentially no facts, not even concrete allegations-- people seem to feel free to make up their own version of events which are exactly as awful or harmless as they want them to be.

.... God save you if your imagination comes out different from the angry mob's and you dare share it with others.

Because Minksky has been dead for a few years there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually setting the facts straight, but there seems to be a lot of interest in using it as an excuse to be abusive to fellow humans.

[rosser]

Really?

You're going to make a moral comparison between a minor traffic violation (not even a primary offense!) and having sex with a coerced child?

[sincerely]

Either you tie morality to legality, or you don't.

[CathedralBorrow]

Are there any available positions in between these polar opposites?

[sincerely]

No

[rosser]

It's not that simple. There are plenty of places where the sets "things that are legal" and "things that are moral" don't intersect. Those are some of the most interesting, challenging questions we will face.

EDIT: And I would submit the offered example illustrates that. Doing two miles per hour over the posted speed limit may not be legal, but it's hardly immoral. Similarly, lying to someone to sway their opinions in an argument isn't illegal, but I don't think that's particularly moral, is it?

Don't be so reductive.

[selestify]

That appears to be the whole point the person you were replying to was making -- that the two are only loosely correlated.

[rosser]

Oh, the jumping jacks thing was supposed to have been taken as an actual argument? Because my response to that was, "I wouldn't go there."