“The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”
RMS on June 28th, 2003
"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. "
RMS on June 5th, 2006
"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
None of those say it is good. I disagree with him, he also disagrees with him and apologized for saying that. But that is very different from saying its good. I don’t think alcohol is good, I also don’t think it should be illegal.
He said it’s a shame that paedophilia is outlawed and that it was narrow-mindedness that made it so.
He said it’s untrue that having sex with children harms them.
And yeah, he later apologised and said he doesn’t believe it anymore… 2 days after his job became on the line.
Ask yourself this:
A man has been publicly championing raping children for decades. Publicly. He firmly believes he should have the right to fuck children.
News media hears about this, and now his job seems untenable.
All of a sudden, the man claimed changed his mind, that he’s completely reversed his opinion (that he held for decades and publicly shouted to the world). In just 2 days, he’s gone from thinking it’s a tragedy that you can’t fuck children, to thinking fucking a child is bad.
Do you believe him? Or do you think he’s just saying anything he can to try to keep his job?
I don’t think alcohol is good, I also don’t think it should be illegal.
There’s a big difference between “it’s unfortunate that adults can’t fuck children, it really should be legalised. People against fucking toddlers are just bigots” and “well I don’t like alcohol, but I think it should be legal”
How you just equated raping a child and drinking a glass of wine is beyond me. Wow.
First of all, none of those things are saying its good.
Ask yourself this:
A man has been publicly championing raping children for decades. Publicly. He firmly believes he should have the right to fuck children.
I think you need to be more realistic about who he and others are and try to understand why they have the beliefs they do, a lot of them are differences in personal and social awareness/ability. An analogy(I know you struggle with these, sorry its just the way I communicate and explain my thoughts), but would you look at someone with dyslexia and use them struggling with reading as an excuse to completely invalidated their opinions and views on everything else?
Stallman has deeply ideological beliefs, one of them being radical freedom of choice. He looked at pedophilia through that, because that’s what his conception of the world(and therefore ability to perceive it) allows. To be totally blunt I think its an “autistic” struggling with understanding the feelings of others(that many on here and Reddit also have) that lead to him focusing on his ideological perspective. I think he “put himself in the shoes” of kids, and thought, “I want to be able to engage in consensual relationships” he didn’t consider that not everyone is him, or how he would feel in circumstances different from ones he’s experienced. This combined with his ideological conviction made him fail to understand how kids lack an ability to consent.
If he really apologized to keep his job, I don’t know. But he has and continues to say deeply controversial things that cost him opportunities. He also still leads Gnu and FSF. I think its possible he just was upset about the situation, talked to someone he trusts about why people are responding this way, and they explained it in a way he could understand and he changed his mind.
How you just equated raping a child and drinking a glass of wine is beyond me. Wow.
I did not equate them. But also don’t underestimate the damage alcohol has had on the world. Child rape is bad, I have never denied that.
He literally says it’s bad that child rape is illegal, then goes on about how if you’re against it you’re a bigot. In what world is that not him saying it’s good?
Saying you believe his is autistic is a disgusting defence. Being autistic doesn’t excuse believing it’s a good thing to have sex with children. Autistic people don’t believe that.
I did not equate them. But also don’t underestimate the damage alcohol has had on the world.
Yes you did equate them.
Having a glass of wine and pinning down your toddler and fucking him are NOT the same. Jesus Christ.
Child rape is bad, I have never denied that.
And Stallman doesn’t think the same. He thinks it’s good.
And yeah. You think it’s as bad as sipping a pint of ale…
He literally says it’s bad that child rape is illegal, then goes on about how if you’re against it you’re a bigot. In what world is that not him saying it’s good?
Because they’re different things? Again this is why I said the analogy. Saying prohibition of alcohol is bad is different from saying alcohol is good. That’s not equating alcohol and pedos, its an analogy on how saying something is good is different from saying it shouldn’t be illegal.
Saying you believe his is autistic is a disgusting defence. Being autistic doesn’t excuse believing it’s a good thing to have sex with children.
Its an explanation of why I think he might have had an opinion I think is disgusting. The defense is that he admitted he was wrong and apologized. Having a wrong belief isn’t a crime, he didn’t rape any kids, so he doesn’t have anything to be “punished” for. And being wrong in the past about ethics is completely different from beliefs on free software- and you know that. You’re just using it as an ad hominem.
Autistic people don’t believe that.
What? There are plenty of autistic people that have a wide variety of beliefs
Yes you did equate them.
Having a glass of wine and pinning down your toddler and fucking him are NOT the same. Jesus Christ.
No I didn’t, stop lying about me. Analogy is not equating, I have no clue why this has to be explained.
And Stallman doesn’t think the same. He thinks it’s good.
He did not say its good, and he does now think the same as he said.
And yeah. You think it’s as bad as sipping a pint of ale…
I am tempted to think you’re trolling seeing as you’re ignoring what I actually wrote and instead just going for cheap attacks. Please stop engaging in bad faith.
He says people are bigoted if they’re against people fucking children. That’s him saying having sex with children is a good thing.
Saying prohibition of alcohol is bad is different from saying alcohol is good.
Agreed. However if you said “I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.” Then that instead points to you believing alcohol is good.
That’s not equating alcohol and pedos
Yes it is.
Its an explanation of why I think he might have had an opinion
No it fucking isn’t. Having mild autism is not an explanation for thinking pinning down a four year old and giving them some dick is a good thing.
He believes that because he’s a sick fuck who believes in paedophilia. Not because of autism. Autism doesn’t make you like that at all.
The defense is that he admitted he was wrong and apologized
Yep, I’ve already covered this. He did a complete 180 2 days after it became apparent his job was on the line. It wasn’t genuine remorse, it was a last-ditch effort to save his own skin.
What? There are plenty of autistic people that have a wide variety of beliefs
Being autistic doesn’t cause you to believe raping kids is a good thing. Stop pretending it does. You must really hate autistic people if you’re willing to paint them with that brush.
No I didn’t, stop lying about me. Analogy is not equating, I have no clue why this has to be explained.
Yes you did.
Having a glass of wine is not like fucking a four year old. Stop.
He did not say its good, and he does now think the same as he said.
Yes he did. And his opinion has not changed.
I am tempted to think you’re trolling seeing as you’re ignoring what I actually wrote and instead just going for cheap attacks. Please stop engaging in bad faith.
I hope you’re trolling, because if not you’re a fucking psychopath who denies genocide and thinks keeping a toddler as a sex slave is morally equivelant to having a Heineken, and that both should be equally legal.
He says people are bigoted if they’re against people fucking children. That’s him saying having sex with children is a good thing.
Here’s an analogy there is no way you can lie about(though you’ll probably find a way): Saying someone is bigoted if they make fun of arachnophobia is not the same thing as saying arachnophobia is good. And I’m not equating arachnophobia to pedos. Opposing opposition to X is not the same thing as supporting X, its possible to be neutral on X. I’m not neutral on pedos, I think pedos are bad and gross. I think it is wrong to be neutral on pedos, but it is factually inaccurate to say that being “neutral on X” == “X is a good thing”.
Agreed. However if you said “I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.” Then that instead points to you believing alcohol is good.
Thank you!!! This makes me so happy genuinely!!! You responded to what I actually said!! So you did get it! So why do you keep lying about it?
Anyways, my excitement aside, you’re fine to think that. But I do disagree that that’s the analogy of what you’re saying Stallman said, instead it would be closer to "I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against letting people consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.”
Which is not necessarily pro-alchohol. Another example, imagine a government that banned a religion, say Buddhism, you could say "I think it’s unfortunate Buddhism is banned. If you are against letting people practice Buddhism then you are a bigot.”- that statement is not necessarily pro-Buddhist, its just anti-prohibition of Buddhism.
Yes it is.
Awww my excitement is gone
No it fucking isn’t. Having mild autism is not an explanation for thinking pinning down a four year old and giving them some dick is a good thing.
It literally is an explanation. You’re free to think the explanation is wrong and bad, but its still an explanation.
Not because of autism. Autism doesn’t make you like that at all.
I didn’t say it was because of autism. I said its because he failed to empathize with victims, yk a symptom of “autism”.
Yep, I’ve already covered this. He did a complete 180 2 days after it became apparent his job was on the line. It wasn’t genuine remorse, it was a last-ditch effort to save his own skin.
He’s still fired from MIT so why doesn’t he backtrack if he still believes it?
Being autistic doesn’t cause you to believe raping kids is a good thing. Stop pretending it does.
Never said it does, stop lying about me.
Yes you did.
Having a glass of wine is not like fucking a four year old. Stop.
My pain is immeasurable. Please quote where I said those exact words.
Yes he did. And his opinion has not changed.
Why’d he stop saying it then?
I hope you’re trolling, because if not you’re a fucking psychopath who denies genocide and thinks keeping a toddler as a sex slave is morally equivelant to having a Heineken, and that both should be equally legal.
Genuinely why are you still responding if you honestly believe that’s what I said? Just to insult me?
Please for the love of god be a troll.
I don’t hide behind a pseudonym to be toxic to people on the internet.
He never said that. I agree he was more skeptical than I’d like, but he eventually was informed and apologized.
You are mistaken:
RMS on June 28th, 2003
RMS on June 5th, 2006
RMS on Jan 4th, 2013
None of those say it is good. I disagree with him, he also disagrees with him and apologized for saying that. But that is very different from saying its good. I don’t think alcohol is good, I also don’t think it should be illegal.
Huh?
He said it’s a shame that paedophilia is outlawed and that it was narrow-mindedness that made it so.
He said it’s untrue that having sex with children harms them.
And yeah, he later apologised and said he doesn’t believe it anymore… 2 days after his job became on the line.
Ask yourself this:
A man has been publicly championing raping children for decades. Publicly. He firmly believes he should have the right to fuck children.
News media hears about this, and now his job seems untenable.
All of a sudden, the man claimed changed his mind, that he’s completely reversed his opinion (that he held for decades and publicly shouted to the world). In just 2 days, he’s gone from thinking it’s a tragedy that you can’t fuck children, to thinking fucking a child is bad.
Do you believe him? Or do you think he’s just saying anything he can to try to keep his job?
There’s a big difference between “it’s unfortunate that adults can’t fuck children, it really should be legalised. People against fucking toddlers are just bigots” and “well I don’t like alcohol, but I think it should be legal”
How you just equated raping a child and drinking a glass of wine is beyond me. Wow.
First of all, none of those things are saying its good.
I think you need to be more realistic about who he and others are and try to understand why they have the beliefs they do, a lot of them are differences in personal and social awareness/ability. An analogy(I know you struggle with these, sorry its just the way I communicate and explain my thoughts), but would you look at someone with dyslexia and use them struggling with reading as an excuse to completely invalidated their opinions and views on everything else?
Stallman has deeply ideological beliefs, one of them being radical freedom of choice. He looked at pedophilia through that, because that’s what his conception of the world(and therefore ability to perceive it) allows. To be totally blunt I think its an “autistic” struggling with understanding the feelings of others(that many on here and Reddit also have) that lead to him focusing on his ideological perspective. I think he “put himself in the shoes” of kids, and thought, “I want to be able to engage in consensual relationships” he didn’t consider that not everyone is him, or how he would feel in circumstances different from ones he’s experienced. This combined with his ideological conviction made him fail to understand how kids lack an ability to consent.
If he really apologized to keep his job, I don’t know. But he has and continues to say deeply controversial things that cost him opportunities. He also still leads Gnu and FSF. I think its possible he just was upset about the situation, talked to someone he trusts about why people are responding this way, and they explained it in a way he could understand and he changed his mind.
I did not equate them. But also don’t underestimate the damage alcohol has had on the world. Child rape is bad, I have never denied that.
He literally says it’s bad that child rape is illegal, then goes on about how if you’re against it you’re a bigot. In what world is that not him saying it’s good?
Saying you believe his is autistic is a disgusting defence. Being autistic doesn’t excuse believing it’s a good thing to have sex with children. Autistic people don’t believe that.
Yes you did equate them.
Having a glass of wine and pinning down your toddler and fucking him are NOT the same. Jesus Christ.
And Stallman doesn’t think the same. He thinks it’s good.
And yeah. You think it’s as bad as sipping a pint of ale…
Because they’re different things? Again this is why I said the analogy. Saying prohibition of alcohol is bad is different from saying alcohol is good. That’s not equating alcohol and pedos, its an analogy on how saying something is good is different from saying it shouldn’t be illegal.
Its an explanation of why I think he might have had an opinion I think is disgusting. The defense is that he admitted he was wrong and apologized. Having a wrong belief isn’t a crime, he didn’t rape any kids, so he doesn’t have anything to be “punished” for. And being wrong in the past about ethics is completely different from beliefs on free software- and you know that. You’re just using it as an ad hominem.
What? There are plenty of autistic people that have a wide variety of beliefs
No I didn’t, stop lying about me. Analogy is not equating, I have no clue why this has to be explained.
He did not say its good, and he does now think the same as he said.
I am tempted to think you’re trolling seeing as you’re ignoring what I actually wrote and instead just going for cheap attacks. Please stop engaging in bad faith.
He says people are bigoted if they’re against people fucking children. That’s him saying having sex with children is a good thing.
Agreed. However if you said “I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.” Then that instead points to you believing alcohol is good.
Yes it is.
No it fucking isn’t. Having mild autism is not an explanation for thinking pinning down a four year old and giving them some dick is a good thing.
He believes that because he’s a sick fuck who believes in paedophilia. Not because of autism. Autism doesn’t make you like that at all.
Yep, I’ve already covered this. He did a complete 180 2 days after it became apparent his job was on the line. It wasn’t genuine remorse, it was a last-ditch effort to save his own skin.
Being autistic doesn’t cause you to believe raping kids is a good thing. Stop pretending it does. You must really hate autistic people if you’re willing to paint them with that brush.
Yes you did.
Having a glass of wine is not like fucking a four year old. Stop.
Yes he did. And his opinion has not changed.
I hope you’re trolling, because if not you’re a fucking psychopath who denies genocide and thinks keeping a toddler as a sex slave is morally equivelant to having a Heineken, and that both should be equally legal.
Please for the love of god be a troll.
Here’s an analogy there is no way you can lie about(though you’ll probably find a way): Saying someone is bigoted if they make fun of arachnophobia is not the same thing as saying arachnophobia is good. And I’m not equating arachnophobia to pedos. Opposing opposition to X is not the same thing as supporting X, its possible to be neutral on X. I’m not neutral on pedos, I think pedos are bad and gross. I think it is wrong to be neutral on pedos, but it is factually inaccurate to say that being “neutral on X” == “X is a good thing”.
Thank you!!! This makes me so happy genuinely!!! You responded to what I actually said!! So you did get it! So why do you keep lying about it?
Anyways, my excitement aside, you’re fine to think that. But I do disagree that that’s the analogy of what you’re saying Stallman said, instead it would be closer to "I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against letting people consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.”
Which is not necessarily pro-alchohol. Another example, imagine a government that banned a religion, say Buddhism, you could say "I think it’s unfortunate Buddhism is banned. If you are against letting people practice Buddhism then you are a bigot.”- that statement is not necessarily pro-Buddhist, its just anti-prohibition of Buddhism.
Awww my excitement is gone
It literally is an explanation. You’re free to think the explanation is wrong and bad, but its still an explanation.
I didn’t say it was because of autism. I said its because he failed to empathize with victims, yk a symptom of “autism”.
He’s still fired from MIT so why doesn’t he backtrack if he still believes it?
Never said it does, stop lying about me.
My pain is immeasurable. Please quote where I said those exact words.
Why’d he stop saying it then?
Genuinely why are you still responding if you honestly believe that’s what I said? Just to insult me?
I don’t hide behind a pseudonym to be toxic to people on the internet.