51
Richard Stallman's political discourse on sex
(drewdevault.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
51 points (100.0% liked)
Free and Open Source Software
18019 readers
1 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
What do you mean?
He said that Stallman had some fucked up views, showed quotes on what his views are, explained how this is a pattern, and finally said why this should make it so that we reject him in the Free Software community.
Which part was the non sequitur?
He made conclusions from quotes which didn't follow from contents of those quotes.
Examples please
About this quote:
'Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to start dating/sexual relationships with teenagers some decades ago.
He tried to lead Ms Corfman step by step into sex, but he always respected “no” from her and his other dates. Thus, Moore does not deserve the exaggerated condemnation that he is receiving for this. 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.
The condemnation is surely sparked by the political motive of wanting to defeat Moore in the coming election, but it draws fuel from ageism and the fashion for overprotectiveness of “children”.'
DeVault says that Stallman draws a distinction between children and teenagers
'especially to suggest that an adult having sex with a minor is socially acceptable'
but Stallman makes no such suggestion. In fact, Stallman makes no mention of social acceptability at all. DeVault is putting words in Stallman's mouth.
About this quote:
'Calling teenagers “children” encourages treating teenagers as children, a harmful practice which retards their development into capable adults.
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.'
DeVault says that Stallman
'sought to normalize adult attraction to minors, literally describing it as “normal”'
but Stallman did not say that adult attraction to "minors" is normal.
Acknowledgement of correctness please.
There is no way to read this:
that does not involve Stallman saying that having sex with minors is okay as long as they are mentally mature.
That's the feeling I got too. It's difficult to take such articles seriously, articles that parse what people said in minute detail with insertions of conclusions for the reader to agree with. It's like the reader is being led on to the conclusion the writer wants.
IMO Stallman has no idea what he's talking about and drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, but doing so on a subject that people feel very strongly about - and it's not a harmless debate about vim vs emacs, but actual human experiences. Topics involving young people evoke something in most people and Stallman is treading right into it. Well, at least in the cherry-picked quotes he is. I have no desire, time, nor will to read investigate what some dude thinks on the topic.
You're right, DeVault probably made a leap in accusing Stallman of describing sex with teenagers socially acceptable. But I can see where he comes from since Stallman is very insistent on the delineation of children and teenagers especially when child sexual abuse cases are in the news.
On the second point, I think he did say that attraction to minors is normal. He defined adolescents as minors before and he's saying attraction to them is normal here.
He said attraction to adolescents is normal. He did not say that attraction to minors is normal. Distinguishing between the two is his whole point.
Instead of paying attention to what Stallman is actually saying, DeVault chose to disregard Stallman's word, "adolescent" and instead claim that he used a different word, "minor", a more general word which includes a larger group, children. DeVault is clearly trying to paint Stallman as something he is not. Which, ironically, is exactly what Stallman was criticising the media for in his quote. And bizarrely, even though I've pointed this out to you, you're doing the same.
"Adolescents are animals. Adult attraction to adolescents is normal. Therefore adult attraction to animals is normal."
"Adolescents are animals. Adult attraction to adolescents is normal. A person who says that adult attraction to adolescents is normal is saying that adult attraction to animals is normal."
These are non sequiturs, just like yours and DeVault's assertions. Please try to think.
https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-logic/chapter/chapter-1/
Stallman said
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
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.
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.
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.
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.