6 ms·

Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to hav

by ndury 7y ago

Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' AFAIK there are plenty of high positioned people in important positions whom have a special preference to something. Whether it be a kink or a total different view/approach on certain topics. Does that mean we're going to hunt down every one in a high position because they think outside of the box? Because they have a preference to something society seems not normal? Does that mean we'll need to hunt down every thought leader/high positioned CEO/CFO/COO/board member with public appearance that enjoys the occassional whipping? This topic is pretty disturbing to me personally. Qualified, intelligent people are criticized/publicly shamed for having thoughts/opinions/preferences which have absolutely nothing to do with their occupation. It feels to me as if we're, as a society, doing anything we can to remove people who think/feel differently from what they're actually good at/dedicated their life to. My thoughts/opinions might not stroke with what people here have written, if what has been reported is true the behavior is not OK but does that mean the man needs to be removed from a position he dedicated his life to?

CPLX 7y ago
I mean the guy can think whatever the fuck he wants. He can even tell his friends. He can use nipple clamps and be consentingly spanked with kitchen implements. Nobody gives a shit about any of that stuff. But if you publicly say stuff like this: "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] 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." Then other people might not want to make the highly discretionary decision to let you, specifically, run their organization.
- ng12 7y ago
  There are many countries in the world where the age of consent is 14. It was so in Canada, our physical and cultural neighbor, until 2008. Why is it so wildly unacceptable opinion to question an arbitrary line of US law?
- lazylizard 7y ago
  But he was the leader of the free software foundation. Free as in speech.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  What about other topics like alcohol? Can I think that the 21 years old limit is weird?
DanBC 7y ago
> Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' No, it means that if you think raping children is okay you don't get to say that as part of your work, unless your work is for a pro-child-abuse organisation. If you're a spokesperson for any other organisation they may want to distance themselves from your comments supporting child sexual abuse.
- frabbit 7y ago
  This is not the first time you have made this untrue allegation DanBC. It is clear now that you are acting in very bad faith. It speaks volumes about your reliability.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Read what RMS says. 1) "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." 2) "Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography", and points out that if in the US you observe the rape of a child, making a video or photo to use as evidence would subject you to a greater penalty than the rapist." 3) "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. Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today. For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)." There are plenty of others. > It speaks volumes about your reliability. What speaks volumes is your inability to use a search engine. These quotes are trivially easy to find. Why haven't you bothered to look for them? Why have you assumed that RMS could not have possibly said the things he has?

by ndury 7y ago

CPLX 7y ago

I mean the guy can think whatever the fuck he wants. He can even tell his friends. He can use nipple clamps and be consentingly spanked with kitchen implements. Nobody gives a shit about any of that stuff. But if you publicly say stuff like this: "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] 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." Then other people might not want to make the highly discretionary decision to let you, specifically, run their organization.

ng12 7y ago
There are many countries in the world where the age of consent is 14. It was so in Canada, our physical and cultural neighbor, until 2008. Why is it so wildly unacceptable opinion to question an arbitrary line of US law?
lazylizard 7y ago
But he was the leader of the free software foundation. Free as in speech.
gus_massa 7y ago
What about other topics like alcohol? Can I think that the 21 years old limit is weird?

DanBC 7y ago

> Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' No, it means that if you think raping children is okay you don't get to say that as part of your work, unless your work is for a pro-child-abuse organisation. If you're a spokesperson for any other organisation they may want to distance themselves from your comments supporting child sexual abuse.

frabbit 7y ago
This is not the first time you have made this untrue allegation DanBC. It is clear now that you are acting in very bad faith. It speaks volumes about your reliability.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Read what RMS says. 1) "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." 2) "Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography", and points out that if in the US you observe the rape of a child, making a video or photo to use as evidence would subject you to a greater penalty than the rapist." 3) "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. Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today. For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)." There are plenty of others. > It speaks volumes about your reliability. What speaks volumes is your inability to use a search engine. These quotes are trivially easy to find. Why haven't you bothered to look for them? Why have you assumed that RMS could not have possibly said the things he has?