Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

clic.epfl.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 376 posts

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#81

Post by mardifoufs »

Retric wrote: post #75
mardifoufs wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Obviously children experimenting with each other is very different from children having sex with adults. He didn't even mention older teens, he straight up implied that he 1) thinks that voluntary pedophilia is a thing 2) children can consent to sex with adults (again, broad statement that he didn't even limit to older teens) That's very different from children experimenting toge…

I think you’re misunderstanding the definition of what that word means. 1) A 12/13 year old and a 16 year old experimenting is likely pedophilia depending on the biology of the 12/13 year old. 2) consent is a circular argument. The assumption that they can’t give consent arises from the assumption of harm and therefore cannot be used to justify harm. Animals for example can’t give consent to each other, that doesn’t…

That's the thing, Stallman does not say anything about teenagers being attracted to other, younger teenagers!

Especially since the quote was in the context of dutch pedophiles organizing to create a pro pedophilia party. Those are explicitly adults, some were very old adults too, organizing to be able to have sex with kids and teens. It wasn't just him defending teenagers fooling around or sending nudes.

(I added a bit more to my other comment after I posted, sorry about that)

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#82

Post by ithkuil »

maxbond wrote: post #76
bjornasm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does it say that no one is allowed to have controversial opinions?

Nowhere. Where does it say RMS is entitled to give this talk?

OTOH, presumably somebody invited him?

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#83

Post by mistrial9 »

mardifoufs wrote: post #54
seydor wrote: post #12

We ll never know what "the situation" is and whatever "statements that do not correspond to any of our values" are. Good job smearing mud without saying anything i guess. Did stallman say something since he was invited that was particularly noticeable? if not then these organizers don't know what they 're doing and this reflects bad on them

I mean, his statements regarding pedophilia are enough. It's not exactly a hidden secret. Saying stuff like >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. Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only…

edit skissane and others have said it better (above) IMO. comment edited.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#84

Post by comprambler »

Retric wrote: post #75
mardifoufs wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Obviously children experimenting with each other is very different from children having sex with adults. He didn't even mention older teens, he straight up implied that he 1) thinks that voluntary pedophilia is a thing 2) children can consent to sex with adults (again, broad statement that he didn't even limit to older teens) That's very different from children experimenting toge…

I think you’re misunderstanding the definition of what that word means. 1) A 12/13 year old and a 16 year old experimenting is likely pedophilia depending on the biology of the 12/13 year old. 2) consent is a circular argument. The assumption that they can’t give consent arises from the assumption of harm and therefore cannot be used to justify harm. Animals for example can’t give consent to each other, that doesn’t…

re:1) If a child in highschool (16) is experimenting with a elementary/middleschooler (12/13), there is a problem. The groupings of children in educational institutions is not abstract. So yes this is pedophilia.

re:2) The assumption that they can’t give consent is due to the inherent power imbalance in their “relationship”.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#85

Post by howinteresting »

daneel_w wrote: post #33
kweingar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we shun Bill Gates because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? In my opinion, yes, absolutely.

Have you or anyone else been able to confirm the relationship was what you imply it was, or are you advocating guilt by association?

What is derisively referred to as "guilt by association" is generally a pretty good way to evaluate moral character.

Here's where "guilt by association" is bad:

1. You're a vegetarian.

2. Hitler is also a vegetarian.

3. Therefore, you're evil.

Here's where making inferences about moral character using personal associations is good:

1. Bill Gates started his relationship with Epstein, after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.

2. There is no reasonable way Gates couldn't know this about Epstein.

3. Therefore, Gates is in the wrong for having a relationship with Epstein.

There are many factors that go into evaluating such claims, such as whether it is reasonable to know the facts about the person you are associating with, and what sort of power dynamic exists between the two. For example, MIT Media Lab received a lot of funding from Epstein, and yet I don't think the students there need to be tarred by association. The professors, I'm more suspicious of. The leadership like Joi Ito are despicable, given that Epstein was convicted of "procuring a child for prostitution" in 2008!

Simply dismissing all of these claims as "guilt by association" means that you aren't evaluating their respective strengths independently.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#86

Post by Retric »

mardifoufs wrote: post #81
Retric wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re misunderstanding the definition of what that word means. 1) A 12/13 year old and a 16 year old experimenting is likely pedophilia depending on the biology of the 12/13 year old. 2) consent is a circular argument. The assumption that they can’t give consent arises from the assumption of harm and therefore cannot be used to justify harm. Animals for example can’t give consent to each other, that doesn’t…

That's the thing, Stallman does not say anything about teenagers being attracted to other, younger teenagers! Especially since the quote was in the context of dutch pedophiles organizing to create a pro pedophilia party. Those are explicitly adults, some were very old adults too, organizing to be able to have sex with kids and teens. It wasn't just him defending teenagers fooling around or sending nudes. (I added a b…

Ok, I can see that context of the statement making it controversial.

Taken out of context it’s a different story.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#87

Post by ethbr0 »

tivert wrote: post #36
VagueMag wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is in reply to the GP, which was inappropriately flag-killed. The difference is probably that Stallman has no money or power, so he's an easy, safe target to attack.

The difference is that Gates pays his PR company a lot more than Stallman does his.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#88

Post by kayodelycaon »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #73
mardifoufs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, his statements regarding pedophilia are enough. It's not exactly a hidden secret. Saying stuff like >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. Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only…

Is he talking about pre or post puberty? The term pedophilia sometimes lumps both together. Pre seems quite unnatural, or at least there is no obvious natural mechanism that would make it normal or beneficial. Post is a cultural matter, since age of marriage has fluctuated a lot over time. Discussing post seems reasonably defensible, discussing pre immensely less so.

This isn't the place to have this discussion. As a writer who writes stories set in the past, you have to be really careful with this topic. It's not one you bring up in a general forum.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#89

Post by mardifoufs »

mistrial9 wrote: post #83
mardifoufs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, his statements regarding pedophilia are enough. It's not exactly a hidden secret. Saying stuff like >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. Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only…

edit skissane and others have said it better (above) IMO. comment edited.

It wasn't taken out of context, considering the context was him reacting to the news of a possible new pro pedophilia party in the Netherlands. It wasn't a one off comment either.

Again, I'm not saying he is guilty of a thought crime just that I understand that (and why) there is a controversy and that it isn't accurate to say that "We ll never know what "the situation" is and whatever "statements that do not correspond to any of our values" are". We know those statements.

Re: EPFL cancels Stallman's lecture citing “the situation regarding” his persona

#90

Post by skissane »

mardifoufs wrote: post #54
seydor wrote: post #12

We ll never know what "the situation" is and whatever "statements that do not correspond to any of our values" are. Good job smearing mud without saying anything i guess. Did stallman say something since he was invited that was particularly noticeable? if not then these organizers don't know what they 're doing and this reflects bad on them

I mean, his statements regarding pedophilia are enough. It's not exactly a hidden secret. Saying stuff like >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. Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only…

> Is very controversial, even if he backpedalled (only after it resurfaced and created a lot of controversy).

He said he didn’t understand the issue and talking to abuse survivors helped him understand it better, and that led to him changing his view. To me, that sounds like a person simply updating their views in response to new evidence-new to them even if much older to many others. Labelling it as “back-pedalling” seems to me to be needlessly uncharitable to him

It might be hard to understand why it took him so long to realise this-but I think you have to understand he occupies a very different position in society from most people, with the result he is often ignorant of mainstream trends, or feels no motivation to care about them. His former position on this was actually reasonably mainstream on the Left in the 60s/70s, so in itself far from unusual for someone of his vintage, what was unusual was it took him so long to abandon it (or at least learn to shut up about it). But, if you try to understand him, rational explanations for it taking him that long may occur to you

I’ve never seen any evidence he has any actual sexual interest in children - just that children are somewhat of an intellectual abstraction to him. Before I became a father, children were somewhat of an intellectual abstraction to me too. I think that is a large part of why the wrongness of his former view was not obvious to him in the way it is to many others

Post reply on HN