301–310 of 376 posts
“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children.” — Richard Stallman
Not that you would likely have heard about that since (like, say, Michael Jackson) pro-Stallman reporting is unwanted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stallman said a bunch of to try to either claim that the victims weren't victims. Or to try to downplay what happened. What he said was that the girl who was ordered to offer sex to Minsky would have been ordered to present it as if it was a willing offer. This should not have been controversial. One of the first things covered in Evil Villain School is that when you are using your slaves (sex or otherwise) to try…
She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time. So it really doesn't matter how "willingly" she may have presented herself. Also, come on, I'm 37 and I wouldn't have sex with a teenager. Even beyond legality (which isn't really an issue, the dude is dead) there are the ethical considerations. This dude was sketchy and RMS is sketchy for defending him.
My issue is that “sketchy” isn’t enough to block a speaker from presenting on a subject where they have expertise. If MLK was alive today, would be be blocked for the “sketchy” behavior of cheating on his wife? Not that I have expertise enough to be invited to speak anywhere, but would I be blocked for the “sketchy” behavior of defending MLK?
This all seems like bikeshedding and is decreasing our intellectual growth that comes from sharing ideas about free software and developing from them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. “Much better” in what sense? I think Minsky is guilty because using sex workers is categorically immoral. But most on HN don’t agree with me, and think that it would’ve been no problem had Virginia Giuffre been 18 and willing. In that case, doesn’t Minsky’s moral culpability turn on whether he knew Giuffre was 17 and unwi…
> because using sex workers is categorically immoral Disagree, but voted up. Unless using any workers is immoral, in which case I may agree . . .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, in the end, RMS lecture in 2023 was cancelled because of a controversy that happened 2 years ago that since then has been solved? IMO it just looks bad for EPFL if they decided to cancel the lecture based solely on this. If they knew about it, then why tell RMS he could hold a lecture only for them to cancel it on the last minute to bring back this topic again? Exaggerating a bit but this is like inviting Linus T…
EPFL PhD student here. This lecture was organised, and then canceled, by a student association called CLIC, not by EPFL. Notice that the linked website is not EPFL's
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you think I'm implying about their relationship. It is well-known that Gates continued to associate with Epstein after the latter was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution. There doesn't really need to be anything else to the story in my opinion. (Editing to be clearer: I don't think he is guilty of Epstein's crimes by association. I think he is guilty of associating with Epstein while bei…
What does "associate with" mean in this context? As in, what does it mean concretely? Genuine question. I've had friends ("associated with") that had criminal histories, some of them even quite severe. Of course, I took no part in those crimes, and I don't think anyone here would hold having friends with criminal histories against me.
I doubt as severe as what Epstein did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better Agree. Broadly speaking, if someone is accused of a moral crime about which you have no privileged information, publicly hypothesizing about how they might be innocent is tantamount to a defence. It's a limit on free speech. And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. But when stated publicly, the argument's c…
> And in private circles, it could be debated responsibly. To quote the original comment in this thread: ""The original Remove Richard Stallman post contained leaked communications from a private mailing list."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> advocating guilt by association? You using the word "guilt" suggests you're venturing into the strawman of "innocent until proven guilty", or that public opinion must follow the same rules as the judicial system. Even if he didn't do anything illegal, Jeffrey Epstein is gross and awful. It's totally fine for society to not want people "guilty" of associating frequently and voluntarily to be powerful and influential…
Maybe it's that I'm not rested right now but I find it hard to follow this train of thought because your reasoning is kinda wide, lofty and out there but I think OP means that it's irrational to throw Bill Gates entirely to the side based only on -another person- he associated with. Like how picky and fussy people refuse to touch something clean and unspoiled just because it sat next to something else that happened t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She was 17, and it happened in Florida where the age of consent was 18 at the time. So it really doesn't matter how "willingly" she may have presented herself. Also, come on, I'm 37 and I wouldn't have sex with a teenager. Even beyond legality (which isn't really an issue, the dude is dead) there are the ethical considerations. This dude was sketchy and RMS is sketchy for defending him.
I thought Minsky happened in the US Virgin Islands, where it was legal (but now isn’t, thankfully). My issue is that “sketchy” isn’t enough to block a speaker from presenting on a subject where they have expertise. If MLK was alive today, would be be blocked for the “sketchy” behavior of cheating on his wife? Not that I have expertise enough to be invited to speak anywhere, but would I be blocked for the “sketchy” be…
Just looking at the natural experiment of differing ages of consent in different First World countries there doesn't seem to be an inherent problem with an age of consent below 18.
In the US it is 18 in only 11 states (Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin).
It is 17 in 6 (Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Texas).
In the other 33 plus DC it is 16.
In Europe it is 18 in 3 countries (Vatican City, Turkey, Malta), 17 in 2 countries (Cypress, Ireland), 16 in 20 countries, 15 in 12 countries, and 14 in 14 countries.
It's 16 in Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and most of Australia (17 in the rest).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re right, that is a misquote. But what he actually wrote honestly wasn’t that much better. “Much better” in what sense? I think Minsky is guilty because using sex workers is categorically immoral. But most on HN don’t agree with me, and think that it would’ve been no problem had Virginia Giuffre been 18 and willing. In that case, doesn’t Minsky’s moral culpability turn on whether he knew Giuffre was 17 and unwi…
I honestly gotta ask. Why is it that half the planet commenting on young sex with very strong, very critical opinions, keeps confusing the age of consent with the age you're allowed to vote? On 99% of the planet, if a 17yo acts like, and is willing to screw your brains out, you're good to go and quite legal. In fact, same for a 16yo. In fact, on half the planet including a large portion stateside, that works for 15 t…
Woman find powerful man attractive? Srsly?
All woman I know don't give a f about 'powerful men'.
And while I think sex work should be allowed and legal, there needs to be a mechanism which makes it much much harder to coheres someone into doing sex work who actually doesn't want to do it but has no better option.
You know the people who do sex work because there is no other option. The kids! Who do this because of there parents .
People who do this due to pressure. People don't even go to the police if they are aware that a priest was molesting a child! People were not telling CK of who was mastorbating in the office!
And don't think most girls in Thailand like their jobs. They got used to.
What any documentation about prostitutes. They accept what they do. Seldom have I seen anyone saying 'oh I love my job's the opposite is true.
We take dreams from people because we can.
Even normal woman have so much pressure alone going out of the house without makeup.
Or having to have sex.
Most people are not as oversexed as you. Stop projecting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Categorically immoral, really? Utter nonsense. Morality is a cultural construct, that radically changes over time. Whoever thinks otherwise is simply ignorant there is a wider world outside their reality bubble.
I think "don't have sex with teenagers if you're a middle aged man" is pretty far from some sort of categorical dilemma.