51–60 of 237 posts
Ironic that the only way I was able to read that article was through non-free software (Google Translate). Hope he's OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, if only he were in the United States where you don't have to rely on the Government for medical care...
I'm nervous about moving to the states because of just that. Here in New Zealand it's easy because we're all guaranteed access to a great public health system, no matter what. You can buy private insurance and expedite certain things if you want, but the public system is always there and available to everyone. Moving to the US and having to deal with health insurance makes me nervous.
Don't worry, your nervousness will be replaced by anger soon enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but in US you have to have a lot of money for receiving a very basic and fundamental human right: medical care...
I wasn't going to respond to this to avoid prolonging this burgeoning off-topic health care flamewar, but I figured that in the name of cross-cultural understanding, I'd correct you: Hospitals in the US are obligated to treat any emergency patient regardless of whether they can pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but in US you have to have a lot of money for receiving a very basic and fundamental human right: medical care...
I wasn't going to respond to this to avoid prolonging this burgeoning off-topic health care flamewar, but I figured that in the name of cross-cultural understanding, I'd correct you: Hospitals in the US are obligated to treat any emergency patient regardless of whether they can pay.
And even if you do have insurance or the ability to pay, or (AFAIK) if a hospital waives payment for someone indigent, there's still a metric ton of paperwork to be filled out, which makes doing my taxes seem simple and fun by comparison. Don't even get me started on the catastrophically bad state of medical record-keeping.
Social/Moral question: Is it acceptable to wish Mr. Stallman well in light of allegations that he has advocated for truly awful practices? e.g. Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. http://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html
Being skeptical of a claim isn't the same as advocacy.
I can’t read the man’s mind, but I do know that he has made a choice to discuss the subject and a choice to poke holes in an argument made by one side of the subject, and the choice to leave that comment right there without any attempt at balance or qualification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, my comment on the situation was "My thoughts are with RMS, an important voice and pioneer:” https://twitter.com/#!/raganwald/status/200664134960939008 I got an earful about him from other people both publicly and privately, and I also recall a thread right here on HN a while back where there were allegations of (and spirited discussion about) his interest in getting young men into his hotel room at conferen…
True enough. I have less of a problem with him than I do those who consider him infallible. They're already at work in this thread; your comment was gray when I replied to it, and the same fate is befalling those who reply to you.
Social/Moral question: Is it acceptable to wish Mr. Stallman well in light of allegations that he has advocated for truly awful practices? e.g. Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. http://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html
Social/Moral question: Is it acceptable to wish Mr. Stallman well in light of allegations that he has advocated for truly awful practices? e.g. Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. http://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html
It is all right for someone to be skeptical about any commonly held view, except when it's about sex with minors.
In any discussion about any kind of sex with anyone under 18 whatsoever, if you're not 100% fully completely convincedly against it, then you're a bad person!!1
Why can't we just discuss this? Like we can discuss anything else? Especially in the US, where the norm appears to be that the KKK people and the Westboro Baptist nutcases are insane, but they should still be allowed to say what they think? Why is that ok with nazis and homo haters, but not for people who are merely skeptical about the current social norm wrt sex with minors?
It's this same attitude that allows governments to block half the internet, it's to seek out the child pornographers! What, you're against my law? Hey guys, this one here is in favour of child pornography!
Note: I completely share the common opinion that sex with minors is bad and that there are only very few edge cases to be found where it isn't (e.g. a sexually active couple, both 17 years old, one turns 18 and is now a peadophile? surely not). I just think that, like everything else in the world, if we're civilized, we'll allow the discussion.
Social/Moral question: Is it acceptable to wish Mr. Stallman well in light of allegations that he has advocated for truly awful practices? e.g. Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. http://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html