It's $CURRENT_YEAR, I don't think we should argue pedophilia. Or rape. Or Slavery. Some things should be considered settled.

> It's $CURRENT_YEAR, I don't think we should argue pedophilia. Or rape. Or Slavery. Some things should be considered settled.

That's a bit like saying that since we proved the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, that we can now throw away all proofs of it and simply assert it.

If it took civilization a long time to figure out that slavery is wrong, or that children can't consent to sex, then it's an error that people will continually fall into; every new person that is born needs to be taught not only that those things are true, but why those things are true.

"Settled" should not mean that there is a clear, concise description of exactly why something is wrong to point somebody to and / or repeat every time someone asks. It should not mean, "We shout down and ostracize anyone who asks, 'OK, but why?'"

The ostracism comes when you've been told the "why" repeatedly over decades, and still choose to publicly take the position that calculus doesn't exist.

Absolutely - some things are agreed upon to be morally outrageous.

This doesn't mean, to me, that we should condemn those who have historically stated things that are not aligned to those morals. I'm unequivocally not arguing in support of pedophilia I'm arguing against shutting down free discussion and open transference of ideas.

In fact, we should celebrate that rms has/had actually been open with these statements. Speech should not be restricted, in my (admittedly very liberal) viewpoint.

the arguments need to be presented again to each generation because human nature will take us right back there if given the chance. what should be and what is are two different things.