The case under discussion was a minor and some guy at least a decade older; not two minors.
> There are no subtleties. Minor's cannot consent
But, no, there are actually subtleties.
> He was trying to argue the subtleties of child rape. There are no subtleties.
Virtually everyone knows there are subtleties around statutory rape in general! But you're missing the forest for the trees here. We're not discussing statutory rape in general but the specific instance that Stallman was defending. You're technically correct in that the very last sentence of martinky24's comment was literally inaccurate, but you are wholly incorrect in your understanding of the spirit of the comment and subsequent dismissal of the rest of it.
The subjects Stallman was discussing are not ambiguous first principle pseudo-persons of nebulous or similar ages. They are an old guy and a coerced, underage girl. Period. There is no subtlety here.
I think this way of describing it expresses more the position that the occurrence is unfortunate, and all else being equal, best avoided.
To say “two 14 year olds had entirely consensual sex with eachother” seems to possibly express that the occurrence described is not unfortunate.
Also, If a 12yo and a 15.5 yo did, I think we very well might say that the 15.5 yo committed rape, even though neither person was an adult, Yet if both were 12, people wouldn’t call it that.
So, I don’t think it is only if one party is an adult. Also if one party is substantially closer to being an adult.
Isn't that just a misreading though? You're applying a connotation that isn't there. Many of us don't associate "consensual" with "A-ok" (e.g. I'm anti-pornography).
Though the topic is beginning to cause me more discomfort than it was. Guess I wore through my “discuss uncomfortable topics without feeling uncomfortable” reserves.
Edit: That isn’t a complaint about what anyone else is doing though. I am merely noting my own limitations, and no one needs to do anything to accommodate them in this instance. Continue on as if I hadn’t mentioned them?
A teen shared a video of her own legal sex act, convicted as child pornographer
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20854920
And it's especially horrifying because she got convicted because she wanted to try to stop someone else from spreading it all over the school. It was just supposed to be seen by a few close friends.
All that I really know is that I am grateful, once again, to have been a teenager in an age before the proliferation of smart phones and social media.
Let’s not criminalize kids being kids because of some strict morality code.