Richard M. Stallman resigns

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by loeg on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:14AM (#20991459)

Minors having sex with themselves is basically out of scope here. Yes, it varies state by state and some states punish kids for things they absolutely should not be punished for. But we don't need to litigate the nitty gritty details of statutory rape laws.

The case under discussion was a minor and some guy at least a decade older; not two minors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by seanmcdirmid on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:37AM (#20991603)

Parent said specifically:

> There are no subtleties. Minor's cannot consent

But, no, there are actually subtleties.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by loeg on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:41AM (#20991635)

You pulled that quote out of context; preceding it is:

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by seanmcdirmid on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:53AM (#20991700)

I admitted to getting the spirit of the comment in my first one. But the path the comment went down by being so general exceeded the context if Stallman’s point.

[ Parent | on HN ]