The point of an analogy is to be similar in some single illustrative way, not to be similar in all ways. If someone finds themselves "in love" then they could make some kind of argument based on that, but it wouldn't make the "but it would be legal somewhere else" argument any more compelling.

That's what you think happened here? You think Epstein felt in love? With a child being trafficked for sex?

No, of course not. That's why my comment didn't mention Epstein or sex trafficking, only the terrible comparison with parking regulations.

Thank you for making this point. It's somehow been mostly lost in the noise of this thread that the main reason RMS's comments are so unacceptable is because he gave this defense (theoretical or not) of someone accused of having sex with a child trafficking victim. Not because he happens to have socially unacceptable opinions about certain corner cases in consent laws. Fortunately in this case, there's a very very bright line, and RMS was way over it.

I mean, his defense was of Minsky, not Epstein. RMS believes that Minsky likely wasn't aware of of either her age nor the coercion so Minsky could hardly be blamed for not knowing. I haven't followed this too closely (except on HN) but I think that incident also predated Epstein's first trial (conviction?).

I suspect (and really really hope) RMS wouldn't have such a defense for Epstein himself.

RMS has in fact called Epstein a "serial rapist" and expressed that he should have received a much harsher sentence than he did.