Well, never mind Stallman, didn't the law used to agree on that? Wasn't e.g. Jerry Lee Lewis, an adult, allowed to legally marry his 13-year old cousin (as well as countless other people)?

I find it bad myself (I'd say: have sex after 16 and generally with people closer to their age progressively -- e.g. a 16 yo should be able to sleep with a 18 year old, but not sure with a 25 or 40 year old, it would be more manipulative. After adult age, at 18 of course, anything should go), but from what I read:

"As of May 2019, in all but two states, a minor can marry with parental consent or with judicial authorisation, with the minimum marriage age, when all exemptions are taken into account, being as low as 14, and potentially lower."

So, if judges are OK with this, how can Stallman lose their job, not because he did it, but because he merely theorized about people doing it?

> No actually I think I can make it clearer. Here's Stallman himself summarizing his own words

That is not making it clearer. First, I was interested in how you interpreted the quote you used as you did. This doesn't make it clearer. Secondly, I don't know if the quote you are using now is referencing the firs quote or something else. I suspect that you do not either.

Also it seems that you have some axe to grind against the man. Here is the full quote:

>> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

>> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

> In those words he was saying that in some cases there is nothing wrong with an adult having sex with a child.

We are not talking about those words, are we?

At this point of the conversation, your rejectal to accept that "Paedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" effectively means "Paedophilia isn't always wrong" or "Paedophilia is sometimes fine/ok" (understanding that what could be wrong about Paedophilia is precisely the possible harmful effects for the children involved) is starting to look malicious.

Just to be clear, I agree with everything that's being said in this article. I can't understand how some people read Stallman's words and understand the exact opposite of what he is saying. But I find equally incomprehensible how can you read that quote and still need an explanation on how one thing implies the other.

Ok let's just clear this up once and for all because we're in some deep thread spiral here.

Here's where it all started:

> Me: "No, but he did say that having sex with children is sometimes fine"

> You: "Can you quote/link those instances since the two statements that you quoted don't say that at all."

Here is a statement from Stallman himself summarizing his own words: "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it."

So he said himself that what he was saying back then was that in some instances there is nothing wrong with sex between an adult and a child.

This is my answer to your original question. He explained it himself.