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.