GNU Guix 1.2.0 - Hackdot

Re:GNU Guix 1.2.0 by generalk on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:56PM (#25192427)

I mean, his own website?

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

  > I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia 
  > harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem 
  > to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are 
  > then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea 
  > that their little baby is maturing.

Please note that for the purposes of determining statutory rape, a person under the age of consent is not mature enough to give consent, so there cannot be "voluntary pedophilia."

https://stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#15_September...

  >  Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography"

This second seems to touch lightly on specific cases where the definition of "child pornography" should perhaps be in question -- but given RMS' stance from the former quote, it's not clear that this is the entirety of his viewpoint.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Guix 1.2.0 by gypsyharlot on Monday November 23, 2020 @05:29PM (#25192714)

See my answer to the guy below. He's arguing for a law such that child molesters can more easily get prosecuted, instead of prosecuting teenagers who have pictures of their girlfriends/boyfriends.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Guix 1.2.0 by generalk on Monday November 23, 2020 @07:41PM (#25193851)

That's one of the two links I posted, which I think Stallman did not link in the faith you give him (nor do I think was written in that same faith), but that's subjective.

The other is where he's doubting that pedophilia is harmful to children. So yeah, that's pretty well "in support of pedophilia." That one isn't subjective, it's the words he typed, and try as I might I can't find an interpretation where he's not saying pedophilia is fine.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Guix 1.2.0 by gypsyharlot on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @03:58AM (#25196608)

So he links to a post that wants to change the law such that pedophiles can more easily get caught, but you disagree, and feel that he linked to it in some sinister motivation that isn't expressed in said article. Alright...

If I said "I am skeptical that infants smoking weed is harmful to them", does it mean that I smoke weed, or that I smoke weed around infants? Or that I actively support it? Or do I (perhaps wrongfully) state that I am skeptical about claims around the topic?

Personally I think pedophilia is just about the most awful thing in the universe. I wouldn't engage in in depth speculation about how it affects children, because I think it's a horrible thing to think about, but the fact that RMS engages in those conversations doesn't make him a pedophile. And it definitely doesn't make him an "active supporter" of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]