Just to be clear, are you saying that you disagree with Stallman, that we _should_ morally define rape depending on the country it was committed in?

That is to say, if a 16yo had sex with an adult in Niagara Falls, ON where the age of consent is 16, then no moral crime had been committed, but if the two crossed over to New York where the law states 17, then the elder of the two is a rapist in your eyes? I believe that's the point Stallman was trying to make, and I'm curious to hear if you dsiagree.

The commenter is saying that the poster perhaps deliberately mischaracterised the actual complaints against Stallman to belittle the complaint and that's embarrassing.

I'm trying to understand what you are accusing him of... but I don't actually see any actions or conduct towards real life individuals.

It seems like you're offended by his opinions to the point that you think he should be removed from his career - which also has nothing to do with the subject of the comments he made.

I'm also glad you posted his specific comments so that people can see what all this drama is about - instead of the vague name-calling.

On the surface, his two comments seem at least rational - even if I don't agree with them. Is it "moral" to define the same act as "rape" depending upon which country it occurs? That's a pretty reasonable question. Is it plausible than the victim in the case above "presented herself" as willing? I don't know - that's plausible I suppose, isn't it?

What's so heinous about these comments that you think he should have his career destroyed?

This is even worse. So this is not about he did something? Just he voiced his opinion on something?

Do you even mob justice bro?

1) Stallman was attempting to morally distinguish sex with a minor who was being coerced by a third party with rape or assault. He wasn't saying that the former is right, only that it's less bad than the latter, and that the distinction is important. You can say "he shouldn't have approached such a radioactive topic" but the moral philosopher in Stallman compelled him to; not addressing it meant conceding defeat to people who conflate less bad actions with worse actions for their own gain. For example, to name one closer to Stallman's wheelhouse: conflating copyright infringement with theft. Or piracy. The very fact that sexual offenses are radioactive provides ample opportunity for information and context to be lost about the nature and severity of a deed, and this has dire real-world consequences for people. People end up on sex-offender registries for life for relatively innocuous offenses like peeing on the side of the road or being that weird kid who tried to kiss a girl in his elementary school class. Do you think the report of the offense will say "oh yeah, he was a weird kid who didn't know how to act appropriately around girls back in the fifth grade, but a talking to from the principal set him straight"? No, it will say "INDCNT ASSAULT, VICTIM UNDER 12". What do you think that means to anyone reading the report? Like a neighbor, landlord, or employer? That's why these moral distinctions are important.

2) At least two eyewitnesses, including Minsky's widow, claimed that Minsky turned down Epstein's girl. He only took money from Epstein back before it was widely known that Epstein was a perv. At what point do we say "let's not drag Minsky's name any further through the mud"? Should we disbelieve these accounts because #BelieveAllWomen? Should we assume that Minsky did in fact have sex with Epstein's girl because of a "context" in which Minsky's friends and associates are known, or thought, or assumed, to have done likewise? Should we adopt a Wikipedia-like standard of evidence wherein the abridged, quoted out of context, sometimes heavily distorted press accounts are considered more authoritative than reports from people who were there?