I agree. This "debunking" is simply a defense of Stallman's views on pedophelia. And Stallman's statement is still on his website. Nothing has changed,

https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html

I'm being downvoted into oblivion by people who believe children should be able to choose to have sex with adults. I have to guess because the downvoters won't leave comments defending their position of support for sex between children and adults. I am surprised that they exist on Hacker News, not by their cowardice.

Richard Stallman has changed his views on the matter with a very sincere newer note. I am not ok with adults having sex with children by the way and I never was.

Now, at what age do you think that a child is capable of giving consent to undergo hormone therapy and gender altering treatments or operations in general? Is 8 good? I think there has been some, you know, discussion about this as well.

All of these "taboo" matters have to be discussed at some point. Scientists discuss them and society discusses them every now and then, and they will be rediscussed sometime in the future, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 50, maybe in 200. It is kind of natural to discuss things.

The people who downvote you do not believe what you claim they do. That's the true reason you are downvoted.

Also, you are twisting the facts by trying to present a discussion about a certain topic as a call to engage in sexual activity.

As I said, I had to guess at why people were downvoting me because they weren't saying. A couple of people have since left comments. I am aware that children have complicated sexual feelings based on my own experience as a child. I think there's a time and a place to discuss this topic, such as between parents, doctors and educators. When RMS and other older males want to discuss childhood sexuality in broad terms it raises suspicions for many people. I think most people accept this reality, except perhaps the authors of this website. That was my point.

> I had to guess at why people were downvoting me because they weren't saying.

And you guessed "they're downvoting me because they're pedophiles?"

Maybe people aren't responding to you because they feel that from your initial frame on the topic and your decision to frame opponents on it as bad people, no fruitful discussion with you can be had.

I said "I'm being downvoted into oblivion by people who believe children should be able to choose to have sex with adults" I didn't say the were pedophiles. Some people believe the age of consent should be lowered. They don't necessarily have to be pedophiles and I'm not calling them that. Also, I've been on HN long enough to know most people don't bother to downvote. They do if they feel strongly about an issue. I think the opposite position of mine is that children should be able to make their own decisions about sex.

No, it is rather a defense of skepticism rather than of specific opinions. It does not say that both of them are the same.

>RMS deserves all the rejection he is getting for this sentiment alone

How so? He posts his raw thoughts in his blog. Surely we would not want to discourage skepticism and rationalism just because these thoughts are not currently common.

Please remember: the paradox of tolerance concerns these who withdraw from public dialog and instead take actions against these with different opinions and characteristics instead of engage them in a debate.

As for the other charges, they are similarly dubious at best.