This is possibly not a fitting reply but your comment reads like satire to me, in all honesty. Both your claims in your first phrase I believe are wholly incorrect and could only originate from an out-of-context, accusatory source such as some articles linked in this thread that could not be more obviously manufactured to frame a very specific and offending perspective on a —ridiculously enough— discourse over semantics. There's no reason to state such falsehoods as definitive truths, unless one has covert goals or may have to reconsider their own views with a clear mind.

I have read both RMS’ own statements on age of consent, I have read his statements defending minsky(s/p), and I’ve read firsthand accounts of students creeped out by his advances. None of those are acceptable for a person in a powerful position.

And you think that makes him a “statutory rape apologist” that seems like an unsupported , logical leap between your two posts.

There is no logical leap. This is a direct quote:

"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."

That quote is nothing to do with apologizing for statutory rape.

Also, statutory rape is completely different than child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is child sexual abuse and a much more serious crime than statutory rape.

I don’t think the quote above apologizes for either.

Since you conflated pedophilia with statutory rape, it would be irrational for me to claim you somehow support pedophilia because you claimed it was similar to statutory rape.

But I wouldn’t do that because trying to label you based on a single comment is foolish.

>Pedophilia is child sexual abuse

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children to be more specific, it is not child sexual abuse.

Good point, to be more accurate I should say that the crimes carried out because of pedophilia are more more severe than the crime statutory rape.

> RMS is a statutory rape apologist, and a defender of a pedophile.

Wasn't the entire point of his post to refute this interpretation of what happened? Does no one else notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

No, it's what ideology does to people. It makes us value abstract ideas over real persons. It's all based on ideas of purity and that impure people are somehow deserving of cancellation. If you side with "impure" persons, or even if you don't condemn them strongly enough, you're becoming impure yourself, that is their logic.

And for all this interest in purity they don't actually care about the people, their work, their aspirations, only that they obey the ideology.

Yes, it is 100% idiology. I think pushing the idea that sex with minors is ok, is morally wrong. I think defending those who victimize others is morally wrong. I think victimizing students that you have influence over with poorly thought out advances is morally wrong.

This is my moral opinion on the subject. Infinitely subjective.

You think and you act by taking part in the cancellation game where you got nothing to lose and only to win by pushing others down. How about we judge a person by the totality of his work and actions, not just those which play well in the "game"?

I reject his explanation. Plain and simple. I have read RMS’ own statements I have read firsthand accounts of his victims. I formed my own opinion.

So no point in 'apologies' of any sort. Let the cancellations continue and the medieval mob run wild over any letter spoken by this being.

Oh dear.

I don’t buy an apology after it blows up in His face when it is behavior that has been demonstrated, tolerated, and covered up for 20+ years.

This text is so exactly what I thought he should write, based on my understanding of him. It is 100% sincere and made me happy.

The person you are responding to is probably not strictly talking about the Minsky/Epstein stuff but adding in Stallman's other statements.

"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."

It was 18 years ago, he changed[0] his views later, but nobody mentions that for some reason...

[0] https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

Since a lot of people will read this page, but won't follow the link, I'm posting RMS' quote from your link:

> 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.

I think this quote demonstrates pretty well what kind of person RMS is. He's somewhere on the spectrum (aren't we all), and entirely human. He's grappling with his own beliefs, entertaining possibilities, and actively working to change his beliefs to be a better person.

I think so much of the current outrage is really about our society in general, and we're in desperate need of scapegoats because we can't actually target society at large, we can only "target" individuals.

That said, I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1656/1656-h/1656-h.htm

I’m actually against “cancel culture”. However, when children are involved, such disgusting comments don’t get a pass. Ever.

Just because He is on the spectrum doesn’t give him some pass to justify the rape of children. I will never forgive that.

If He is so addled with disability that He can’t understand why what He is saying is beyond the pale, why doesn’t He just shut the fuck up?

His words indirectly and perhaps directly promoted the harm of innocent children. It certainly did nothing to protect them.

Correct. Sorry you’re getting downvoted for something I should have made more clear.

You are viciously attacking online people you probably don't know personally. What does that tell me about you? Can I see you in just one color and interpret all your life based on a few crumbs of information? Because that's what you're doing, you're framing a human in black and white. There are shades.

Also, you're pushing the issues you're complaining about above any other issues and considerations. Life is complex, there are more issues that matter. Please stop judging people based on single issues, it's reductive and cruel.