> trotting out years and years of evidence
I haven’t read of any evidence, just what sounds like rumor starting and spreading
I haven’t read of any evidence, just what sounds like rumor starting and spreading
https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...
Including gems such as
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)”
And
“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.”
Plus
“There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
He has all of the sudden backtracked on his decades long-held opinion that sex between adults and children is ok less than two weeks ago:
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
Personally I find the age when the brain is fully developed to carry a bit more significance, ie around age 25. Before that the brain is still being assembled and yet we expect people to make life or death decisions while driving, serving the military, have correct impulse control and follow the law just as everyone else.
What would a "spectrum of consent" even look like? 'First base' at one age, second at another, etc.?
RMS: "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)”
Just because it's the letter of the law doesn't mean we are forbidden from discussing changing it.
> “There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.”
This is quoted out of content, here is the full quote: "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. [with a link to https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-...]
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue."
He did not take the "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children" statement out of his butt, it was the conclusion that he formed after reading this article.
But even then, I do not see how his opinions regarding paedophilia are relevant to the topic at hand.
Also, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't particulalry disagree with or think any of the things you list in your comment are fireable.
Not fireable, for the public role of leader of an organization? They're held to higher standards of conduct, whether we like it or not;
holding forth in public on opinions that 1) run counter to mainstream society in a way that's going to piss off a lot of people and 2) have nothing to do with the organization are a distraction, and a sign that leader's losing the thread on what their organization goals are and how to accomplish that.
In short, you can lead a software advocacy organization, or you can publish your opinions on aborting fetuses with down syndrome and your skepticism about pedophilia harming children, but you can't do both for long. (Unless you're stallman, then you can do it for decades before someone says, "hey, this guy's making the free software movement look bad".)