Hacker News Reader

Comment by cptskippy | Hacker News Reader

> You're using the same language of the weapon's builder to try to accuse me of defending child molesters.

Drawing parallels between the way you attack the character of someone rather than the merits of their argument is accusing you of defending child molesters? Are you implying Stallman himself is a child molester? I'm thoroughly confused.

It was my understanding that Stallman was imploring people to use a more accurate term in describing his friend's actions because he felt the other term invoked harsher connotations. How does that make him a child molester?

> It's not my fault if she is a nobody (she really is) that builds weapons for the US military (she really does)

What does any of that have to do with what she said? You're not arguing the merits of what she said but rather that we shouldn't listen to her because of her notoriety and career choice.

View on HN

> > It's not my fault if she is a nobody (she really is) that builds weapons for the US military (she really does)

> What does any of that have to do with what she said?

Person with questionable morals [1] making moral judgement claims suggests that the whole thing was manufactured. I wouldn't even exclude a possibility that she received some money to publish the things that she did.

[1] as her career choice clearly shows she has no problem with wars, which are known to cause death, including death of children, actual rape of young girls, organ harvesting and pretty much anything awful you can think of in this world wars have

She worked on the guidance systems for an autonomous ground vehicle for the DoD that's basically a proof of concept at this point.

We're equating that to war monger?

> war monger

war mongers become war mongers one drone at the time.

As was the atomic bomb at one point in time. There may be exceptions for unintended uses of the technology you develop (a la Alfred Nobel), but there's not a lot of wiggle room when you work for the DoD.

You were hired to develop things that will eventually be used to kill people. That's the end goal of the job. Whether you make anything usable or not is somewhat beside the point, the intention is still there.

How many people were killed by tech that uses FSF code? Quite a lot I bet...

> I'm thoroughly confused.

You are indeed.

> Drawing parallels between the way you attack the character

I didn't attack the character, I only portayed the character for who she is.

No judgment attached, just the crude reality: she builds weapons for US military and uses a very aggressive and dehumanizing vocabulary.

I would never use "remove" when referring to another human being, alive or dead.

> It was my understanding that Stallman was imploring people to use a more accurate term in describing his friend's actions because he felt the other term invoked harsher connotations

He was concerned that the term "sexual assault" would be disputable by critics.

because legally and in layman's terms has a completely different connotations (people associate assault with physical violence, the law doesn't)

> What does any of that have to do with what she said?

I think it's interesting that a person who would like to "remove" other people ends up building weapons instead of schools for refugee kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com