Hacker News Reader

Comment by CathedralBorrow | Hacker News Reader

If someone tells me they think that it's sometimes fine to have sex with children, I don't need any evidence of action to want to distance myself from that person.

> If anything, it's you who left out the part where Stallman already said, before this incindent, that he was wrong. I.e. he said it because he actually changed his mind and believes he was wrong, not in order to "save face" or clear his image or avoid scandal or whatnot.

He posted that after the storm had started, three days before his resignation. A few days after the "Remove Richard Stallman" Medium post was written.

Do you think that's a complete coincidence? Has nothing to do with saving face and only his desire to explain that he had changed his mind?

View on HN

>they think that it's sometimes fine to have sex with children

From what I can tell from the snippets posted here, he isn't saying it's fine, he's saying he's seen insufficient evidence to form an opinion - and in such a state, he resists those who would force one on him with faulty reasoning. Or, to put it another way, he views morality with three responses [yes, no, I don't know], which causes friction with people who view it with two:

"Is involuntary pedophilia bad?" [yes] "Is all pedophilia bad?" [idk - insufficient evidence on voluntary or its inherent lack of existence] "Do you think that all pedophilia is bad?" [no - position held is idk, not yes] "Therefore, you think all pedophilia is good." [no - position held is idk, not yes]

A similar comparison might be being asked if you enjoyed an unreleased book, then using "no[, I haven't read it and formed an opinion]" to justify "you think the book is bad."

ETA: also, if he hasn't said more on the subject in recent years, it's silly to assume that he necessarily still hold these views or lack thereof.

I don't think there's anything I can say to reply to this, since the strawman you've raised is not at all similar to what my views are. And I generally think it's a cheap trick to assume that other people disagree because their minds are too simple to comprehend.

> Do you think that's a complete coincidence?

You are right - I was under the impression that was posted earlier, but he posted that immediately after the email thread was "leaked" to Vice. It's no coincidence; I still think that, given his previous as well as ulterior behavior, as well as the timing, that it's a clarification he felt he needed to make (given the public accusations that started pouring). I.e. it still doesn't look to me like a dishonest attempt to save face by hiding his controversial opinions... he reacted too quick with that, while ignoring everything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com