Puberty was considered the adulthood age for mellinia, that is suitable for marriage (and is still considered so in several places).
Why is this a very controversial topic?
Why is this a very controversial topic?
And if he were a sociologist or anthropologist, published in the field with any reputation at all in it, who could speak on that complex dynamic over history and the interplay between environment, tradition, human biology, and social context, he might have a prayer of using reason to move the needle on the taboos in his own culture. But he's not. He's a professor in another field speaking way out on the deep end of a field he doesn't have the credentials to be taken seriously in.
We all have freedom of speech, but academic professors are expected to uphold a level of rigor that most people are not, and his writings on this topic harm his credibility and therefore, indirectly, his ability to advocate for free software.
But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise.
For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbled in neurobiology, which was well outside his area of expertise---his oft-repeated "reptile brain" theory basically doesn't match to a contemporary understanding of neuro-anatomy and didn't when he wrote Cosmos either. But because he shared it from his platform and wrote a book on the topic, "humans are a fish brain wrapped in a lizard brain wrapped in a monkey brain" is an oft-repeated untruth.
We hold those whose reputations and positions are built on knowledge more accountable to be right when they speak than we hold others. Stallman chooses to exercise his freedom of speech, and we choose to hold him accountable for his position on topics that have real consequences for people who aren't him.
Is this your euphemism for "cancelling"? Go to the court if there's a crime.
Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back.
... Besides, nobody in this story (including, I surmise, you) is actually against cancelling. Avoiding closed-source software because it doesn't align with the Four Freedoms is just cancelling. Cancelling is front-and-center in Free Software's toolbox.
It's the same thing: personal choice intended to influence the shape of the world.
This is your right, just like choosing the software. However, trying to force everybody to stop supporting FSF or to cancel Stallman without a fair process is very different and wrong.
Non-sarcastically: Overton Window
The fact that some countries/cultures are okay with child marriage doesn't mean that it's not absolutely disgusting.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty
The report's author(s) are advocating for removing RMS from positions of influence and authority from the free software community because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality, harasses women, and is a shitty human being.
Pretending that anyone ever has been jettisoned from their position or public life for "discussing" something - or that that's what's happening here - is insanely disingenuous.
He isn't. All your other accusations are baseless too.