66
The Stallman report (stallman-report.org)
submitted 3 days ago by Lionir@beehaw.org to c/foss@beehaw.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 11 points 3 days ago

An anonymous hit job that reads like it was written by Ehmke. We should give this any credence because…?

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 28 points 3 days ago

An anonymous hit job

it's literally his own words all the way down here. if it's a "hit job" it's entirely Stallman's own fault for being a freak with morally abhorrent takes. one of the first things mentioned here is that he had to retract the position that "voluntarily pedophilia" doesn't harm children (a category of person he defines as anyone under about 13)! any reasonable person would find this abhorrent and Stallman a horrible person for ever having defended said position in the first place, because it is genuinely abhorrent to defend something like that. that's just child abuse.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago

it's entirely Stallman's own fault for being a freak

Takes notes

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

i mean, whom among us has not said such things, without retraction, as:

Cody Wilson [who at the time of his charging was 30] has been charged with “sexual assault” on a “child” after a session with a sex worker of age 16. [...] The article refers to the sex worker as a “child”, but that is not so. Elsewhere it has been published that she is 16 years old. That is late adolescence, not childhood. Calling teenagers “children” encourages treating teenagers as children, a harmful practice which retards their development into capable adults.

Mere possession of child pornography should not be a crime at all. To prosecute people for possessing something published, no matter what it may be, is a big threat to human rights.

A national campaign seeks to make all US states prohibit sex between humans and nonhuman animals. This campaign seems to be sheer bull-headed prudery, using the perverse assumption that sex between a human and an animal hurts the animal. That’s true for some ways of having sex, and false for others. For instance, I’ve heard that some women get dogs to lick them off. That doesn’t hurt the dog at all. Why should it be prohibited?

and whom among us has not had to retract such positions as:

There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

these are obviously positions that everyone would take the fall for if they had a blog.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
66 points (100.0% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

17853 readers
92 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS