Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 06:04:22 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 53 Message-ID: <86o8yu9ga1.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <8d3aceff-141f-46d0-a866-846536872173@googlegroups.com> <8cb592f0-14ff-4f3b-965c-0be0c2b30209@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a0bfc71282e15a9952a47d73886d6801"; logging-data="16009"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eU3noxMdPch67s77NhNl7J93k+kvYv6o=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:bGzWrob1/AhoLAyq/RhJkg1Owjk= sha1:BtPREBunmIMUNzvryTem9SvhnbE= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:146629 Jorgen Grahn writes: > On Sat, 2019-10-05, Manfred wrote: > ... > >> I didn't know about these happenings with RMS before reading this >> thread, however after reading your messages and the original email from >> RMS as linked by Tim Rentsch, > > https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/ > >> I think that RMS was not a victim of >> anyone else than himself, and by the way he was not an easy target at all. >> I agree with you that his was an attempt to defend Mr. Minsky, but, as I >> see it, the relevant fact here is that what came out of his pen (i.e. >> keyboard) was not a defense, it was just a sick message. >> >> A sensible defense would have been, for example, that there was no >> evidence that Mr. Minsky had actually had any sex with the girl, but >> instead RMS wanted to assert that there would have been nothing wrong >> (not only legally, but also ethically) with a 72 old man having a >> relationship with a 17 years old, and with this happening on Epstein's >> private island btw. >> That, in my opinion, is just sick. >> I mean, in the circumstance a sane person would ask himself: what's >> going on here? and stop. > > Did you really read the mail (linked upthread)? Where in it does he: > > 1. Defend Minsky? > 2. Say it's ethical for a 72-year old to have sex > with teenagers? > > Let me summarize it the way I read it: > > - He sets up a likely scenario: Minsky was there, the girl offered > sex, pretended to be willing, didn't say she was underage. They had > sex, and no violence was involved. > > - He argues that the term "sexual assault" should be reserved for > worse acts and writes aboid "accusation inflation". > > - And, that applying the term to Minsky is an "injustice". > He doesn't say what term should be applied instead. My reading pretty much agrees with yours. Stallman's email neither condemns nor condones the supposed actions of Marvin Minsky. The main point of that email is that whatever language is used should accurately reflect what (presumably) took place. I agree with this principle, and agree that it deserves being called out when it is violated, which it may have been in this instance. I also agree with Stallman's statement that his remarks were mischaracterized. The initial response posting to Stallman's mail clearly does this.