Was he right when he wrote “I think it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17”?
Out of context, I see nothing wrong with that. Rape is rape. Location and age shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether something qualifies as rape or merely sexual assault. And while we’re at it, can we also get rid of the ass-backwards criteria in some jurisdictions that make being penetrated a requirement?
Maybe so, but it’s also like “is this really the hill you want to die on?”
What “maturity” is is a complicated and nuanced subject. Hell, some 50 year olds are less mature than 16 years old, what implications might that have? Not to mention how to even quantitatively measure maturity. You’re getting out in the weeds in a similar way of how you would regarding intelligence
At some point you just have to pick your poison, and saying “18 years is the age of consent” and strong protections for victims is considered good enough for most.
Edit: on re-reading, you didn’t say what I thought you said, that’s my bad, either way, I’ll keep this comment up assuming that stallman was arguing for changing age of consent laws.
Wild to assume that and not the much more reasonable idea that he was pointing out how absolutely insane it is that a couple can be making love in one area and cross an imaginary line and suddenly it’s rape because one of them is 17 and the other 19.
After reading the entire section I still don’t think I see your point of view. He says clearly that the girl was being harmed and doesn’t defend Epstein, in fact, criticizes him. It’s gross, but seems accurate to assume Epstein would have made his victims lie and act.
My point was that the context was about age of consent laws. I believe stallman backtracked afterwards a little, but he also has a history of skeevy behaviour, so I don’t know how much benefit of the doubt he should be given
Either way, the point was more regarding the whole “this is the hill you’re willing to die on?”, he could have just kept his mouth shut
I’m not really invested in the conversation regarding stallman, there are a couple of other additional reasons why I’m uncertain about him, but I leave this stuff to the organizations and the people affected. I just tried providing more context for the whole thing surrounding stallman, and why this stuff is not baseless
Was he right when he wrote “I think it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17”?
Out of context, I see nothing wrong with that. Rape is rape. Location and age shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether something qualifies as rape or merely sexual assault. And while we’re at it, can we also get rid of the ass-backwards criteria in some jurisdictions that make being penetrated a requirement?
Maybe so, but it’s also like “is this really the hill you want to die on?”
What “maturity” is is a complicated and nuanced subject. Hell, some 50 year olds are less mature than 16 years old, what implications might that have? Not to mention how to even quantitatively measure maturity. You’re getting out in the weeds in a similar way of how you would regarding intelligence
At some point you just have to pick your poison, and saying “18 years is the age of consent” and strong protections for victims is considered good enough for most.
Edit: on re-reading, you didn’t say what I thought you said, that’s my bad, either way, I’ll keep this comment up assuming that stallman was arguing for changing age of consent laws.
Wild to assume that and not the much more reasonable idea that he was pointing out how absolutely insane it is that a couple can be making love in one area and cross an imaginary line and suddenly it’s rape because one of them is 17 and the other 19.
Fine, look into the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Comments_about_Jeffrey_Epstein_scandal
The context was about Jeffrey Epstein
After reading the entire section I still don’t think I see your point of view. He says clearly that the girl was being harmed and doesn’t defend Epstein, in fact, criticizes him. It’s gross, but seems accurate to assume Epstein would have made his victims lie and act.
My point was that the context was about age of consent laws. I believe stallman backtracked afterwards a little, but he also has a history of skeevy behaviour, so I don’t know how much benefit of the doubt he should be given
Either way, the point was more regarding the whole “this is the hill you’re willing to die on?”, he could have just kept his mouth shut
I’m not really invested in the conversation regarding stallman, there are a couple of other additional reasons why I’m uncertain about him, but I leave this stuff to the organizations and the people affected. I just tried providing more context for the whole thing surrounding stallman, and why this stuff is not baseless
Yes.
Saying one correct thing doesn’t mean everything else you say is right