this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
1301 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
59428 readers
2820 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IDK, I agree with Stallman in a philosophical, pedantic sense on some of his gross views, but I reject it from a policy perspective.
On pedophilia, Stallman went on the assumption that a child can consent to an adult, and I agree with the conclusion that, if they consent, it's totally okay, regardless of age. But he missed the most important bit: children can't consent. So I agree with the conclusion philosophically, I just disagree with the assumed premise. He didn't seem to understand the age of consent and why it exists. When he made that statement, I understood where he was coming from, and I also understood that it would be a bad look and that he shouldn't have opened his mouth.
I disagree with him a lot too, especially politically. But I feel like I understand his reasoning, and in many cases we just disagree on some fundamental assumptions. I like that he's a very logical person, but being highly logical can end very poorly when you're dealing with shaky assumptions.
I just can't even begin to reckon that view. I know he pulled back on it (see his quote I posted elsewhere), but aside from a child's inability to consent, there's a gigantic power disparity between an adult and a child. I just don't get the logic on its very face. There's no child out there that has the world experience to understand what is happening in that sort of situation.
If anything it's just a gross oversimplification akin to a spherical cow in a vacuum (ie Assume a child with an adult brain, with world experience of an adult, and has the same relationship power as the adult. Also assume the adult that that is perfectly altruistic, has no alternative motives, and truly cares for the child on the same level as an adult relationship). It's just so far beyond any real world scenario that I struggle to see how you could even logically come to the conclusion that it's okay.
The hypothetical here is that the child sought out the adult, not the other way around, and the child is near legal age and presents as if legal age. Given that set of assumptions, how much liability does the adult have?
That is the philosophical part of it. But reality isn't that neat. Here are some questions that need to be asked:
I don't think Stallman considered that, I think he only considered the hypothetical.