Yes, that is the Minsky comment I mentioned that apparently renders people illiterate and incapable of understanding what they read.

What Stallman said is "the people who were trafficked, probably did not tell the people they were trafficked to, that they were being trafficked and were there unwillingly."

I don't see how saying that is a "defense of Jeffrey Epstein".

▲

elif 6 hours ago | parent [-]

"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per1 psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they become adolescents or teenagers. Let’s resist the practice of infantilizing teenagers, by not calling them “children”."

THESE ARE THE WORDS RICHARD STALLMAN POSTED ON HIS OWN WEBSITE WITHOUT BEING PROMPTED.

please defend this. i really really want to see you stoop this low.

EDIT: OKAY i'm being DOWNVOTED for bringing these words to light. officially y'all are now covering up for child sex criminals. Sickening.

▲

margalabargala 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why would I defend that? That part's pretty cut and dry.

Him posting that doesn't have anything to do with you telling lies about defending Epstein. Both are shitty.

Is it now appropriate for me to tell lies about you defending Epstein, because you did something shitty (falsely accusing others of defending Epstein)?

▲

elif 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

or am i "not understanding his meaning" here somehow again?

	▲	margalabargala 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Look, we know you think you understand what you think you read. It's just that you don't seem to realize that what you perennially appear to have understood, is not what anyone wrote.