> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

THE EXACT SAME QUOTE on the page you linked. I get it. Do yourself a favor and stop making excuses for him, you can still support the points he makes about FOSS without defending the rest or the man himself. His problem isn't communication style it's the content of what he says that's a problem.

I also never said "Stallman is a pedophile" I said he supports pedophilia. That comment alone, never mind the others, is more than enough to make that claim. Have a lovely weekend.

The above commenter and others have made the claim that Stallman is just being "precise" and "correct" about a misapplication of what sexual assault means, which is exactly besides the point and a red herring. They have also made the claim that "she would have presented herself as entirely willing". That is also besides the point. A 17 year old is a child, and that should have been enough for Minksy to not have engaged with her like that, and to recognize that Epstein was taking advantage of her (and in fact, trying to take advantage of him by offering her to him). That should have been enough. Making arguments about definitions or that she appeared "willing" are illegitimate attempts to deflect a serious moral failing. That in and of itself is a moral failing of Stallman, compounding Minsky's failing by trying to defend it.

> Stallman's comments, if read logically like a computer, are generally strictly correct. Stallman's comments, if read inferentially like a human might, often imply abhorrent things.

That's not true. I understand the drive to categorize it as such, but if you look at the context of what he said, which is even mentioned in that article, you will realize that this is not a "definitional" issue or have anything to do with strict precision of terms.

That is a red herring that you are getting stuck on and using to defend him. I don't care about whether or not he thinks they are applying a word that he disagrees on the definition. I will cede that if you wish, because it is besides the point and not what he is actually arguing.

He (like you) is making the claim:

> Coincidentally, it's highly unlikely Minsky did anything wrong.

That is demonstrably an incorrect statemet. We may not a definitive morality that I can point to you and we both agree to the letter, but a 73 year old man should have the wisdom to recognize that sleeping with children is damaging to children even if they appear willing.

I will grant that Minsky's participation was probably not the most damaging thing in her life, but he chose to participate and he harmed her, contrary to what you and Stallman are claiming. It is unfortunate that we have many men (and women) who believe and like Stallman and Minsky. It shows that we need to address this and train ourselves better, so that everybody is on the same page when it comes to how we let children develop in our culture.