Yes, you are ill-informed.

I can write "EA-3167" and "pedophilia" in an article 100 times. Congratulations! You're now associated with pedophilia. That's a classic smear campaign.

Unless someone can cite something Stallman specifically said or did which implicates him, I'm passing on this as part of a smear campaign. I will not accept:

- An article reporting on an article reporting on a misquote of Stallman

- Subtext you read into something he wrote (his flaw is he doesn't get subtext to what he writes)

There's infinite communications from him. He has no filter. Go on. Find something. If you can't, accept you're wrong. The alternative is that I'll accept you're being malicious.

▲

EA-3167 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Ironically one of his fan’s “support pages” is a great source of just that.

https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai...

> “In 2006, Stallman published a controversial comment about the intention of pedophiles in The Netherlands to form a political party[1]. He wrote, I am skeptical of the claim that voluntary pedophilia harms children. People today don't think that a prepubertal human being—a child—is capable of understanding all the implications of sexual activity (in some cases this may be so even after puberty). So in widespread social opinion, the concept of “voluntary” does not apply.

In the same article, Stallman writes, [...] stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. This is not totally improper, it encompasses the immense diversity of beliefs about age of consent and morality across cultures.

As for laws, in the United States the criteria for determining age of consent and related issues differ across jurisdictions, some of them have raised the age of consent as recently as 2017 and 2019. Furthermore, the United States seems to have a double standard when it comes to these laws, since marriage of a child with an adult—even much older—is allowed under certain circumstances; we believe that this seriously disregards children's wellbeing in favor of some other “convenience.” Lastly, it may be surprising to some that age of consent in the US is 16 in 34 States”

Then the actual “defense of Stallman” bit is that he changed his mind or at least said he did… thirteen years later:

Whatever the reasoning that led Stallman to write those statements, the fact is that later he changed his mind:

> “14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong)

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 per 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.”

Note the date and remember this VERY late “change of heart” coincidentally took place one month after Epstein died and became the current sensation he remains.

That’s from an attempt defend him, and ironically the site is full of documentation of the hideous things he says and believes.

▲

blagie 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What you posted is a secondary source, which is exactly what I didn't ask for. Most of that text is not Stallman.

For reference, an original source is something like:

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

The so-called "article" is a one-line comment on a post in what looks like a 2006-era Twitter-style feed. I think one would see a similar amount of crazy from virtually anyone posting this much, without a filter.

Read it.

Do you believe Stallman is a pedophile on the basis of this comment?

I do not.

I've seen similar comments in academic texts, in the context of cultures where this happened and was acceptable (e.g. Greek pederasty in ancient Athens). From what I know of Stallman's communication style, I read this comment in a similar, if much less informed, light. He's making an incorrect but academic point, poorly.

	▲	EA-3167 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.