• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    “The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, ‘prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia’ also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”

    RMS on June 28th, 2003

    "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. "

    RMS on June 5th, 2006

    "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

    RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

    You can find these on Stallman’s blog, which I believe is Stallman.org iirc. Just go to the dates I provided.

    • Mike@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I cannot find any of this on his blog, why didn’t you just link to his blog?

        • Mike@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          You pasted the domain not an actual blog post link. And you’re the one making these claims about him on a forum, does it really surprise you when someone asks for the source? Sorry you had to google something.

          • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            You were the one looking for proof? Then you do the googling.

            That is how this shit works, genius.

            • Mike@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              This makes no sense. This person made a claim and I asked what the source was. Shouldn’t they know where their own comment came from?

              • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Mike, you came at this person twice. He gave you a url and since you’re on Lemmy we assume you’re at least halfway internat savvy.

                In my shoes I’d have at least put in a few minutes of effort to look for the information on that site. Or even a general search. ANYTHING to evince my capability for critical thought.

                You were given 99% more than most are in this type of exchange and still lazily demanded more. You didn’t just ask and you weren’t all that polite. I found it lazy. That you appear to feel a keen need to have the last word in this type of situation is also worth a bit of reflection.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            You calmed down? You agree he supports paedophilia, yes? The evidence is right there. I provided sources for you a bunch of times.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I gave a link to the source, his blog, and gave instructions on how to find each statement. I even gave timestamps.

            I gave you the source as soon as you asked. The source is Stallman’s blog, stallman.org.

            Apology accepted, don’t worry about it.

            Anyway, the point is, yes, Stallman has been a repeated defender of paedophilia and having sex with family pets.