Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Is Stallman nuts?

[TechLibre]

My 17 year old can't go to the US Virgin Islands with out my consent and 
neither did any of these young ladies without parental/state actor's help.

The consent issue and very poor to criminal parenting are intertwined. 

In a society where Billy Ray helps Hanna Montana become Miley, I guess we have 
to unravel that on an FSF thread by blaming Stallman for raising exactly that 
issue.

I have teenagers with 2 passports. I live in a country with 1 million brand new 
Venezuelan refugees.

Trust me, the consent and law 'popular opinions' are the problem, zero 
kids/girls/women will be pulled off the stroll in Lima Peru by this mailing 
list.

The same applies in Cambridge, Mass.

The tragedy is, there's enough money and brain power on this list to change 
hundreds of individual lives beyond FreeSoftware, but no keyboards would be 
involved and you'd most certainly end up around people who make you 
uncomfortable.

I'm going to hold my record of fixing zero of Stallman's bugs, and Epstein's 
look all done.

There's this one bug though...where a young woman might think getting on a 
plane with a rich guy for the weekend is a good idea and her best option to 
make money.

Damn I hate that bug.
-- 
Freesoftware is Agorism for people who are good at computer.

On September 15, 2019 2:40:03 PM GMT-05:00, MARY-ANNE WOLF <mgwmgw@comcast.net> 
wrote:
>Let me make sure that I understand the distinction that is being
>claimed here.  A young lady who is in fact young enough to be below the
>age of giving sexual consent "presents herself as being willing" to
>Epstein, an adult man aged over 21.  This happens with multiple
>underage girls on more than one occasion.
>
>So if Epstein has sex with each underage girl after she "presents
>herself as being willing", are you arguing that statutory rape has not
>occured?  If so, on what grounds?
>
>If it were one girl, we could debate whether Epstein believed that the
>young lady was older than was the case.  If we are talking about
>multiple underage girls, using an airplane named "The Lolita Express"
>that becomes much less plausible. I think we can assume he knew how
>young they were.
>
>So if a girl too young to give sexual consent tries to do so, and an
>adult male repeatedly acts as if he believes that she is old enough to
>give consent, does her action get him off the hook?  I do not think so.
>And if this happens with girl after girl after girl after girl? 
>Really?
>
>If you believe that statutory rape did occur, then what does presenting
>herself as willing have to do with it?  Why bring that up?  Legally
>speaking, she was raped, no matter what she said first.
>
>So how is Stallman not trying to excuse statutory rape by what he
>posted?
>
>Mary-Anne
>
>
>> On September 15, 2019 at 2:46 PM Michael Downey <michael@downey.net>
>wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I have not read the commentary articles, nor do I intend to. I have,
>on the other hand, read the comments by the FSF President and Board
>member on the mailing list in question. They are entirely inappropriate
>comments for someone in his public position to be making.
>> 
>> I spend my day job trying to convince large governments and NGO's of
>the value of free software. Once again they see the FSF leader behaving
>inappropriately and I have to make excuses for him and the organization
>that continues to provide him safe harbor, and explain that they don't
>represent the values of the free software movement. 
>> 
>> I'm exhausted of doing that. The board has had many opportunities to
>remove him from his role yet each time back down. 
>> 
>> As a single individual associate member, I can't do much. But I can
>(and have) revoked my 15+ year membership and am removing all
>references to the FSF in materials from my day job. We just can't be
>associated with that kind of public behavior any more.
>> 
>> The letter I sent to the FSF follows. I'll be unsubscribing from this
>mailing list too, unfortunately, but encourage others to reconsider
>their support until the board acts in a way true to its public charter.
>For the sake of software freedom, I hope my absence is short-lived.
>> 
>> - Michael
>> 
>> FSF associate member #2352 (since 2004-05-20) here. I also accepted
>the Free Software Award for Projects of Social Benefit several years
>ago.
>> 
>> It’s unfortunate to hear yet another incident about the FSF
>President’s unacceptable behavior in the news again.
>> 
>> Despite all the good things this organization does, this continued
>behavior while holding the role makes it untenable for me to publicly
>support the FSF. And that’s a bad thing for software freedom.
>> 
>> Software freedom is an important human right, but if one has to
>publicly trample others’ human rights in order to get there, one
>undermines one’s own cause.
>> 
>> With his continued behavior over the years, Stallman has done damage
>to our movement that will take a very long time to repair. It’s time
>for him to step down and let the next generation lead this critical
>movement into the future.
>> 
>> Should he be unwilling to do so, I note that based upon my review of
>the FSF bylaws, the Board has the power to remove the person in office
>of President with or without cause upon vote of the board. (Article VI,
>Section 7.) 
>> 
>> Until that time, I must regrettably cancel my associate membership. 
>> 
>> /s/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> _______________________________________________
>> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
>> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>libreplanet-discuss mailing list
>libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
>https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss