And their whole argument is based on believing that changing an opinion which wasn’t really thought that hard about at the time, and rarely stated, is implausible. But everyone holds at least some opinions which they have not done too much research on, and do not think about much. Why would this one be thought about frequently? The answer is it wouldn’t have been.
Of course, when such an opinion is scrutinised you suddenly have to dig into it and scrutinise it yourself, and this is where Stallman changed it. It’s not some mad conspiracy to save his (volunteer) job, it’s basic stuff.
I’d disengage if I were you. Eventually, they’ll get angry at you, then they’ll try to claim that you support his old, misinformed opinion (even if you explicitly condemn it).
As you’ve seen they’ll also try to claim that Stallman himself wants to do these things, when that has never been so much as hinted at. They make things up. They have no real argument.
It took me a while to realise this, but 2 of the quotes that this person has posted were not full quotes. I will post them here in case you are curious.
The one from 2003:
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.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people’s interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent’s will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That’s not willing participation, it’s imposed participation, a different issue.
The one from 2006 was a full quote, but that post contains a note now:
[Many years after posting this note, I had conversations with people who had been sexually abused as children and had suffered harmful effects. These conversations eventually convinced me that the practice is harmful and adults should not do it.]
Exactly. There have been things that I had believed for most of my life that were false. If we punish people for being wrong, then nobody will ever change their mind. The cost of doing so will be just too big.
Richard also doesn’t care if some subject seems disgusting or if his ideas seem radical to most people. He will talk about the ethics anyway, without any emotions attached. That’s what philosophers do.
They have to make it look like some conspiracy, a “cult”, etc., since they have nothing else that they could use. There are always people attracted by that sort of thinking and for them it will be enough. In 2019 we saw multiple Free Software projects joining a hate campaign against Stallman based on a blog post that misquoted him and another blog post with fake rumours. The second one was linked by the Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-us) and it contained stories like these:
I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”
I think all of those people are either blinded by hatred or have some other motive (in this case it’s hard for me to believe they are all this stupid and can’t recognise obvious trolling). Maybe some of them want proprietary software to exist and Richard’s ideas are too radical for them. But the only way they can fight him or the FSF is with lies.
They’re obsessed.
And their whole argument is based on believing that changing an opinion which wasn’t really thought that hard about at the time, and rarely stated, is implausible. But everyone holds at least some opinions which they have not done too much research on, and do not think about much. Why would this one be thought about frequently? The answer is it wouldn’t have been.
Of course, when such an opinion is scrutinised you suddenly have to dig into it and scrutinise it yourself, and this is where Stallman changed it. It’s not some mad conspiracy to save his (volunteer) job, it’s basic stuff.
I’d disengage if I were you. Eventually, they’ll get angry at you, then they’ll try to claim that you support his old, misinformed opinion (even if you explicitly condemn it).
As you’ve seen they’ll also try to claim that Stallman himself wants to do these things, when that has never been so much as hinted at. They make things up. They have no real argument.
It took me a while to realise this, but 2 of the quotes that this person has posted were not full quotes. I will post them here in case you are curious.
The one from 2003:
Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
The one from 2013:
Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia)
The one from 2006 was a full quote, but that post contains a note now:
Source: https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)
Exactly. There have been things that I had believed for most of my life that were false. If we punish people for being wrong, then nobody will ever change their mind. The cost of doing so will be just too big.
Richard also doesn’t care if some subject seems disgusting or if his ideas seem radical to most people. He will talk about the ethics anyway, without any emotions attached. That’s what philosophers do.
They have to make it look like some conspiracy, a “cult”, etc., since they have nothing else that they could use. There are always people attracted by that sort of thinking and for them it will be enough. In 2019 we saw multiple Free Software projects joining a hate campaign against Stallman based on a blog post that misquoted him and another blog post with fake rumours. The second one was linked by the Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-us) and it contained stories like these:
I think all of those people are either blinded by hatred or have some other motive (in this case it’s hard for me to believe they are all this stupid and can’t recognise obvious trolling). Maybe some of them want proprietary software to exist and Richard’s ideas are too radical for them. But the only way they can fight him or the FSF is with lies.