05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)
Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. [Reference updated on 2018-04-25 because the old link was broken.]
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.
04 January 2013 (Pedophilia)
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.
Given what he said in that recent e-mail exchange from recent weeks that has been posted online, I don't think he's sincerely changed his opinion on this, as he has claimed in the days since it the e-mails were exposed. I will note that in the two cases that prompted him to post those, one the Dutch pedophile political party being established, the other the Jimmy Saville pedophile scandal breaking, it wasn't Catholic Priests who were the pedophiles in question. I was tempted to see if Stallman had anything to say when it was clergy who were the criminals as opposed to that but I need to keep my breakfast down for now.
If you think I'm being hard on Stallman - who, to my knowledge, has never been accused of actually sexually assaulting or raping a child - imagine how the children he has no problem with having the likes of Marvin Minsky rape experience things.
I didn't choose Stallman as a typical example of how, when sex is involved, the "enlightenment" libertarian pseudo-liberalsim of the secular left makes them excuse the most obvious and glaring injustices - no matter how rightheously-justy they might, otherwise cherish the thought of themselves as being, he chose himself, that all by himself. All secular (you can in most cases safely read that as "atheist") lefties are, as recently pointed out in the comments here, 12.
And, by the way, I didn't have to go searching through his enormous archive of his political ramblings, I used the atheist wiki to do that. Here's the picture they have of him as "St. IGNUsius" in a kind of halo hat they illustrate their bio of him with.
Purely from the point of view of the law, that second entry from Stallman is PRECISELY why we have a legal age of consent.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance may be bliss, but it's also dangerous as hell. And once again we face an extremely practical (if not ethical, although it is in Aristotle's sense of the word) issue: don't say anything in secret you wouldn't say in public.
Unless you are a 12 year old boy who thinks "naughty" is cute. Interestingly, we don't hold 12 year old boys as accountable as we do adults. Something in the law about "disabilities of minority" that protects children from their ignorance.
What gets me is that these guys at MIT and elsewhere, are involved in and true believers in artificial intelligence. Leaving the "intelligence" out of intelligence (as they act like they're 12) they are supposed to be recreating in machines what human minds can do and they can't even imagine the minds of these girls who Epstein raped and trafficked. Given Stallman's statement in that, in which he could imagine, maybe incest taking advantage of the relative powerlessness of children in those situations, under sexual enslavement as Epstein practiced, they can't see it.
DeleteCall me a skeptic (if you mean a real one and not just use the word as a smokes screen for "atheist") but I doubt they have a very firm grasp on how minds actually operate, what they do and what they are. Maybe that is because they choose the easiest things that human minds do, things that can be turned into equations and algorithms and pretend they've reproduced human minds in their work.
I've noted how much it reminds me of the myth of Pygmalion, only without the skills with materials.
I can't believe this isn't related to their materialism, which is such an important aspect of their thinking to themselves. I think they choose atheism because, like Bertrand Russell and Oliver Wendell Holmes, they wanted to have lots of sex and found religion an impediment to their chances of getting it.
Not to mention the requirement of humility, which yoke they absolutely cannot accept.
Delete