undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgeofft6y ago0 comments

I genuinely don't think that was a novel argument to his interlocutors. I think they'd thought of that, and I think they have good counterarguments.

(I'd like to not get into arguing about Minsky's own actions or about mitigating factors in sexual assault in this particular thread. 'esotericn is talking about what is reasonable to discuss or not in which circumstances, not about the merits of the argument in question. And I'm also personally not interested in arguing the case.)

0 comments

darawk6y ago

> I genuinely don't think that was a novel argument to his interlocutors. I think they'd thought of that, and I think they have good counterarguments.

I guess I don't understand your point about Stare Decisis, then. Is your point that Stallman knew that his argument was wrong, but he put it forward anyway? Was there some piece of social case law he was supposed to be referencing here?

Udik6y ago

So what you are saying, after a rather long discussion, is that you can't point a fault in what Stallman wrote, but you think that those who were outraged must have had a good argument to be so. And you agree with them despite not knowing what that argument was. Is that correct?

geofftOP6y ago

That's a deliberate misreading of me. I can find concrete fault in what he wrote. To demonstrate the fault would require engaging in a discussion on the merits of his argument, which I have no interest in doing. (I'm on the mailing list, if I had an interest in doing so, I would have replied there, where it's productive, not here.)