He explicitly does not think she was willing. He thinks she was unwilling but was coerced to give the appearance of willingness and that the appearance of the two from Minskys point of view were the same.
This isn't a subtle difference. You think he said almost exactly the opposite of what he said
So, are we saying this is a particularly good defense? Because it doesn't sound like a great defense to me. It doesn't sound like any reasonably smart person -- which Minsky undoubtedly was -- would find themselves in this situation and not have a question or two about the ethics.
Let's agree that the reporting did, in fact, get Stallman's meaning wrong here. Let's even agree that isn't a subtle difference. Here's the thing: even the most generous reading of what Stallman wrote is still, at the end of the day, excusing Minsky's actions.
And at the end of the day, I think that's still a problem.
I'm simply saying he failed at the task of correctly parsing this statement in a way that is clearly causing him to misunderstand the story.
Thanks. You're right, it isn't, but the gaslighting had me doubting my own sanity for a moment there.
But then to have a long track record of disagreeing with age of consent; semantic arguments about pedophilia; treating women with disrespect and general creepiness-- it eventually gets to be too much.
Any time you have to say this:
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
After having said this:
> 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.
You've really screwed up, IMO. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html
That is, once you've fucked up with pedo-apologia a few too many times, maybe it's time to be really, really careful in what you say in defense of a colleague's possibly questionable sexual actions.
But surely, if you are saying what he said is bad, it must matter whether he said some thing, or it's exact opposite.
Or is this the Schrodinger's cats of statements where it and it's inverse are both totally and equally intolerable?
