this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
2940 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
2
Google pulls the plug on uBlock Origin, leaving over 30 million Chrome users susceptible to intrusive ads (www.windowscentral.com)
submitted 3 months ago by mesamunefire@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
278 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Post the link to him saying that having sex with children is okay

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

"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."

RMS on June 28th, 2003

"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. "

RMS on June 5th, 2006

"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

You can find these on Stallman's blog, which I believe is Stallman.org iirc. Just go to the dates I provided.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, necrophilia is fine as long as both parties are consenting.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

When one of the parties objects, that is when the fun starts :D

[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I cannot find any of this on his blog, why didn’t you just link to his blog?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I did link to his blog... It's stallman.org

I said from there you can go to the dates I provided.

I don't wish to be rude, but do you really need this hand-holding? It took me less than 10 seconds to find a specific link to the first quote, for example:

https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html

Stallman being pro-paedophila is not new information.

[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

You pasted the domain not an actual blog post link. And you’re the one making these claims about him on a forum, does it really surprise you when someone asks for the source? Sorry you had to google something.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Sod off, sealion

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You were the one looking for proof? Then you do the googling.

That is how this shit works, genius.

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You've got the burden of proof backwards, pal.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Lucky this isn't a court of law, buddy.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Online discussions aren't formal debates, bud.

[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This makes no sense. This person made a claim and I asked what the source was. Shouldn’t they know where their own comment came from?

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Mike, you came at this person twice. He gave you a url and since you're on Lemmy we assume you're at least halfway internat savvy.

In my shoes I'd have at least put in a few minutes of effort to look for the information on that site. Or even a general search. ANYTHING to evince my capability for critical thought.

You were given 99% more than most are in this type of exchange and still lazily demanded more. You didn't just ask and you weren't all that polite. I found it lazy. That you appear to feel a keen need to have the last word in this type of situation is also worth a bit of reflection.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You calmed down? You agree he supports paedophilia, yes? The evidence is right there. I provided sources for you a bunch of times.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I gave a link to the source, his blog, and gave instructions on how to find each statement. I even gave timestamps.

I gave you the source as soon as you asked. The source is Stallman's blog, stallman.org.

Apology accepted, don't worry about it.

Anyway, the point is, yes, Stallman has been a repeated defender of paedophilia and having sex with family pets.