digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Richard Stallman supports 'voluntary pedophilia'

stallman.org — In his recent diary entry, Richard Stallman mentions that Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization, and adds that he is "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children".

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jorgy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15wtf? i wonder if stallman would allow his kid to participate in this 'voluntary pedophilia' .. shame on stallman, imo.
    • scrubadub, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17skep·ti·cism - 2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

      It doesn't mean he supports it, you should try being skeptical sometime you might "flip flop", I mean learn something
    • scrubadub, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8hmm digg's comment system doesnt like that paste, from websters online btw
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13scrubadub's right. Saying that you are skeptical of a claim against something is not the same thing as supporting it. This is trolling, pure and simple. Marked as inaccurate.

      For instance, elsewhere on the same page, he says:

      > I am skeptical of the Iraqi's claim that the Bush forces have ordered troops to kill lots of Iraqis no matter who they are.

      However if you read the rest of the page it's quite clear he *definitely* dislikes Bush. But he's still skeptical of claims against him.

      Not blindly accepting every negative thing people say about your opponents doesn't mean you condone what they are doing, it just makes you not a moron.
    • DarkPrincess74, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5He says he is skeptical that it being voluntary harms children which means he thinks it's ok for pedophillia because he doesn't think it will harm anyone.

      It's harmful cause kids don't understand it and shouldn't have to. There are people who have other deviant sexual concepts like rapists but it doesn't mean someone should form a party to legalize that either.
    • bryxal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4A dangerous thing to say. Be it that he meant 13-15 doesn't matter at this point... the media doesn't care about the details... its a shame... the devil's in the details... I personally am for 14 year old cut off (with less than 2 years different up to 16) example 14 with 16 is fine 14 with 21 is not, 16 with 21 is fine... but thats just me. On a more personal note someone i knew got somewhat scarred from that from when she was 13 with some 17 ish.... doesn't mean it scars ev everyone but its a dangerous game to play....
    • joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6have you seen the guy? he' looks like a homeless man, he's lucky is a prostitue would get near him
  • brandonr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7RMS is a little weird, no doubt about that. But he writes awesome code, the GNU license, GCC, all those kick ass tools that do a better job than the ones included with UNIX, and I'm sure he did a load more. I just can't find anymore of his accomplishments on his homepage very easily because it's covered in political articles.

    And, here lies the big problem with people like Stallman; he's in the spotlight because of what he did with computers (yes, I know that's generalizing it). And then, with people paying a lot of attention, anything can be said and all will see.

    Why can't he just write code and promote open software...
  • ImpiZA, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11This is sick. How can someone of this stature make comments like this and be allowed to get away with it?

    It is people like Stallman that make these types of comments, people that are viewed as "intellectuals", people that promote and give credence to deranged and sick paedophiles by spewing such filth and drivel.

    I for one will now boycott any products or services that employ any of the technologies that Stallman has been involved in. I will motivate the company I represent and the suppliers and purchasers in our supply chain to examine this mans comments and apply their corporate governance policies to supporting the product lines of this idiot.

    You sir are a disgrace.
    • thenorwegian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4read the f*cking comments above nitwit.
    • lowfi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Get away with what? *Thinking* about something - and then *writing* about it?

      It's been said before, but Freedom of Speech is *not* only for the things *you* agree with. It's explicitly for the things you dislike.
    • scrubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Let me know how that boycott of FREE software goes
    • ImpiZA, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Yes lowfi, just like those kids at Columbine High THOUGHT about it, then WROTE about it, THEN KILLED PEOPLE. Moron.
    • Tsuroerusu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ ImpiZA
      "I for one will now boycott any products or services that employ any of the technologies that Stallman has been involved in."

      Fair enough, then get the out of here, digg uses Debian GNU/Linux, and I guess you'll be boycutting Google too.
    • lowkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ImpIZA

      Better not use most of the Internet then cause you're bound to run through a GNU/Linux based router or two.

      There are GNU pieces in Windows and Mac OS, so they're out too.

      The BSDs use GCC by default so they're out.

      A lot of embedded small devices (like MP3 players) are GNU and Linux based so they're out too.

      Don't forget Tivo, its out too (and most devices like it).

      Most companies use it somewhere in their infrastructure (including Microsoft who just bought 5000 GNU/Linux based wireless routers), so be prepared to fight a lot.

      So while you can support RMS or not, you can't really stop GNU with a boycott.
  • strangeguitar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children"

    His phrasology is hard to swallow. It's his own fault that he's being completely misrepresented. He could've said it with a little more empathy toward his readers. The problem is that when we read the word pedophilia, we imagine toddlers and babies. The truth is that the Dutch consider sex with a 15 year old to be pedophilia. There are 15 year olds who have sex and turn out healthy & normal. In fact, I'd wager that there are 12 & 13 year olds that have consensual sex and turn out fine.
    • r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+315 is illegal in many countries .... the polite term is statutory rape but legally they're children.
    • frankthechicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Indeed, I've always been of the opinion to scrap specific paedophillia laws and instead concentrate on rape charges, i.e. if sex acts are unconsensual then rape charges are brought about, if both parties comply then and are happy about it, then so what? Personally I'd also like to add an extra caveat of having to pass a sex education exam beforehand (get a license for having sex) which can be taken at any time, any age, prior to sex. Though I have a feeling this might be even more controversial.
  • aresef, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6....why is this under linux/unix?
  • Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well, I guess that his perspective is that if somebody consents to it, it cannot harm them.

    Then again, I'm sure it has long-term psychological effects, even if it is voluntary
    • corexian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The thing is, though, that people in their early-teens don't have a lot of life experience under their belts yet. So there are situations in which, given no restrictions, many will make choices not knowing the possible consequences. I think your second statement is probably right. If they aren't ready for it but some "adult" thinks they are, they may consent because they don't know any better.

      Hey, I'm in my mid-20s and I can confidently say I still run into stuff in life I'm in no way prepared to face. The advantage is that I've learned a lot in the last 10 or so years to keep me from doing too much damage. :)
  • chad78, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Yet another reason for me to dislike Stallman. That whole whiney bs about adding GNU to Linux every time you say it, and now he thinks its ok to have sex with kids. Way to be, RMS. Sicko.
  • wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3pedophiles are sick! no digg
  • joshlrogers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Although I think this header is completely out of context and I am marking as inaccurate, Stallmans statement is either too vague or a disgrace. Maybe his hubris is flaring up again.

    He either needs to clarify this that he is skeptical of consentual pedophilia with children between the ages of x and y is harmful or he is a sick bastard, simply put. Even concieving the idea that a 4-13 year old can even fathom the different facets of sexual behavior is ignorant and disgraceful.

    I am going to err on the side of caution and assume that he meant the former rather than the latter option, atleast I can hope.
  • asteroth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5i think his stance could be summed up as such:
    physical age != mental maturity. that is all.
  • cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Define 'pedophilia'. A lot of people use it (incorrectly) as anyone under legal age. Sex with a 16 year old is not pedophilia... though in the US it's statutory rape.

    If we're really talking about children and not young adults, then that's pretty messed up. How can you even be skeptical of the fact that having sex with a 5 year old is NOT alright?!
    • viclopez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5READ THE ***** ARTICLE. It says 12, not 5!
  • chad78, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5For those who think the title is wrong - RTFA.

    RMS Said:
    05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)

    Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization.

    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.

    ---

    "Their little baby is maturing"? Having sex doesn't make you mature. And he said that the RAPE cases (ie - the ones that aren't voluntary) are "Stretched by parents"??? WTF? Being RAPED has nothing to do with being mature.

    IMHO, the title isn't alarmist enough.
  • Zorlak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I'm blown away... That is crazy talk. It had better not become legal in any sort of fashion. I did however digg the article because I am glad someone posted it and brought it to my attention. Sick disgusting bastards.
  • darkroastbeans, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3RMS does himself a disservice by not providing justification for his comments. We don't really know *why* he thinks that, only that he *does*. Perhaps he thinks that if, in some states/countries, the marriageable age is 13-16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age), how could that be different than voluntary sexual activity at that age?

    Without additional information, its hard to judge his comment. But certainly a statement like that begs for justification.
  • viclopez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4When someone hears pedophilia, they imagine kids being abused that are 8 and 9yr old.
    Hes talking about 12. Altought myself, i think 12 is a little young, there are kids, that are 12/13 who are very mature, and would be able to handle themselves maturely. In my opinion, kids arent ready for sex until 16 or above, so 12 year olds are a little too young. But, i would also argue, if its voluntary, who is to say yes or no, except that person?

    Again, im not advocating pedophilia, but sometimes, the govt just rubs its nose where its not needed. That is my point... i guess.
    • cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I don't think a 12 year old can really decide about something like that. I mean, a child can say yes or no by 2, can they consent to sex? (The correct answer is no, they cannot.) I would agree that by 16, somebody usually has a pretty good grasp of what's right and wrong, but I still think a 16 year old dating a 30 year old is pretty sketchy.

      The main thing to point out here though is what 'pedophilia' really means. As I said above, sex with a 13 year old is not really pedophilia. So either this group misnamed itself, or they're talking about sex with prepubescent children.
  • kiwimonk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Open Source Children?
  • Funakoshi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children."

    It's fine and well to attempt to justify his comments and clarify them for him, but what he is saying is offensive. I don't care whether or not he agrees with it, or whether or not he is saying it is right, what he has said is disgusting. The only that is potentially more disgusting is that people here are attempting to defend his comment.
  • machineking, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Since when is it cool to digg a story about 'voluntary pedophilia'?

    If you digg this story you should be investigated.
  • maidix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Wildly inaccurate; seems like trolling. Saying you are skeptical of the dangers of something doesn't mean that you support it. For instance, I am skeptical that terrorism is really the danger that they say it is in the U.S. -- does that mean I support terrorism? Whoever submitted this article seems to have a grudge against RMS. Need I remind anyone the things RMS has done for the world? And here he is on Digg, being libelously portrayed as a pedophile. DUGG DOWN!
  • sector62, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4RMS is nothing but a hippie that chose Open Source as his cause instead of trees and whales. i can't believe some people are saying "he said 12 not 5!", like that makes any freakin' difference. and don't give me some BS about "300 years ago kids were getting married at 12". an arranged marriage at 12-15 is worlds apart from generic "consensual sex" between a 12-15 and whoever. parents 300 years ago would have never allowed that either. the analogy doesn't work.
  • xuixinho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2And I thought most people on west countries lost their virginity around 13 or 14 years old. Oh, geeks, right!
  • b0b0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Again, this is a fine example of information being misinterpreted and taken beyond its scope in order to make an interesting digg story. I think Stallman is insane, but nowhere in his post does he explicitly express approval or support for 'voluntary pedophilia'.

    If anyone is going to post a digg story, do not base the title of the digg story on the basis of a personal inference based upon personal feelings. Too many innacurate stories have been reaching front page recently that are innacurate due to the original poster taking the next step and making a claim that is not supported by the scope of the article. If all of you value the integrity of digg, do not do this.
  • caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I first had sex when I was 16, she was in her mid twenties.. I wanted to have sex when I was 12.. I wanted to have lots of sex.. the only problem I have with it is concern about safety. As long as the kids are safe, let them play.. preferrably with other kids until they're old enough to make those choices for themselves. But there's no reason sex ed can't actually involve sex between consenting couples, homework, etc. We are trying to educate them, are we not?

    Or are we only interested in educating adstinence and christianity? Abstinence won't prolong the human race, and the actions of christians seem to be leading us towards armageddon, not very forward looking, IMO, but at least your kids won't be having sex until their late thirties. And we wonder why there are so many problems in our society? So many gay couples? Its got to have something to do with our attitudes towards sex..
  • Krendoshazin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're taking this entire thing out of context, if you read his comment along with the actual article it is posted about, you will see that a group of "paedophiles" are trying to have the age that you can have a sexual relationship reduced from 16 to 12. Now, most kids these days are having sex at 14 anyway, and where they do so voluntarilly any arguments against it must come from parents who can't see their "little baby" (from the parents point of view, they are still their young child, hence "little baby", not literally a baby) has matured and has decided to explore those particular avenues, whether or not the parents agree with it.

    I think the point being made is they're going to do it anyway, and pretty much already are, and where the choice to do so is voluntary and no harm has come from it, why bother fighting it, just make it legal, a child is anyone not legally classed as an adult, and in this case "paedophile" (lover of children) applies, despite the bad meaning surrounding the name.

    Personally I think 12 is too young, reduce it to 14 and be done with it, if they're going to do it anyway, let them do it legally. And yes, your "little babies" -are- growing up, I may not agree with it, but if they've chosen to do that, then that is their choice to make, and I support the freedom of choice.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.