Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Resigns From The Free Software Foundation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by DanL View Post

    From what I Googled, it depends on the definition you uses. Medical/psychological folks would probably use the term to describe relations only with prepubescent children (13 or younger). But popular and legal usage could also attach the term to those in the scenario(s) I referred to.
    I'm not an expert on this, but don't those who have relations with 10 year olds face the same charges as those who have them with 17 year olds (assuming age of consent is 18)? Don't they end up in the same sex offender databases?
    Varies by jurisdiction. Some places have "Romeo and Juliet" laws that cover 13-17 with each other or with adults; some set the high end coverage at up to 20 and low side down to 12; some places treat everyone under 18 as the same; some places have a line around puberty ages that makes it more of an offense when they're especially young (pedophiles by the clinical definition laws); some places the age of consent is 14 and up or even 12 and up; majority of the world is 16 and up; very few places have it set to any age over 18.

    Go below that variable line and you're on the list.

    Go to a pedo thread at Fark.com and you'll learn a lot of stuff you don't normally need to know. They're pretty good with their diddler laws over there....

    Comment


    • #72
      Holy cow..
      When you are the head of Free Software movements, and other things around...
      You should carry with you, moral values, above everything..
      He has some public views about some subjects that are not acceptable in our Society..

      Be free..
      Sometimes freedom has its own risks, and RMS never coerced himself, when he was about to exercise that freedoms..and that backfired, and ended, in this situation..
      So the society wanted that RMS had coerced himself, when he was about to exercise his own freedoms..

      Is that a "responsible behaviour" to any Free Software Freedom movement..??seems a contradiction, but moral values means exactly that..
      Its the recognition of limit boundaries that form the base of moral values, what is acceptable, and what is not..

      This personal coercion, would be praised like a moral value in our Society( something he was unable to do.. ).
      Also their are a lot of chess politics playing into all of this..

      I don't think GNOME have reacted to all of this, only because he was unable to recognise by free will, or by coerced methods, the limit boundaries of the Society were we live in..
      I believe that there are something fishy here..


      In line with moral values( or recognition by free-will/coercion, of Society Freedom Limit boundaries ), we have also the case of Hans Riser, and RiserFS.
      Even tough that we are talking about a convicted murderer, this project seems to, unfortunately, been backed by some people..

      Afaik, RMS have not committed any crime, but he is paying in full.. were is GNOME/Linux views about RiserFS project???
      Something isn't right here..something fishy is happening..




      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

        If only debianxfce was still around to tell us...
        I mean, I fear the GPL may go down, the MIT/Apache/permissive licenses may stand up and at some point since these licenses are too permissive, they'll close everything down, effectively turning the open-source community into a closed-source one...

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
          If only debianxfce was still around to tell us...
          You shouldn't do that..

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

            If only debianxfce was still around to tell us...
            debianxfce, debianxfce, debianxfce


            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by johnc View Post
              What do you think? Does a smart person really believe that pedophilia doesn't harm children?

              It's not surprising though to see many here defend this guy.
              In our Society, some behaviours are considered harmful to a human..
              A society lives in a conceptual hierarchy of Freedom Limitations, inside its boundaries is something good, outside is something harmful..
              Based on that, a human should develop Freedom Limitations that ends in Limit boundaries of what is acceptable or not. in society..

              I think that maybe the moral values or Limitations, were we describe our own children's, and were we protect/dictate the correct behaviour/freedom Limitations, should be preserved, until proven wrong( even tough that, this Limits the freedoms of a lot of humans in our Society, what we call predators.. )..

              The violation of individual Freedom Limitations, only by thought( freedom of thought.. ), per-se is not harmful( no victim..is limited in scope.. )..
              I think its easier to say that pedophilia could be indeed very harmful to children's( if a contact between a predator and its victim happens.. is indeed very harmful!! ).

              But RMS, has been judged( by some parts of our Society.. ), by a crime he have not committed..
              He publicly challenged, this Limits, in a area were we are *not* even open to discussion.. that is his moral crime, nothing more than that..

              Contrary to that, you have convicted murderers( Hans Riser ?? ),
              And there are out there people defending his projects.. this is a real crime committed, but still there are people that "embrace his projects"..

              Comment


              • #77
                He took the libertarian contract and overlayed it on to people too stupid to negotiate a meal or clothes, much less a contract. Which then led to a 'Epstein did nothing wrong' conclusion. Meanwhile heads are rolling at MIT and Harvard just for taking a grant from the guy.

                He F'ed up. That's not how Libertarianism works. Freedom + "Responsibility" does not apply to kids of any mammalian species.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  Go to a pedo thread at Fark.com and you'll learn a lot of stuff you don't normally need to know
                  Pass..

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by AndyChow View Post

                    People are innocent until proven guilty. Whatever personally happened to you doesn't justify accusing people you don't know and have never interacted with.
                    it's horrifying that so many people think "innocent until proven guilty" should apply to rapists, but not to their victims.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                      I mean, I fear the GPL may go down, the MIT/Apache/permissive licenses may stand up and at some point since these licenses are too permissive, they'll close everything down, effectively turning the open-source community into a closed-source one...
                      IBM( proprietary) -> redhat( proprietary ) -> gnome( IBM finance it.. GPL?? )

                      Maybe the gnome reaction come... triggered by other "desires" ??

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X