He said he didn't care if Minsky did it: He didn't think it should be a crime to fuck an underage girl who was probably asking for it. Do you fucking read?

How oblivious are you?

he defended Minsky's participation in a sex orgy with a known and convicted paedophile and his sex slave. Stallman argued that it didn't matter if she was underage: What Minsky was doing is pretty harmless - and by extension, Epstein was also blameless(To wit: Fucking children who are being handed around and coerced into sexual favours for old men).

To be clear: Stallman has been saying this shit for ages. That sex with children is OK because to hell with Social norms and if that's what older men want then by god all they need to do is find a willing child.

He is word-for-word spewing the same shit that public paedophiles argue to justify their crimes - And this is the argument that will be applied right down to 4 fucking years old: its the same shit with the same smell.

I'm not making this shit up. The man has been pronouncing paedophile-defence arguments for decades. He is a fucking cretin and his stain needs to be washed off everything he has touched before he contaminates it beyond repair.

For anyone thinking this is SJW bullshit: Why is it more important to defend the speech of an obviously perverted old lech who is defending the behaviour of monsters than it is to stand up for the rights of those abused by those monsters?

And yes Minsky was a fucking monster when he went to the sex party run by his friend the convicted paedophile Epstein and partook of what was on offer. He wasnt fucking clueless and knew exactly what he was doing when he was handed a young girl for sex.

No.

Cederic: I think if you still didn't get it after teletubbies there's not much I can do for you mate.

There it is.

There you are.

Congrats for being the loser we knew you were.

Teletubbies it is:

Tinkywinky is a convicted drug addict. He takes drugs.

Dipsy decides one day to take drugs with Tinkywinky.

Dipsy is thus participating in the behaviour of a convicted drug addict.

Lala is Dipsy's friend and doesn't try to claim Dipsy's innocence but instead says "taking drugs is OK. What he did shouldn't be a crime."

Lala is defending his friend Dipsy's behaviour which is the same as Tinkywinky's behaviour. He defends drug-taking and those that do it on the grounds that "its probably harmless and the slutty drugs were probably gagging for it."

In no unclear way: Lala is condoning the behaviour of his friend and the convicted drug dealer.

In no unclear way: RMS was condoning the behaviour of his friend AND the convicted paedophile.

Legit question: Do you suffer from Parkinson's? It affects the ability to think in the abstract and consider the context of a situation as a fundamental input to a line of thinking.

The only other explanation is that you are really really REALLY fucking stupid.

I get that English is not your first language. Let me break it down: >p>

In my first post I specifically said:

This is a guy basically defending the behaviour of a convicted fucking paedophile with "yeah she probably asked for it."

He did this when he wrote ""The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com]) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex."

This is Minsky participating in THE BEHAVIOUR OF A CONVICTED PEDOPHILE and RMS saying "that's OK."

What was that behaviour specifically? Grooming underage girls to perform sex acts for people. Even RMS is not saying Minsky didn't dop this: He's saying it doesn't matter because THE BEHAVIOUR IS OK. Get it? He is not saying his mate didn't do this..he's defending the behaviour. Take a moment. Let that sink in. The behaviour of a man fucking the child slave of a convicted paedophile. Which behaviour is worse? THEY ARE THE SAME. He is doing what the convicted paedophile is doing cos he is no better than the convicted paedophile. RMS is defending the behaviour of his mate and the convicted paedophile when he implies this is all OK.

What part of this logic chain is not clear? I can make a Teletubbies slideshow if it helps?

My god you tool. Just keep digging until you find some basic understanding of how idiotic you are for choosing to misunderstand this.

Quoting RMS directly from the pertinent bit (the whole screed is vile):

"The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/...) Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex."

I will recap for the slow: He's not trying to claim Minsky didn't do it. He's saying it's not assault cos she was willing and old enough to have sex *really*. She was just part of the harem and it was her job to fuck Epsteins friends.

Epstein the convicted pedophile and child molester.

Heres the bit you both don't get: She was 17 and this is called Sex trafficking of a child in the USA and Sex trafficking of a minor in the UK. That fact is not in doubt.

He is defending his mate with those two classic rape legitimisers: 1. She was NEARLY old enough and 2. She was probably gagging for it. Oh PLUS the classic "it's not assault if there are no bruises". Go check out childhelp.org and see if they agree with him. Hint: they don't.

Keep digging troll.

Ref Wikipedia: In 2016, Virginia Giuffre named Minsky as one of the people she was "directed to have sex" with on Jeffrey Epstein's private island. >p>

Epstein was the convicted fucking paedophile. RMS not only stood up for Minsky. He wrote throughout the years that the age of consent should be lowered so that shit like this wasn't a crime. He wrote that having sex with a sexually aware (read: :ripe) child was OK. This history of bullshit plus recently reaffirming it is the reason RM was kicked out / resigned.

Read. Do you? Comprehend. Try.

Nazi? For thinking rapists and child molesters and those that defend them should be ostracised in society and held and punished to a standard?

For not worshipping old hairy men cos they did something cool on a command line so I can ignore the rest of their foul shit?

Mate - I don't think you actually understand what a Nazi is. The people who did and dealt with them would punch you back into your man cave.

Go back to your basement creep. Enjoy your loliporn and your pile of moist napkins. The world is actually getting better when old creeps are getting called out. I know that makes you sad. A lot of your vile little fantasies will never see the light of day.

That 15-year-old girl is out of reach and society is just beginning to ACTUALLY fucking realise it.

Suck it in and deal with it you sad incel.

What level of stupidity is this?

The reason the age of prostitution is and always will be 18 is that just because a kid might want to have sex - or thinks they're old enough to decide - the reality is that a 14/15/18/17-year-old doesn't stand a fucking chance against the manipulations of a 40-50-year-old predator. Hell even an 18 year old is just prey for monsters.

How about this for a legal standard: We protect kids from monsters - that's the limit. The laws aren't there to stop kids having sex: theyre theyre because OLD FUCKING PERVERTS are hunting them.

In their playgrounds. In their online games. In their chat apps. Every fucking where.

ANYONE who thinks the law is mean cos it spoils all the fun is so completely clueless -or worse - complicity ignorant.

So lets summarize for the slow witted: She was 17 and being held as a sex slave by an extremely rich powerful man who btw was convicted for child pornography. She was passed around to rich old men as part of a sex cult. What fucking chance did she have?

This is so much bullshit.

This isn't your mate down the pub saying "holy shit I know she's 17 but I'd still hit that". This is a guy basically defending the behaviour of a convicted fucking paedophile with "yeah she probably asked for it."

Over the past 30 years, we have come to understand that there are many patterns of abuse and forms of abuse that have been present under the surface of institutional and personal / celebrity normalcy. This is in part due to the fact that information now flows more freely and is less prone to being contained and damage controlled by the usual channels. Welcome to the information age.

As a result, the Epsteins and Weinsteins and the Savilles and the Harrises and the Cosbys of the world are being caught for shit that they got away with for decades previously. This is the information age we wanted - where abuse doesn't get to sit lurking and institutionalised. So fucking deal with it.

Rape and sexual trafficking are not some little fucking annoyance that can be explained away as social aberrations that "only a few creeps do in their basement". . They are wherever rich abusive fucks think they can get away with it - and where money-grubbing organisations and institutions can help them to get away with it by legitimising them. Hence MIT. Hence the problems with MIT Culture.

Hence the calling out of Minsky - and especially hence the big fucking deal when RMS - - obviously an incredibly brilliant person - so completely misses the plot and starts defending paedophilia and gross behaviours. He's said this shit for years. Read some of the shit he has written and then apply it to the situation we are now in - A culture of rape and molestation and sex trafficking is being revealed. And the man can't keep his mouth shut defending the creep level that applies.

It is not some academic exercise any more when a public figure starts suggesting that the age limits of r sex are too high and fuck it most kids that want sex should just do it - and who cares if it's an old rich guy. He's basically advertising the male sexual fulfilment policy that allows predators to hunt kids. THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

This isn't SJWs getting into a pissy fit. This is long overdue justice for creeps that can trivialize the evilest and heinous of crimes in society as "yeah the kid wanted it" and "yeah she was *nearly old enough - thats close enough* forgetting the huge power difference and pressures that can be applied by someone at that level of authority.

These people were manipulative monsters and RMS fucking defends the behaviour rather than taking a close look and saying "fuck I can see how that would be an uneven balance of power - and holy shit we now see plenty of evidence that it's happening. We should call it out!". Which is what he would do if he wasn't such a pig.

It isn't SJWs getting pissy- it's the victims who get to be heard now. Too fucking many of them. And it's those that are horrified that this shit happens. The friends and parents of the abused. Anyone that basically thinks this shit is intolerable. Its everyone that has seen what sexual abuse and rape and coercion looks like.

And fuck MIT. When organisations are found complicit in coverups and don't immediately flag problematic ethical issues - but instead ignore it cos "big bucks." then those organisations need to BURN. And anyone inside who defends the complicity needs to go away quietly and die so that in 20 years we are a better society with less of their male patriarchy rape-is-just something-alphas do bullshit.

People don't have yard sales here - the most common way of selling stuff is online via a Norwegian ebay-style site called Finn.no. Culturally Norwegians are much more reserved and don't invite strangers onto their lawns. If a church or school or something organises a sale they will have a handheld card terminal or something. There are a number of electronic payment method. Most people under 40 already use a mobile to mobile app payment method called vipps which is where you just enter a friends email and the amount you want to send and they get their amount to their account immediately. You can pay for coffee or groceries this way as well and there will only be more of that type of thing with other providers coming to the Norwegian market such as paypal, apple and facebook.

I live in Norway. I haven't touched cash in about 4 years - and that was on a trip to America. Hand on my heart I havent been in a single situation where cash was required. We still keep 500 kroner (60 dollars?) in a drawer for home emergencies - but we've never had to use it. MY 2 year old daughter will never see cash. Even in her birthday cards - she has a bank account and when the time comes for her to spend money she'll have a mobile phone.