• rah@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unless something is wrong here with my interpretation, DeVault asserting that Stallman thinks being attracted to minors is normal is a totally reasonable thing to say.

    Something is wrong with your interpretation. I hoped the examples I gave of non sequiturs would convey to you the nature of the logical mistake you’re making. I’m stunned that you don’t get this. Perhaps the failure is mine. Perhaps you’re trolling. Assuming the former, let me state it very basically and clearly:

    If someone says that adolescents are minors and that adult attraction to adolescents is normal, they are not saying that adult attraction to minors is normal.

    I’ll expand a bit, perhaps this will help:

    If someone says that adolescents are minors and that adult attraction to adolescents is normal, they are not saying that adult attraction to all minors is normal, they are saying only that adult attraction to the specific group of minors they have identified is normal.

    To put it another way:

    If a person claims ‘Stallman says that attraction to some minors is normal’ then they are right.

    If a person claims ‘Stallman says that attraction to minors is normal’ then they are wrong.

    • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      OK I see the problem here. When I see the word “minor” I think of a teenager. Usually when someone says minor they mean not-quite-an-adult, not necessarily all people under 18. I don’t think your interpretation of DeVault is fair here to be honest.

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think your interpretation of DeVault is fair here to be honest.

        It’s not an interpretation. DeVault used a different word in place of the word that Stallman used, with a different and broader meaning. Regardless of your understanding of how DeVault’s word is used, the defined meaning of the word implies that Stallman supports pedophilia. DeVault’s use of the word is an outrageous slander which has the potential to be disasterous for Stallman. Indeed that seems to have been DeVault’s intent.

        I don’t think DeVault’s interpretation of Stallman is fair. Indeed, I think it was malicious and deceitful. I think your interpretation of DeVault is naive and fails to take into account just how serious the consequences of accusing someone of supporting pedophilia can get.