https://youtube.com/watch?v=8p5Z-ZO0QPY

That doesn’t surprise me.

governance is important to not have a space filled with awful people

Snigger They think there are people who aren’t awful.

I don’t think the assumption that a immigrant who already has contact with people from north america and Europe would know about Lemmy in South Sudan in comparison to local people -like here in Korea - is so outlandish.

O_o

I guess you’re a imigrant?

Uhhh… wut?

“Capitalism” – everyone@lemmy.ml

Still not in F-Droid

Have a scan through the posts in https://reddit.com/r/purism

Have a scan through the posts in https://reddit.com/r/purism

Shady company.

Shady company.

What an odd question. May I ask why you posed it (serious)?

I was curious why OP wanted to know the opinion of “the community”.

Is it not common sense to ask for advice when you’re unsure of something?

OP didn’t ask for advice.

but i wanted to at least hear the community’s opinion about it

Can I ask why?

The OP presumably …

We don’t need to presume anything, OP can speak for themselves.

need

What do you mean by this?

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.

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.

On the second point, I think he did say that attraction to minors is normal. He defined adolescents as minors before and he’s saying attraction to them is normal here.

He said attraction to adolescents is normal. He did not say that attraction to minors is normal. Distinguishing between the two is his whole point.

Instead of paying attention to what Stallman is actually saying, DeVault chose to disregard Stallman’s word, “adolescent” and instead claim that he used a different word, “minor”, a more general word which includes a larger group, children. DeVault is clearly trying to paint Stallman as something he is not. Which, ironically, is exactly what Stallman was criticising the media for in his quote. And bizarrely, even though I’ve pointed this out to you, you’re doing the same.

He defined adolescents as minors before and he’s saying attraction to them is normal here.

“Adolescents are animals. Adult attraction to adolescents is normal. Therefore adult attraction to animals is normal.”

“Adolescents are animals. Adult attraction to adolescents is normal. A person who says that adult attraction to adolescents is normal is saying that adult attraction to animals is normal.”

These are non sequiturs, just like yours and DeVault’s assertions. Please try to think.

https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-logic/chapter/chapter-1/

About this quote:

'Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to start dating/sexual relationships with teenagers some decades ago.

He tried to lead Ms Corfman step by step into sex, but he always respected “no” from her and his other dates. Thus, Moore does not deserve the exaggerated condemnation that he is receiving for this. As an example of exaggeration: one mailing referred to these teenagers as “children”, even the one that was 18 years old. Many teenagers are minors, but none of them are children.

The condemnation is surely sparked by the political motive of wanting to defeat Moore in the coming election, but it draws fuel from ageism and the fashion for overprotectiveness of “children”.’

DeVault says that Stallman draws a distinction between children and teenagers

‘especially to suggest that an adult having sex with a minor is socially acceptable’

but Stallman makes no such suggestion. In fact, Stallman makes no mention of social acceptability at all. DeVault is putting words in Stallman’s mouth.

About this quote:

'Calling teenagers “children” encourages treating teenagers as children, a harmful practice which retards their development into capable adults.

In this case, the effect of that mislabeling is to smear Wilson. It is rare, and considered perverse, for adults to be physically attracted to children. However, it is normal for adults to be physically attracted to adolescents. Since the claims about Wilson is the latter, it is wrong to present it as the former.’

DeVault says that Stallman

‘sought to normalize adult attraction to minors, literally describing it as “normal”’

but Stallman did not say that adult attraction to “minors” is normal.

Acknowledgement of correctness please.

He made conclusions from quotes which didn’t follow from contents of those quotes.