• Hobo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I just can’t even begin to reckon that view. I know he pulled back on it (see his quote I posted elsewhere), but aside from a child’s inability to consent, there’s a gigantic power disparity between an adult and a child. I just don’t get the logic on its very face. There’s no child out there that has the world experience to understand what is happening in that sort of situation.

    If anything it’s just a gross oversimplification akin to a spherical cow in a vacuum (ie Assume a child with an adult brain, with world experience of an adult, and has the same relationship power as the adult. Also assume the adult that that is perfectly altruistic, has no alternative motives, and truly cares for the child on the same level as an adult relationship). It’s just so far beyond any real world scenario that I struggle to see how you could even logically come to the conclusion that it’s okay.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The hypothetical here is that the child sought out the adult, not the other way around, and the child is near legal age and presents as if legal age. Given that set of assumptions, how much liability does the adult have?

      That is the philosophical part of it. But reality isn’t that neat. Here are some questions that need to be asked:

      • how did the child get there?
      • how much did the adults know? How much should they have assumed?
      • what kind of pressure, implied or otherwise, was the child under?

      I don’t think Stallman considered that, I think he only considered the hypothetical.