Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
He says people are bigoted if they’re against people fucking children. That’s him saying having sex with children is a good thing.
Here’s an analogy there is no way you can lie about(though you’ll probably find a way): Saying someone is bigoted if they make fun of arachnophobia is not the same thing as saying arachnophobia is good. And I’m not equating arachnophobia to pedos. Opposing opposition to X is not the same thing as supporting X, its possible to be neutral on X. I’m not neutral on pedos, I think pedos are bad and gross. I think it is wrong to be neutral on pedos, but it is factually inaccurate to say that being “neutral on X” == “X is a good thing”.
Agreed. However if you said “I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.” Then that instead points to you believing alcohol is good.
Thank you!!! This makes me so happy genuinely!!! You responded to what I actually said!! So you did get it! So why do you keep lying about it?
Anyways, my excitement aside, you’re fine to think that. But I do disagree that that’s the analogy of what you’re saying Stallman said, instead it would be closer to "I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against letting people consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.”
Which is not necessarily pro-alchohol. Another example, imagine a government that banned a religion, say Buddhism, you could say "I think it’s unfortunate Buddhism is banned. If you are against letting people practice Buddhism then you are a bigot.”- that statement is not necessarily pro-Buddhist, its just anti-prohibition of Buddhism.
Yes it is.
Awww my excitement is gone
No it fucking isn’t. Having mild autism is not an explanation for thinking pinning down a four year old and giving them some dick is a good thing.
It literally is an explanation. You’re free to think the explanation is wrong and bad, but its still an explanation.
Not because of autism. Autism doesn’t make you like that at all.
I didn’t say it was because of autism. I said its because he failed to empathize with victims, yk a symptom of “autism”.
Yep, I’ve already covered this. He did a complete 180 2 days after it became apparent his job was on the line. It wasn’t genuine remorse, it was a last-ditch effort to save his own skin.
He’s still fired from MIT so why doesn’t he backtrack if he still believes it?
Being autistic doesn’t cause you to believe raping kids is a good thing. Stop pretending it does.
Never said it does, stop lying about me.
Yes you did.
Having a glass of wine is not like fucking a four year old. Stop.
My pain is immeasurable. Please quote where I said those exact words.
Yes he did. And his opinion has not changed.
Why’d he stop saying it then?
I hope you’re trolling, because if not you’re a fucking psychopath who denies genocide and thinks keeping a toddler as a sex slave is morally equivelant to having a Heineken, and that both should be equally legal.
Genuinely why are you still responding if you honestly believe that’s what I said? Just to insult me?
Please for the love of god be a troll.
I don’t hide behind a pseudonym to be toxic to people on the internet.
Here’s an analogy there is no way you can lie about(though you’ll probably find a way): Saying someone is bigoted if they make fun of arachnophobia is not the same thing as saying arachnophobia is good. And I’m not equating arachnophobia to pedos. Opposing opposition to X is not the same thing as supporting X, its possible to be neutral on X. I’m not neutral on pedos, I think pedos are bad and gross. I think it is wrong to be neutral on pedos, but it is factually inaccurate to say that being “neutral on X” == “X is a good thing”.
Thank you!!! This makes me so happy genuinely!!! You responded to what I actually said!! So you did get it! So why do you keep lying about it?
Anyways, my excitement aside, you’re fine to think that. But I do disagree that that’s the analogy of what you’re saying Stallman said, instead it would be closer to "I think it’s unfortunate alcohol is banned. If you are against letting people consuming alcohol then you are a bigot.”
Which is not necessarily pro-alchohol. Another example, imagine a government that banned a religion, say Buddhism, you could say "I think it’s unfortunate Buddhism is banned. If you are against letting people practice Buddhism then you are a bigot.”- that statement is not necessarily pro-Buddhist, its just anti-prohibition of Buddhism.
Awww my excitement is gone
It literally is an explanation. You’re free to think the explanation is wrong and bad, but its still an explanation.
I didn’t say it was because of autism. I said its because he failed to empathize with victims, yk a symptom of “autism”.
He’s still fired from MIT so why doesn’t he backtrack if he still believes it?
Never said it does, stop lying about me.
My pain is immeasurable. Please quote where I said those exact words.
Why’d he stop saying it then?
Genuinely why are you still responding if you honestly believe that’s what I said? Just to insult me?
I don’t hide behind a pseudonym to be toxic to people on the internet.