On Apr 11, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader of > the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of > my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my work for the last > 20 years, has to be patiently coached in why pedophilia is bad.
AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to. As to the loaded claims you make, that's completely off topic IMHO, but since you brought it up, I'll assume you won't mind if I point out that pedophilia is a misnomer, and mostly unrelated with things RMS actually wrote and wondered about. There's a different term that applies to sexually mature non-adults, and when it comes to them, issues are a lot less clear-cut than you imply. Treating conversations about them as taboos or unquestionable truths contribute to keeping things nebulous, problematic, and distant from what science actually has to say about teen sexuality. Think of burning people at the stake over disputing then-prevalent flat-earth beliefs, think of the efforts to "cure" Alan Turing, and realize how questioning prevalent but unfounded beliefs can both imperil the person who does the questioning, and matter for the advancement of science and of civilization. As to the tiny bit of speculation that may have had to do with actual sexually-immature children, I wonder what science you could share with us in support of what you seem to believe anyone ought to just accept unquestioningly, and how it was that you came to believe it yourself. At the risk of having my words twisted and of being mislabeled like RMS, I, as a caring parent who had to wonder and think these issues through long ago, wonder how you went or would go about explaining to e.g. an inquisitive and curious 4 year-old that hugging, kissing, caressing hair and such pleasant things are good and desirable, as long as the people engaging in it welcome it, but that certain other pleasant contacts, that they are not mature enough to distinguish from the acceptable ones, are intolerable and harmful, even when everyone involved welcomes it. Note I'm not disputing the difference nor the harm, though I haven't seen the science that supports it. But I'd welcome it, and I wonder how to do that without (i) forcing the child to accept an argument of authority (that tends to kill curiosity and scientific pursuit), (ii) getting the child too interested too early (prohibited stuff tends to draw attention :-), nor (iii) instilling feelings of inappropriateness or inadequacy that could harm their future sexual life. This is way off topic, so feel free to respond without copying the list. I did copy the list because, once the belief that some positions should be held by default and unquestionably is presented as an argument to condemn someone, it's just fair to present an opposite argument involving questioning and pondering on the same issue. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
