Sorry i don't see this exactly as an insult, yes there is quite a bit of abnormality in there probably with a slight touch of insanity, if you fail to see that well that's your problem, not every thing is criticism, some are just observations.
"Criticism" might be too lofty a word for your accusations of "abnormality" and "insanity" in this level-headed personal page. Please reconsider the value of sharing your subjective and uncharitable "observations."
Here's a more complete quote, for anyone interested:
"Teaching children to use Windows is like teaching them to smoke tobacco—in a world where only one company sells tobacco. Like any addictive drug, it inculcates a harmful dependency. (Bill Gates made this comparison in a 1998 issue of Fortune Magazine.) No wonder Microsoft offers the first dose to children at a low price. Microsoft aims to teach poor children this dependency so they can smoke Windows for their whole lives. I don’t think governments or schools should support that aim."
With a small issue that Bill Gates have never said it, the entire quote is by RMS. Bill Gates made a comparison on the fight against big tobacco and the anti-trust campaign against MSFT in the mid to late 90's in that issue, but this isn't even quote mining, it's a complete distortion of the facts.
Bill Gates said in an interview together with Warren Buffett that people in China who were using pirate copies of Windows would get "sort of addicted" and that Microsoft would "somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." That's what RMS is referring to; it's not a fabrication.
RMS characterization of it is a fabrication. Gates did not make the comparison that RMS says he did.
RMS could have accurately described the characterization Gates made, and then launched into how that related to the criticism RMS would like to have made, but choose instead to be dishonest to get a little more rhetorical impact with audiences unfamiliar with the truth (or already committed blindly to the cause) at the expense of his credibility with others.
I disagree with your charge of dishonesty. Gates said that cheap copies of Windows would ensure that many people in China get "sort of addicted" to Microsoft technology. Stallman's "characterization" of the comparison says that Gates likened Windows to an addictive drug. That is not incorrect. Your claim that he is fabricating is itself a rhetorical point intended to discredit Stallman as a liar.
"05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)
Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization.
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
That's not the problem. The problem is how he expresses it - especially the phrasing "voluntary pedophilia". It's very similar to the hullabaloo about Todd Akin's statements where he spoke about "legitimate rape victims".
By definition in the law children are not in the position to make such a decision, therefore the world voluntarily does not have any meaning in this context. Pedophilia is always classified as rape regardless if you think it is ok because the victim said so.
I am just pointing out the status quo by the law that is supposed to be the written, clear representation of the moral behind it.
If you want to challenge that, first you have to recognize children in the law as individuals who can make decisions including about their sex life. This is not going to fly. Without this the entire argument is invalid and making such statements like RMS about this topic is just stupid.
You seem to be saying "[T]he law that is supposed to be the written, clear representation of the moral behind it. If you want to challenge [a given law], first you have to [change that law to recognize as valid the point that you wish to talk about].". Am I wrong?
Then, your statement can be better phrased as "Illegal things are always illegal for a good and proper reason. It's improper and non-productive to discuss whether or not the things that they make illegal should be illegal.".
This is an indefensible statement.
Here are a few relatively harmless, or -in some cases- everyday things that are or were illegal in parts or all of the US:
* Oral and anal sex between unmarried persons (known in the state as "Deviate sexual intercourse") is currently (at the time of this writing) illegal in the State of Alabama. [0] What is "Deviate sexual intercourse"? "Any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another." [1]
* Polygamy and polygyny are illegal in the US. [2]
* Until recently, gay marriage was illegal across the entire US. Now, it's just illegal in significant parts of it. [3]
* Less than a hundred years ago, it was illegal for women to vote in the US. [4]
* Marijuana consumption and production is still very illegal in much of the US, and is considered by the Federal government to be just as bad as heroin, crack, and cocaine consumption and production.
Bad law gets made all the time. What's more, the values of a population tend to change more rapidly than the laws that govern their behavior. Bad, or no-longer-useful laws continue to be enforced for ages before they get struck down (if they ever get struck down).
One critical part of the process that prunes useless law is earnest public discussion of the applicability of the law. Silencing earnest honest discussion of the form "If this illegal behavior actually causes no harm, should it be illegal?" is troubling and harmful, as this sort of discussion is a huge part of how improper laws are removed.
History is littered with accounts of people consummating marriages at ages far below 16. In many jurisdictions, this would be considered pedophilia.
Keeping in mind that -other than overall improvements in health- a man from Ancient Greece is physiologically no different from a man from Today's Greece, Is it your position that the husband or wife in these socially acceptable ancient marriages was a pedophile?
Either a "yes" or a "no" is a totally acceptable answer here. I'm interested in an earnest discussion; I'm not trying to lead you down a garden path or anything.
