I'm sorry, but functionally the problem witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults. While I think there is a good argument to be made that kids can and should have control of their own sexuality, suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing."

No one in a position to cause this outcome didn't read the original statements. Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding (or that this was an isolated incident of RMS's sexism, for that matter) is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.

>> ay that someone claimed that Stalin drank the blood of his victims, would it be "inappropriate and indefensible" to try to debunk such a claim (and thus defend Stalin) in the process?

It's an interesting point given that there actually is a certain strain of Stalin's apologists that reply to any critique of their idol with "yeah, and he also drank blood and ate little children for breakfast".

There is a rational thing RMS was doing, supposing that Minsky's accuser would have appeared willing to him with the implication that in there was a defense for Minsky's behavior (hypothetical or not).

The problem is defending a man accused of statutory rape by saying his accuser appeared willing. Everything else is irrelevant.

And it wasn't a situation where there was the slightest bit of ambiguity. 17 and 73. Billionare's private island.

Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired. There might be a very narrow context in which a discussion of that nature would be appropriate. Where it happened was a million miles from there.