Stallman wants people to use more precise language. "Sexual assault" is the most precise language for what happened. What other term is more precise?
He specifically disclaims using jurisdictional-specific terms. However, if that's your argument, are you really saying that "rape" doesn't occur in New Mexico because the law there calls it "criminal sexual penetration"?
If that is your argument, what *is* the appropriate term for the US VI? The law code uses the term "sexual assault" but does not define it. Do you really think Stallman figured out the correct legal term for this case, and if so, what is it?
I think Stallman *doesn't know those definitions*. He makes no reference to consent, and states that violence is a necessary component of sexual assault. Is there *any* US jurisdiction which has that requirement, eg, where 'sexual assault is defined, and where sex with an unconscious woman is not sexual assult?
He doesn't say anything like 'people often think that ...', but instead argues that it's "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation". He knows exactly how a "brings to mind" argument is support to work - it's what he uses at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html to object to "intellectual property". In there he writes "The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws." I think your argument is that he means here to write "The term “sexual assault” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws."
Except he does nothing like that. It's much easier to interpret him as speaking out of ignorance. I see nowhere where he acknowledges the existing legal definitions before rejecting them.
As you just wrote, *you* think it does fit some of the formal definitions. Hence, Stallman is wrong to say that it's the "absolute wrong term".
"Child abuse" has "a wide variety of formal definitions". Does that mean we can't use "child abuse" during an accusation? *Most* legal terms have "a wide variety of formal definitions". Must we avoid them too?
As our host implied, and to continue your metaphor, that noose started tightening decades ago. This isn't the final straw, but the final bale of hay, and he's had many opportunities to learn better.
Re: 20 years late ?
He specifically disclaims using jurisdictional-specific terms. However, if that's your argument, are you really saying that "rape" doesn't occur in New Mexico because the law there calls it "criminal sexual penetration"?
If that is your argument, what *is* the appropriate term for the US VI? The law code uses the term "sexual assault" but does not define it. Do you really think Stallman figured out the correct legal term for this case, and if so, what is it?
I think Stallman *doesn't know those definitions*. He makes no reference to consent, and states that violence is a necessary component of sexual assault. Is there *any* US jurisdiction which has that requirement, eg, where 'sexual assault is defined, and where sex with an unconscious woman is not sexual assult?
He doesn't say anything like 'people often think that ...', but instead argues that it's "absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation". He knows exactly how a "brings to mind" argument is support to work - it's what he uses at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html to object to "intellectual property". In there he writes "The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws." I think your argument is that he means here to write "The term “sexual assault” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws."
Except he does nothing like that. It's much easier to interpret him as speaking out of ignorance. I see nowhere where he acknowledges the existing legal definitions before rejecting them.
As you just wrote, *you* think it does fit some of the formal definitions. Hence, Stallman is wrong to say that it's the "absolute wrong term".
"Child abuse" has "a wide variety of formal definitions". Does that mean we can't use "child abuse" during an accusation? *Most* legal terms have "a wide variety of formal definitions". Must we avoid them too?
As our host implied, and to continue your metaphor, that noose started tightening decades ago. This isn't the final straw, but the final bale of hay, and he's had many opportunities to learn better.