I’d have no problems taking dirty money, as long as I wouldn’t need to do anything for it… am I just dumb, or why would it be immoral to make dirty folk less-rich?
I’m sure the women you work with would be so pleased to know that the pursuit of science is much more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable. It would make them really comfortable to be around you.
You: “hey, child rapist, can I have some money please?”
Child rapist: “sure, no problem, my friend”
…
“see, fellow child rapists, most people will allow us to do what we want because we have money. They don’t see anything wrong with personally profiting from us. Right, who’s up for more child rape?”
Now, if you were to take all the money from the child rapist and then use it to tackle human trafficking, etc etc etc, then, yeah, there’s nothing wrong with that. But taking any money from any paedo/evil cunt is just allowing them to carry on doing their evil shit by sharing their riches.
Maybe it’s some kind of language barrier, but my definition of business is “any activity or enterprise entered into for profit”. So again, where would his profit be in giving me money with no strings attached?
How do you get so caught up in thinking wrong? I asked a hypothetical question and you’re acting like I’d ever support him? The only negative thing about him being killed is that his victims can’t get retribution.
It’s the soft power of being charitable. There’s reasons that the rich fund projects like this - it’s to make people like you defend them even after they’ve committed terrible crimes against humanity.
Knowingly using dirty money is immoral, even if used for a good cause [with the expection of undoing what made the money dirty in the first place]. On a tier-list, it would be a D tier option, above things like stealing toothpaste from a walmart, but below scalping via artificial inflation.
The immoral part is via association. Even if you denounce what the donor has done, you are still allowing them to be partially responsible for any good that comes out of the work/research.
Desperation for funding has often led people to compromise morality for progress, and I struggle to judge what is the correct decision, even if the moral option is clear.
I mean really, honestly most people didn’t give a shit about Epstein until someone suocided him. And even then, gave very few shits until earlier this year.
Like I’d expect that bar for politicians, celebrities, public figures…people who have money to begin with and staff to tell them that this person shouldn’t be associated with…I don’t know if I can set that same expectation on academics reaching out for funding from somebody whose been known to fund academia.
Epstein wasn’t a household name until his death; even post “suicide” and the revelations about his pedo empire it’s still not common for people to extensively research the background of strangers they’re cold-calling, and Epstein had more than enough money to SEO away reports of his conviction.
If you didnt know him or weren’t told directly about him being a pedo, it was unlikely that you could have known about him at the time. Most of the folks in the epstein files did know him though - and it’s pretty easy to check which group someone falls into.
I would say his name became pretty well known before his death. I’d say more like 2018 with the Miami Herald exposé.
Less known but still pretty public was Giuffre in 2011 with the allegations against the Andrew formerly known as a prince. It was a pretty big story for the UK royal family. Maybe not “household” level though.
Epstein’s arrest was also pretty big news, though yes it was only a month or so before his death, but I would have to say he was known by a pretty significant number of people by this point, definitely household name by the time of arrest.
After his death is when the conspiracy theories went all over the place, but I wouldn’t equate that to his being a household name.
Thank you for clarifying! And I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re right. You may have known about him, but prior to his death practically nobody else knew or cared about him.
Even his arrest was global news, random google chart aside.
Reps were calling for Acosta to testify about the plea deal before his arrest, following the herald’s exposé.
Before that it was brought up for ties to Clinton, quite regularly, especially during the campaigning up to the 2016 election…
Skyrocketing interest following his death (more to find out about his death than anything else) or following a very public and continual series of comments about the Epstein files doesn’t really indicate anything other than google searches following significant events, not whether people were aware of him. That is really all that “interest over time” chart says, IMO - more people were searching for additional news, nothing more, on very recent, very public, very notable news.
The difference here is that they continued to engage in correspondence after his conviction.
oh yeah in that case fuck em
I’d have no problems taking dirty money, as long as I wouldn’t need to do anything for it… am I just dumb, or why would it be immoral to make dirty folk less-rich?
Ethics are important in science
Thanks, that’s good point! it’s refreshing when smart people don’t feel the need to be rude.
I’m sure the women you work with would be so pleased to know that the pursuit of science is much more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable. It would make them really comfortable to be around you.
That wasn’t the question. My question was, how would he be benefiting from me taking his money?
You don’t see how it’s immoral to take funding from Epstein?
I can also dodge questions by asking a different question. Is it immoral to steal from billionaires?
You: “hey, child rapist, can I have some money please?” Child rapist: “sure, no problem, my friend”
…
“see, fellow child rapists, most people will allow us to do what we want because we have money. They don’t see anything wrong with personally profiting from us. Right, who’s up for more child rape?”
Now, if you were to take all the money from the child rapist and then use it to tackle human trafficking, etc etc etc, then, yeah, there’s nothing wrong with that. But taking any money from any paedo/evil cunt is just allowing them to carry on doing their evil shit by sharing their riches.
It’s essentially signing off on his other actions by engaging in business as usual after his conviction.
I didn’t think I needed to spell that out to anyone who wasn’t an Epstein supporter.
Maybe it’s some kind of language barrier, but my definition of business is “any activity or enterprise entered into for profit”. So again, where would his profit be in giving me money with no strings attached?
How do you get so caught up in thinking wrong? I asked a hypothetical question and you’re acting like I’d ever support him? The only negative thing about him being killed is that his victims can’t get retribution.
It’s the soft power of being charitable. There’s reasons that the rich fund projects like this - it’s to make people like you defend them even after they’ve committed terrible crimes against humanity.
Knowingly using dirty money is immoral, even if used for a good cause [with the expection of undoing what made the money dirty in the first place]. On a tier-list, it would be a D tier option, above things like stealing toothpaste from a walmart, but below scalping via artificial inflation.
The immoral part is via association. Even if you denounce what the donor has done, you are still allowing them to be partially responsible for any good that comes out of the work/research.
Desperation for funding has often led people to compromise morality for progress, and I struggle to judge what is the correct decision, even if the moral option is clear.
Is that expected of paleontologists?
I mean really, honestly most people didn’t give a shit about Epstein until someone suocided him. And even then, gave very few shits until earlier this year.
Like I’d expect that bar for politicians, celebrities, public figures…people who have money to begin with and staff to tell them that this person shouldn’t be associated with…I don’t know if I can set that same expectation on academics reaching out for funding from somebody whose been known to fund academia.
You don’t think the line should be drawn at pedophilia?
What are we doing here? We’re wholesale signing off on supporting a prolific and dangerous pedophile?
Epstein wasn’t a household name until his death; even post “suicide” and the revelations about his pedo empire it’s still not common for people to extensively research the background of strangers they’re cold-calling, and Epstein had more than enough money to SEO away reports of his conviction.
If you didnt know him or weren’t told directly about him being a pedo, it was unlikely that you could have known about him at the time. Most of the folks in the epstein files did know him though - and it’s pretty easy to check which group someone falls into.
I would say his name became pretty well known before his death. I’d say more like 2018 with the Miami Herald exposé.
Less known but still pretty public was Giuffre in 2011 with the allegations against the Andrew formerly known as a prince. It was a pretty big story for the UK royal family. Maybe not “household” level though.
Epstein’s arrest was also pretty big news, though yes it was only a month or so before his death, but I would have to say he was known by a pretty significant number of people by this point, definitely household name by the time of arrest.
After his death is when the conspiracy theories went all over the place, but I wouldn’t equate that to his being a household name.
I’m sorry, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here.
You said he wasn’t a household name until he died.
I would not agree with that, it was definitely earlier enough to cause issues, including reopening investigations, long before he died.
Thats all.
Thank you for clarifying! And I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re right. You may have known about him, but prior to his death practically nobody else knew or cared about him.
Even his arrest was global news, random google chart aside.
Reps were calling for Acosta to testify about the plea deal before his arrest, following the herald’s exposé.
Before that it was brought up for ties to Clinton, quite regularly, especially during the campaigning up to the 2016 election…
Skyrocketing interest following his death (more to find out about his death than anything else) or following a very public and continual series of comments about the Epstein files doesn’t really indicate anything other than google searches following significant events, not whether people were aware of him. That is really all that “interest over time” chart says, IMO - more people were searching for additional news, nothing more, on very recent, very public, very notable news.