I was wondering why this thread was so long and full of personal attacks, then I noticed who you were interacting with. Ugh, that person is pretty toxic.
In one side, in academia lots of researchers use email lists of benefactors, without checking every single one and automate the donation request for higher chances of success. So people can allege ignorance.
On the other end, there is optics. It is easier to investigate a no name than someone who is constantly donating money, people’s morals can be compromised when they think “It is a tenuous accusation, and if we freeze their funds, all of this science projects, charities and good deeds would also be affected, so best to err on the side of caution”, giving associates of the evil person time to hide or destroy evidence, tip the evil person about the investigation, and give the henchmen of said evil person time go blackmail, threaten and even murder the people behind the investigation.
Decisive action is important in law enforcement, and both optics and soft power can be a hinderance to investigation when used in that way.
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.
I have never defended anyone with excessive wealth in my entire life, and especially not a sex trafficker or other criminals. Do you normally slander people, or what’s your problem with putting false words into someone else’s mouth?
No, I have never done that. You’re slandering me yet again.
A refresher: I originally asked what the problem would be. And then it took me asking 4 different times before you gave the answer “soft power”. You could have just done that originally, instead of being toxic and insulting me.
Not everyone is as smart as you, why do you have to be such a jerk about it?
That wasn’t the question. My question was, how would he be benefiting from me taking his money?
I was wondering why this thread was so long and full of personal attacks, then I noticed who you were interacting with. Ugh, that person is pretty toxic.
In one side, in academia lots of researchers use email lists of benefactors, without checking every single one and automate the donation request for higher chances of success. So people can allege ignorance.
On the other end, there is optics. It is easier to investigate a no name than someone who is constantly donating money, people’s morals can be compromised when they think “It is a tenuous accusation, and if we freeze their funds, all of this science projects, charities and good deeds would also be affected, so best to err on the side of caution”, giving associates of the evil person time to hide or destroy evidence, tip the evil person about the investigation, and give the henchmen of said evil person time go blackmail, threaten and even murder the people behind the investigation.
Decisive action is important in law enforcement, and both optics and soft power can be a hinderance to investigation when used in that way.
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.
I have never defended anyone with excessive wealth in my entire life, and especially not a sex trafficker or other criminals. Do you normally slander people, or what’s your problem with putting false words into someone else’s mouth?
You are arguing with me right here and right now how it should be totally OK to take this predator’s funding.
No, I have never done that. You’re slandering me yet again.
A refresher: I originally asked what the problem would be. And then it took me asking 4 different times before you gave the answer “soft power”. You could have just done that originally, instead of being toxic and insulting me.
Not everyone is as smart as you, why do you have to be such a jerk about it?