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?
I have no patience for someone asking why taking funding from Epstein is a bad thing. Read the post. There’s a reason DinoCon put their foot down. They BANNED those scientists who thought the same as you. It’s deplorable. It’s right there in the post from DinoCon.
Everyone should have no tolerance for allowing this behavior to go unchallenged. That’s one of the main reasons Epstein was so successful.
Not fully understanding why no-strings-attached money is a bad thing, isn’t the same thing as sealioning.
You’ve wasted so much time trying to justify your toxic outbursts instead of simply saying “soft power” from the start. Then you could have used your time and energy for something more productive. Do you get joy out of this or what?
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.
Also I did answer you right here in one of my first comments.
The pursuit of science should not be more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable.
To be fair, I honestly stopped reading after I saw it was a personal attack, because people who feel the need to stoop that low don’t usually have anything to contribute to a discussion. Can you blame me? I come here for normal discussions, not Reddit-tier personal attacks.
Not to mention, that still didn’t answer it, because I didn’t understand until other people explained it that no-strings-attached money would actually be a moral issue.
Grow up and stop being a toxic asshole on an obscure internet board.
If DinoCon can correctly identify why it’s bad to take funding from Epstein after his conviction, why are you in the comments asking questions to justify taking dirty money?
Think about it from any of Epstein’s victims point of view. That the world continued to do business with Epstein, to protect him, to shield him from consequences because…of money.
What about people doing business with Trump? What about people doing business with the U.S. government under Trump? What about all federal government jobs? What about working for any company that gets any kind of direct or indirect federal subsidies?
Not sure I agree that it’s significantly different. I feel like this is just an excuse to forgive oneself for getting money from one devil while lambasting someone else for getting money from a different devil.
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?
“Just asking questions”
I have no patience for someone asking why taking funding from Epstein is a bad thing. Read the post. There’s a reason DinoCon put their foot down. They BANNED those scientists who thought the same as you. It’s deplorable. It’s right there in the post from DinoCon.
Everyone should have no tolerance for allowing this behavior to go unchallenged. That’s one of the main reasons Epstein was so successful.
Not fully understanding why no-strings-attached money is a bad thing, isn’t the same thing as sealioning.
You’ve wasted so much time trying to justify your toxic outbursts instead of simply saying “soft power” from the start. Then you could have used your time and energy for something more productive. Do you get joy out of this or what?
Also I did answer you right here in one of my first comments.
The pursuit of science should not be more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable.
To be fair, I honestly stopped reading after I saw it was a personal attack, because people who feel the need to stoop that low don’t usually have anything to contribute to a discussion. Can you blame me? I come here for normal discussions, not Reddit-tier personal attacks.
Not to mention, that still didn’t answer it, because I didn’t understand until other people explained it that no-strings-attached money would actually be a moral issue.
Grow up and stop being a toxic asshole on an obscure internet board.
The answer is obvious from the post itself.
If DinoCon can correctly identify why it’s bad to take funding from Epstein after his conviction, why are you in the comments asking questions to justify taking dirty money?
Think about it from any of Epstein’s victims point of view. That the world continued to do business with Epstein, to protect him, to shield him from consequences because…of money.
What about people doing business with Trump? What about people doing business with the U.S. government under Trump? What about all federal government jobs? What about working for any company that gets any kind of direct or indirect federal subsidies?
The US government is different than an individual like Epstein.
If they were dealing with Trump as a businessman and not the president, I’d have the same view.
Not sure I agree that it’s significantly different. I feel like this is just an excuse to forgive oneself for getting money from one devil while lambasting someone else for getting money from a different devil.