That is a poor response to DinoCon’s post.
The con does not appear to be banning anybody who was named in the files, but is banning those who corresponded with Epstein’s organisation after his crimes had become public knowledge.
The man trafficked and raped children. If you want to email the billionaire pedophile to look for fossils on one of his rape-properties, you are a deplorable cunt and being banned from a con is the smallest punishment you are owed.
This guy goes on to say that this is virtue signalling? How? The con is banning people. It is seemingly backing up its post, not basking in the idea of being anti-pedophile. It is making this decision known to the public, as the Epstein files have become a pervasive part of our lives right now. Knowing a person linked to a pedophile rapist may be attending a con could affect attendees, so getting the word out is smart.
Quick question: Why am I a deplorable cunt if I want to look for fossils on a rapist’s piece of land? Am I a war criminal if I want to dig for fossils in Russa?
Hey, I know you raped and tortured children and face zero consequences about it, but do you mind if I come over to your house and play in the backyard?
Pardon, I know I worded it poorly, but what I meant with the Russia example is that the damage done to society is relatively minor by visiting the country or island of a criminal (though not null), while the gain for science could be huge. Somewhat similar to how journalists travel to war zones or occupied territories and comply with local authority such as the Taliban to report on important issues or abuse. They engage with a regime, but for an important reason.
I don’t mind being wrong, I would like to understand the reasoning seemingly most people share in this case.
It’s a question of morality. Harry Harlow’s experiments were also pretty influential, not just in science but in how we conduct science. The latter experiments are now widely considered unethical because they’re absolutely sickening experiments bordering on torture. You can advance science but at what cost?
In case it needs to be made apparent, even most violent criminals draw the line at hurting children which is why in most prisons pedophiles end up separated from the rest the prison population. Associating with child rapists is so amoral even violent criminals don’t want that shit. So yeah, strictly scientifically speaking you can go dig some fossils in a child rapists backyard. Morally speaking, don’t be surprised when the rest of the scientific community doesn’t want anything to do with you because you’re so amoral you don’t care about associating with a known child rapist.
I’m a bit on the fence here, because the bar is being set at “corresponding with” rather than “associating with”. Perhaps you need to get in touch with some government official or some billionaire to get something done, and someone you know knows a guy who could put you in touch with them, so you send that guy an email. You just corresponded with someone. Would you have done a thorough background check on the middle man before sending an email?
I mean, I don’t know if these cases are like that or not, but corresponding with someone doesn’t in itself imply any kind of affiliation or knowledge about the person you communicate with.
We’re talking about “elites” of society. So yes, you should do the bare minimum google search on the person you’re emailing about getting in touch with a billionaire lol.
This isn’t some small example where you were trying to get in touch with someone at your medical insurance agency and unknowingly wound up on the phone with a convicted rapist who made the local news…
To be clear: I don’t know the paleontologist in question or what they did or didn’t do. I don’t even know my way around paleontology, aside from maybe the most basic education.
If I were in that position I really would prefer not to have to message this individual (or travel to Iran, or …) to do some digging. And I understand being wary of someone who does. But I don’t quite understand how that is placed on the pedestal as being friends or otherwise well acquainted with a know child molester and trafficker. Were they friends? Sure, avoid the scientist whenever possible.
But I do not see a fundamental wrong with asking nicely “Dear Mr., can I come and dig up your backyard because I think there are some important fossils?” Would it be wrong to dig up Charles Manson’s back yard for that reason? State lands in Russa?
We already have testimony of them eating pieces of children, and Trump having the newborn child of someone he raped killed and thrown into Lake Michigan.
So the thought of bodies buried on the island isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.
I think I am. Isn’t the advancement of science more important than the shunning of criminals?
I did word it poorly, but what I meant with the Russia example is that the damage done to society is relatively minor by visiting the country or island of a criminal (though not null), while the gain for science could be huge. Somewhat similar to how journalists travel to war zones or occupied territories and comply with local authority such as the Taliban to report on important issues or abuse. They engage with a regime, but for an important reason.
This is the question of ethics vs pragmatism. I do not denounce the discussion, nor do I discourage you from considering the pitfalls of choosing. Also, right now, timing and politics affect everything, and so also must be considered.
One of the cool things about most sciences is that it can wait. Society is delicate, too, and people’s lives are REAL.
Another thing to consider is that not all currency is monetary, and that by not condemning these monsters, there are many situations where you effectively do support them and their actions, and that is what the convention is pointing out.
Goons may not be the heads or decision makers, but they are, at best, malevolent negligence, and are often the active forces executing the very will and accumulating more power and attention and importance of the heads.
Maybe, use your science for good, instead? And if you can’t figure that out… There’s no nice way to say this… but, you probably need to work on your (weak) moral compass.
And if you do decide on your way, know that you have also, then, accepted all consequences of your actions.
That is a poor response to DinoCon’s post. The con does not appear to be banning anybody who was named in the files, but is banning those who corresponded with Epstein’s organisation after his crimes had become public knowledge.
The man trafficked and raped children. If you want to email the billionaire pedophile to look for fossils on one of his rape-properties, you are a deplorable cunt and being banned from a con is the smallest punishment you are owed.
This guy goes on to say that this is virtue signalling? How? The con is banning people. It is seemingly backing up its post, not basking in the idea of being anti-pedophile. It is making this decision known to the public, as the Epstein files have become a pervasive part of our lives right now. Knowing a person linked to a pedophile rapist may be attending a con could affect attendees, so getting the word out is smart.
Quick question: Why am I a deplorable cunt if I want to look for fossils on a rapist’s piece of land? Am I a war criminal if I want to dig for fossils in Russa?
Hey, I know you raped and tortured children and face zero consequences about it, but do you mind if I come over to your house and play in the backyard?
Pardon, I know I worded it poorly, but what I meant with the Russia example is that the damage done to society is relatively minor by visiting the country or island of a criminal (though not null), while the gain for science could be huge. Somewhat similar to how journalists travel to war zones or occupied territories and comply with local authority such as the Taliban to report on important issues or abuse. They engage with a regime, but for an important reason.
I don’t mind being wrong, I would like to understand the reasoning seemingly most people share in this case.
It’s a question of morality. Harry Harlow’s experiments were also pretty influential, not just in science but in how we conduct science. The latter experiments are now widely considered unethical because they’re absolutely sickening experiments bordering on torture. You can advance science but at what cost?
In case it needs to be made apparent, even most violent criminals draw the line at hurting children which is why in most prisons pedophiles end up separated from the rest the prison population. Associating with child rapists is so amoral even violent criminals don’t want that shit. So yeah, strictly scientifically speaking you can go dig some fossils in a child rapists backyard. Morally speaking, don’t be surprised when the rest of the scientific community doesn’t want anything to do with you because you’re so amoral you don’t care about associating with a known child rapist.
I’m a bit on the fence here, because the bar is being set at “corresponding with” rather than “associating with”. Perhaps you need to get in touch with some government official or some billionaire to get something done, and someone you know knows a guy who could put you in touch with them, so you send that guy an email. You just corresponded with someone. Would you have done a thorough background check on the middle man before sending an email?
I mean, I don’t know if these cases are like that or not, but corresponding with someone doesn’t in itself imply any kind of affiliation or knowledge about the person you communicate with.
We’re talking about “elites” of society. So yes, you should do the bare minimum google search on the person you’re emailing about getting in touch with a billionaire lol.
This isn’t some small example where you were trying to get in touch with someone at your medical insurance agency and unknowingly wound up on the phone with a convicted rapist who made the local news…
To be clear: I don’t know the paleontologist in question or what they did or didn’t do. I don’t even know my way around paleontology, aside from maybe the most basic education.
If I were in that position I really would prefer not to have to message this individual (or travel to Iran, or …) to do some digging. And I understand being wary of someone who does. But I don’t quite understand how that is placed on the pedestal as being friends or otherwise well acquainted with a know child molester and trafficker. Were they friends? Sure, avoid the scientist whenever possible.
But I do not see a fundamental wrong with asking nicely “Dear Mr., can I come and dig up your backyard because I think there are some important fossils?” Would it be wrong to dig up Charles Manson’s back yard for that reason? State lands in Russa?
I don’t think they buried the corpses. I could be wrong though.
How much you wanna bet.
We already have testimony of them eating pieces of children, and Trump having the newborn child of someone he raped killed and thrown into Lake Michigan.
So the thought of bodies buried on the island isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.
You can’t really be this obtuse, can you?
I think I am. Isn’t the advancement of science more important than the shunning of criminals?
I did word it poorly, but what I meant with the Russia example is that the damage done to society is relatively minor by visiting the country or island of a criminal (though not null), while the gain for science could be huge. Somewhat similar to how journalists travel to war zones or occupied territories and comply with local authority such as the Taliban to report on important issues or abuse. They engage with a regime, but for an important reason.
This is the question of ethics vs pragmatism. I do not denounce the discussion, nor do I discourage you from considering the pitfalls of choosing. Also, right now, timing and politics affect everything, and so also must be considered.
One of the cool things about most sciences is that it can wait. Society is delicate, too, and people’s lives are REAL.
Another thing to consider is that not all currency is monetary, and that by not condemning these monsters, there are many situations where you effectively do support them and their actions, and that is what the convention is pointing out.
Goons may not be the heads or decision makers, but they are, at best, malevolent negligence, and are often the active forces executing the very will and accumulating more power and attention and importance of the heads.
Maybe, use your science for good, instead? And if you can’t figure that out… There’s no nice way to say this… but, you probably need to work on your (weak) moral compass.
And if you do decide on your way, know that you have also, then, accepted all consequences of your actions.