That fucker ruined Linguistics too — he was in friendly terms with Noam Chomsky.
Personally I am not aware on how much Chomsky should be blamed for this association; it’s possible Epstein was simply using him. But even in the hypothesis Chomsky is innocent, it stinks.
At the very least we can safely blame him for not doing basic due diligence: even a hypothetically honest “I didn’t know” shows disregard for the victims of his “associate”. It’s already morally awful, even if [AFAIK] it wouldn’t be illegal in USA. [Would it?]
There’s also the possibility he actually knew about it, but didn’t act on it. Morally speaking that would be even worse than the above, and [again, AFAIK] already a crime (omission).
That sounds like Chomsky? Doing the taxes of an uber wealth financier/convicted pedophile?
The inverse: the über rich paedophile doing Chomsky’s taxes. Get things right if you want to screech dammit.
Plus Chomsky being smart+shitty enough to bullshit when in trouble, instead of saying “none of your business”. If Chomsky did the later instead of the former, it’s a sign he didn’t see any need to bullshit.
Stop lying to yourself.
A person lying to oneself would not say “when in doubt”. Or to “not [be] aware on how much Chomsky should be blamed”. Or talk about the “hypothesis” he is innocent. They’d be vomiting certainty: “Chomsky is [innocent|guilty] lol”.
Instead, a person lying to oneself would be vomiting certainty like an assumer, re-eating their own vomit, and expecting others to eat it too.
So perhaps the one being a liar (or worse, an assumer) here is not me.
Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.
How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?
I mean, Jesus Christ dude… It’s like you NEED this to be true.
Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
…since you’re insistently lying (yes) about what I need: I don’t “need” him to be innocent, and I don’t “need” him to be guilty. From my PoV he’s simply some old guy, with a bunch of hypotheses that range from “this is interesting” to “nah, bollocks”, always backpedalling when proved wrong. That’s it.
Is this clear?
(Also take a clue from the fact I was the one bringing him up, even if the thread is about the DinoCon.)
We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.
Yes, and? Myself said so in another comment dammit. The question here is how much he should be blamed. Should we blame him for:
Abusing some children himself?
Not abusing them, but actively helping Epstein to do so, in matters directly related to the abuse?
Not directly helping Epstein with the abuse, but knowing to be associated with a paedophile, and not giving a fuck about it?
Not knowing he was associated with a paedophile, but being in a position he should have done so?
Nothing?
Are you getting the picture? It’s a fucking gradient of shit. Both #1 and #5 are likely bollocks; but from #2 to #4 it’s all “maybe”. We don’t know what he did, and we don’t know what he knows.
And before some muppet says “but you said «I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.»!!!”: I was clearly talking about what I formalised as #3. This is bloody obvious by context dammit, check the comment I was answering to!
How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?
That is not even remotely close to what I said.
You don’t even know what you’re screeching at.
At this rate it’s safe to ignore you as dead weight and a noise. Feel free to keep screeching at your own assumptions, as if you were screeching at what I said, but don’t expect me to read it.
When you’re very rich and influential it is easy to get access to all the top scientists to discuss your quack ideas. Who knows what happened beyond that, the thing is that they’re involved anyway.
That motherfucker
ruinedtarnished dinosaurs too!? edit, i still like dinosaurs.Fuck you, stop giving him power he doesn’t have.
He didn’t ruin or tarnish all of paleontology. He can’t.
Jesus Christ you fucking people.
That fucker ruined Linguistics too — he was in friendly terms with Noam Chomsky.
Personally I am not aware on how much Chomsky should be blamed for this association; it’s possible Epstein was simply using him. But even in the hypothesis Chomsky is innocent, it stinks.
Chomsky adviced Epstein on how to deal with the public backlash, for Epstein being a convicted pedophile. There is no evidence that Chomsky did something illegal, but it certainly stinks.
Yeah.
At the very least we can safely blame him for not doing basic due diligence: even a hypothetically honest “I didn’t know” shows disregard for the victims of his “associate”. It’s already morally awful, even if [AFAIK] it wouldn’t be illegal in USA. [Would it?]
There’s also the possibility he actually knew about it, but didn’t act on it. Morally speaking that would be even worse than the above, and [again, AFAIK] already a crime (omission).
When Chomsky was asked what he corresponded with epstein about years ago, he said essentially “none of your fucking business”.
Which is such a bad answer, I am half inclined to believe he just wanted help filing his taxes and a guilty Chomsky would have the sense to lie.
Yup, that sounds like him. He isn’t above bullshitting but not bothering to bullshit hints he believed he had nothing to hide.
I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.
That sounds like Chomsky? Doing the taxes of an uber wealth financier/convicted pedophile?
Stop lying to yourself.
The inverse: the über rich paedophile doing Chomsky’s taxes. Get things right if you want to screech dammit.
Plus Chomsky being smart+shitty enough to bullshit when in trouble, instead of saying “none of your business”. If Chomsky did the later instead of the former, it’s a sign he didn’t see any need to bullshit.
A person lying to oneself would not say “when in doubt”. Or to “not [be] aware on how much Chomsky should be blamed”. Or talk about the “hypothesis” he is innocent. They’d be vomiting certainty: “Chomsky is [innocent|guilty] lol”.
Instead, a person lying to oneself would be vomiting certainty like an assumer, re-eating their own vomit, and expecting others to eat it too.
So perhaps the one being a liar (or worse, an assumer) here is not me.
Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.
How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?
I mean, Jesus Christ dude… It’s like you NEED this to be true.
…since you’re insistently lying (yes) about what I need: I don’t “need” him to be innocent, and I don’t “need” him to be guilty. From my PoV he’s simply some old guy, with a bunch of hypotheses that range from “this is interesting” to “nah, bollocks”, always backpedalling when proved wrong. That’s it.
Is this clear?
(Also take a clue from the fact I was the one bringing him up, even if the thread is about the DinoCon.)
Yes, and? Myself said so in another comment dammit. The question here is how much he should be blamed. Should we blame him for:
Are you getting the picture? It’s a fucking gradient of shit. Both #1 and #5 are likely bollocks; but from #2 to #4 it’s all “maybe”. We don’t know what he did, and we don’t know what he knows.
And before some muppet says “but you said «I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.»!!!”: I was clearly talking about what I formalised as #3. This is bloody obvious by context dammit, check the comment I was answering to!
That is not even remotely close to what I said.
You don’t even know what you’re screeching at.
At this rate it’s safe to ignore you as dead weight and a noise. Feel free to keep screeching at your own assumptions, as if you were screeching at what I said, but don’t expect me to read it.
Sadly there’s a lot of intelectuals that were involved, Lawrence Krauss, Noem Chomsky, Steven Hawking just scratching the surface.
No one should be surprised that known sex pest Krauss was mixed up with Epstein.
How the heck was Stephen Hawking involved??
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article283847883.html
I have no words to explain the levels of disappointment and rage I am feeling at this moment.
When you’re very rich and influential it is easy to get access to all the top scientists to discuss your quack ideas. Who knows what happened beyond that, the thing is that they’re involved anyway.