Wait but we’re not talking about pedophiles are we? We’re talking about people who communicated with an organization run by pedophiles. That’s a big difference.
“ThEy’rE not PedOPhiLeS ThEy JuSt ARe FriENdS with MaNY Of tHeM DaS Not ThE sAmE”
If you know they’re terrible people, and you continue to have connections to them then you’re either terrible also, or an enabler.
Any person who was over 20 years old who sexually assaulted any person under 15 years old, and ANY WHO KNEW IT and didn’t shout it from the mountaintops deserves to die, or rot in a hole.
You don’t know either, all we can do is use our best judgement.
If someone’s name pops up 3 times in 4 million documents, I would give the benefit of the doubt, but if somebody has been to ‘Rape Island’ 30 times then I’m going to cut ties with them, their business, and anybody who says ‘YoU dOn’T kNoW for SuRe’
Too many people forget that “Innocent until proven guilty” is for the law, not for ethics.
My ethics tell me that if you’re not blatantly denouncing a child rapist, you are not a good person.
According to the Montana Standard, after his name surfaced in the released files, Horner posted, and later deleted, a social media statement calling his decision to pursue Epstein’s support an extremely poor judgment. He said that while he knew Epstein had been convicted of soliciting prostitution, he was unaware of Epstein’s broader sex trafficking operation until years later.
Horner wrote that his visit involved only Epstein, staff, and several women introduced as college students. He said Epstein donated $10,000 toward a 2012 DinoChicken conference but otherwise declined to fund his research. “There was nothing weird, inappropriate, or out of the ordinary,” Horner said in the statement.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology released a notice to members last week, cautioning that inclusion in the Epstein files does not alone imply misconduct.
Those are sketchy circumstances, I think a ban from events is more than fair under the circumstances. Normally I would expect a ban like this to be lifted once feds completed their investigation (assuming no wrongdoing occurred), but obviously the feds aren’t interested in investigating, so we may not get the chance to know whether or not there’s more to this.
I think it’s fair to expect the justice system to pursue “innocent before proven guilty”, but private organizations ban and/or suspend members all the time due to credible accusations, even if they haven’t been convicted in a court of law.
Oh no! The respect of someone who responds to the epstein files with jealousy and defense!
Jealousy and defence? I’m citing justice and common decency.
Justice is pedophiles being centrifuged into their constituent elements.
Wait but we’re not talking about pedophiles are we? We’re talking about people who communicated with an organization run by pedophiles. That’s a big difference.
“ThEy’rE not PedOPhiLeS ThEy JuSt ARe FriENdS with MaNY Of tHeM DaS Not ThE sAmE”
If you know they’re terrible people, and you continue to have connections to them then you’re either terrible also, or an enabler.
Any person who was over 20 years old who sexually assaulted any person under 15 years old, and ANY WHO KNEW IT and didn’t shout it from the mountaintops deserves to die, or rot in a hole.
They probably aren’t even friends. Maybe they just exchanged an email. You don’t know.
You don’t know either, all we can do is use our best judgement.
If someone’s name pops up 3 times in 4 million documents, I would give the benefit of the doubt, but if somebody has been to ‘Rape Island’ 30 times then I’m going to cut ties with them, their business, and anybody who says ‘YoU dOn’T kNoW for SuRe’
Too many people forget that “Innocent until proven guilty” is for the law, not for ethics.
My ethics tell me that if you’re not blatantly denouncing a child rapist, you are not a good person.
Did anyone in this thread read the article?
Those are sketchy circumstances, I think a ban from events is more than fair under the circumstances. Normally I would expect a ban like this to be lifted once feds completed their investigation (assuming no wrongdoing occurred), but obviously the feds aren’t interested in investigating, so we may not get the chance to know whether or not there’s more to this.
I think it’s fair to expect the justice system to pursue “innocent before proven guilty”, but private organizations ban and/or suspend members all the time due to credible accusations, even if they haven’t been convicted in a court of law.