Guilty until proven innocent?
Critique about that convention’s virtue signaling:
https://franklinveauxblog.quora.com/As-a-progressive-American-liberal-there-s-a-thing-that-gets-right-up-my-nose-Conservatives-often-critique-liberals-for
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.
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.
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?
fossilesque
Tehdastehdas
KaChilde