2 ms·

> I think that's a very unfair framing of the issue. He invited Epstein over. Epstein brought his 'assistants'. It's still a question mark whether they were eve

> I think that's a very unfair framing of the issue. He invited Epstein over. Epstein brought his 'assistants'. It's still a question mark whether they were even prostitutes, let alone prostitutes operating in any sort of non-consensual capacity. What we have here is simply that someone at MIT speculated whether they were being trafficked. There is no evidence at all that their presence was anything other than consensual. How is it unfair? Have you ever been put in a position at work where it even crossed your mind that associates of a guest your boss invited might be sex trafficked? Have you even heard of that happening until now? We are talking about a truly extraordinary situation; can we not agree that if you have to even consider the question, something is very wrong? The focus on whether or not they were correct about these particular women being trafficked is myopic. It’s 2019, and we have the benefit of hindsight: Epstein was indeed still sex trafficking. This instance may or may not have been an example of that, but ultimately the Media Lab employees’ fears about him were borne out.

dennisgorelik 7y ago
What does "sex trafficked" mean? Is it prostitution? Sexual slavery? Why do you use such an unclear term in a discussion?
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Is that really an important question? Is there an definition that would make it okay?
  - dennisgorelik 7y ago
    Yes, "why do you use 'sex trafficking' term?" is an important question. Yes: if under "sex trafficking" we understand [consensual] "prostitution", then in some states it is OK. But even if "sex trafficking" is not ok -- there are various degrees of "not ok". That is why it is important to use clear definitions in a discussion. Unclear "sex trafficking" term converts discussion from rational to irrational, when everyone is free to imagine what exactly "sex trafficking" means.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      I don’t know of any definition of “sex trafficking” in which it’s consensual. But just so we’re clear, here’s the relevant part of the quote: > We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they’re not there by choice, we could maybe help them.
      - dennisgorelik 7y ago
        Do you have an information that sex that these girls had with Epstein or with his friends or with his clients - was not consensual? The stories that these girls told suggest that they were free to leave.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- onemoresoop 7y ago
  To keep it short it just means pimping, which is illegal
  - dennisgorelik 7y ago
    1) Is it illegal to receive donations from pimps? 2) Is "forced suicide" a fair punishment for pimps?
    - onemoresoop 7y ago
      1) I would assume so 2) I have no idea what to say about this. The punishment should have been served by the legal system which as we all know failed the first time around. The forced suicide as you call it is a terrible outcome, lots of important people escaped and sighed relief. We don't know what Epstein would have divulged and now we will never know that.
darawk 7y ago
> How is it unfair? Have you ever been put in a position at work where it even crossed your mind that associates of a guest your boss invited might be sex trafficked? Have you even heard of that happening until now? We are talking about a truly extraordinary situation; can we not agree that if you have to even consider the question, something is very wrong? Of course i've heard of that happening. People speculate all the time that older men out with younger, attractive women are being "trafficked" in the sense meant here. That sense being: they're prostitutes / escorts. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. > The focus on whether or not they were correct about these particular women being trafficked is myopic. It’s 2019, and we have the benefit of hindsight: Epstein was indeed still sex trafficking. This instance may or may not have been an example of that, but ultimately the Media Lab employees’ fears about him were borne out. The entire point under discussion however turns on the question of whether or not the evidence of him engaging in this behavior warranted him being exiled by MIT at the time. Not the evidence today.
- pvg 7y ago
  the evidence of him engaging in this behavior warranted him being exiled by MIT at the time So dude who is (at the time) convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor shows up at MIT Media Lab with a pair of very young, model-looking women assistants, what what are rational moral actors supposed to think? That he's just a railroaded maverick?
  - darawk 7y ago
    > So dude who is (at the time) convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor shows up at MIT Media Lab with a pair of very young, model-looking women assistants, what what are rational moral actors supposed to think? That he's just a railroaded maverick? It was unstated what the age or appearance of the women in question was. If they were of legal age, then they were likely simply escorts, in no need of anyone's rescue. If they appeared to be underage, that likely would have been stated in the article.
    - pvg 7y ago
      Someone was troubled enough to resign over this. Like, what the fuck, at his point, man? Every single comment you have posted about this includes some blatant misrepresentation.

dennisgorelik 7y ago

What does "sex trafficked" mean? Is it prostitution? Sexual slavery? Why do you use such an unclear term in a discussion?

jakelazaroff 7y ago
Is that really an important question? Is there an definition that would make it okay?
- dennisgorelik 7y ago
  Yes, "why do you use 'sex trafficking' term?" is an important question. Yes: if under "sex trafficking" we understand [consensual] "prostitution", then in some states it is OK. But even if "sex trafficking" is not ok -- there are various degrees of "not ok". That is why it is important to use clear definitions in a discussion. Unclear "sex trafficking" term converts discussion from rational to irrational, when everyone is free to imagine what exactly "sex trafficking" means.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I don’t know of any definition of “sex trafficking” in which it’s consensual. But just so we’re clear, here’s the relevant part of the quote: > We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they’re not there by choice, we could maybe help them.
    - dennisgorelik 7y ago
      Do you have an information that sex that these girls had with Epstein or with his friends or with his clients - was not consensual? The stories that these girls told suggest that they were free to leave.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
onemoresoop 7y ago
To keep it short it just means pimping, which is illegal
- dennisgorelik 7y ago
  1) Is it illegal to receive donations from pimps? 2) Is "forced suicide" a fair punishment for pimps?
  - onemoresoop 7y ago
    1) I would assume so 2) I have no idea what to say about this. The punishment should have been served by the legal system which as we all know failed the first time around. The forced suicide as you call it is a terrible outcome, lots of important people escaped and sighed relief. We don't know what Epstein would have divulged and now we will never know that.

darawk 7y ago

> How is it unfair? Have you ever been put in a position at work where it even crossed your mind that associates of a guest your boss invited might be sex trafficked? Have you even heard of that happening until now? We are talking about a truly extraordinary situation; can we not agree that if you have to even consider the question, something is very wrong? Of course i've heard of that happening. People speculate all the time that older men out with younger, attractive women are being "trafficked" in the sense meant here. That sense being: they're prostitutes / escorts. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. > The focus on whether or not they were correct about these particular women being trafficked is myopic. It’s 2019, and we have the benefit of hindsight: Epstein was indeed still sex trafficking. This instance may or may not have been an example of that, but ultimately the Media Lab employees’ fears about him were borne out. The entire point under discussion however turns on the question of whether or not the evidence of him engaging in this behavior warranted him being exiled by MIT at the time. Not the evidence today.

pvg 7y ago
the evidence of him engaging in this behavior warranted him being exiled by MIT at the time So dude who is (at the time) convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor shows up at MIT Media Lab with a pair of very young, model-looking women assistants, what what are rational moral actors supposed to think? That he's just a railroaded maverick?
- darawk 7y ago
  > So dude who is (at the time) convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor shows up at MIT Media Lab with a pair of very young, model-looking women assistants, what what are rational moral actors supposed to think? That he's just a railroaded maverick? It was unstated what the age or appearance of the women in question was. If they were of legal age, then they were likely simply escorts, in no need of anyone's rescue. If they appeared to be underage, that likely would have been stated in the article.
  - pvg 7y ago
    Someone was troubled enough to resign over this. Like, what the fuck, at his point, man? Every single comment you have posted about this includes some blatant misrepresentation.