3 ms·

I'm in no way defending Epstein in any way. It is horrifying how many people in this thread seem to be unable to understand that. I hope nobody of you works in

I'm in no way defending Epstein in any way. It is horrifying how many people in this thread seem to be unable to understand that. I hope nobody of you works in the legal system. You have a prejudice, and you can only see what confirms your prejudice, despite nothing of it being there. You think I defend Epstein, but I never did. I asked a question about a paragraph describing a scene of a guy visiting MIT Media Lab with young assistants (not teens, they were described s young women), and Media lab staff being concerned. I did not have the context of Epstein already being convicted as a sex offender. There was nothing in that paragraph about Epstein having sex with teens, and I didn't mention that, either. I am merely of the opinion that in general, young women from Eastern Europe should also be allowed to work as assistants for old men. That doesn't imply I endorse older men taking advantage of teens.

CydeWeys 7y ago
The context is very relevant though. Epstein already was a known, convicted sex offender by the point he was visiting MIT Media Lab with his young ladies of questionable status in tow. It's not relevant to the matters at hand that you, a random person who wasn't there, was not aware of the context. You can't remove this question from its context. The people at MIT Media Lab who were worried about it certainly were aware of the context, and they were worried, but ultimately forced to go along with it because their boss wanted the money too badly. Also, enough with the "just asking questions". Instead of asking lots of questions, just go read the relevant articles and learn the truths directly, rather than requiring people to spoonfeed you through HN comments.
- nf8nnfufuu 7y ago
  Somebody posted an excerpt from an article, saying it was "damning". It describes of a scene where Epstein visited Media Lab, accompanied by two young women. The context that he was already a known sex offender at that point was not given. Why do you get so worked up? I asked a question about the paragraph. The answer "it was already known that he was a sex offender" is sufficient to answer my question. Why don't you just answer it and move on with your life? It's not my fault that the question blew up. I am not asking to be spoonfed. The answer "it was already known he was a sex offender" is sufficient to answer my question. That several other discussions sprang from it is another matter. I really don't know what your problem is, or your concern? If it doesn't interest you, move on to the next topic on HN? There are hundreds every day. What issue do you have, exactly?

CydeWeys 7y ago

The context is very relevant though. Epstein already was a known, convicted sex offender by the point he was visiting MIT Media Lab with his young ladies of questionable status in tow. It's not relevant to the matters at hand that you, a random person who wasn't there, was not aware of the context. You can't remove this question from its context. The people at MIT Media Lab who were worried about it certainly were aware of the context, and they were worried, but ultimately forced to go along with it because their boss wanted the money too badly. Also, enough with the "just asking questions". Instead of asking lots of questions, just go read the relevant articles and learn the truths directly, rather than requiring people to spoonfeed you through HN comments.

nf8nnfufuu 7y ago
Somebody posted an excerpt from an article, saying it was "damning". It describes of a scene where Epstein visited Media Lab, accompanied by two young women. The context that he was already a known sex offender at that point was not given. Why do you get so worked up? I asked a question about the paragraph. The answer "it was already known that he was a sex offender" is sufficient to answer my question. Why don't you just answer it and move on with your life? It's not my fault that the question blew up. I am not asking to be spoonfed. The answer "it was already known he was a sex offender" is sufficient to answer my question. That several other discussions sprang from it is another matter. I really don't know what your problem is, or your concern? If it doesn't interest you, move on to the next topic on HN? There are hundreds every day. What issue do you have, exactly?