5 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- darawk 7y ago
  > Someone was troubled enough to resign over this. Like, what the fuck, at his point, man? People resign over things all the time. That isn't really evidence of much at all. > Every single comment you have posted about this includes some blatant misrepresentation You keep acting like you've made actual points, but you haven't. I'm happy to listen to your point of view, if you actually want to articulate one. You are calling out "misrepresentations". What do you think i've misrepresented?
  - pvg 7y ago
    I am making an actual point. You started with conflating whatever happened to Epstein with felon disenfranchisement. Somewhere in the middle you made up a definition of 'ostracism'. Now you're saying a person convicted of sexual abuse of a minor should raise no questions when he brings women half his age to an MIT fundraising meeting. I'm happy to put it directly to you again. What the actual fuck?
    - darawk 7y ago
      > You started with conflating whatever happened to Epstein with felon disenfranchisement I have articulated a justification for that comparison. You making an actual point would be referencing that justification and attempting to debunk it. That's how you make actual points. > Somewhere in the middle you made up a definition of 'ostracism'. I made one up? MIT refusing to accept donations from someone is not my definition of ostracism. It is the definition of ostracism. You may believe that that ostracism is justified, but the word's meaning is quite clear. > Now you're saying a person convicted of sexual abuse of a minor should raise no questions when he brings women half his age to an MIT fundraising meeting. I did not, in fact, say that.
      - pvg 7y ago
        It is the definition of ostracism. No. Not even close. I left you a lengthy comment about this to which you did not respond. I have articulated You're making excuses for a child rapist. Over and over and over. Again, what the fuck, man? Once again, I'm asking you this directly.
        darawk 7y ago
        > No. Not even close. I left you a lengthy comment about this to which you did not respond I responded now. I simply hadn't seen it. > You're making excuses for a child rapist. Over and over and over. Again, what the fuck, man? Once again, I'm asking you this directly. I'm not sure why you insist on misreading me. I'm not making excuses for a child rapist. I'm not excusing Epstein's behavior. I'm excusing Ito's behavior.

by darawk 7y ago

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.

darawk 7y ago
> Someone was troubled enough to resign over this. Like, what the fuck, at his point, man? People resign over things all the time. That isn't really evidence of much at all. > Every single comment you have posted about this includes some blatant misrepresentation You keep acting like you've made actual points, but you haven't. I'm happy to listen to your point of view, if you actually want to articulate one. You are calling out "misrepresentations". What do you think i've misrepresented?
- pvg 7y ago
  I am making an actual point. You started with conflating whatever happened to Epstein with felon disenfranchisement. Somewhere in the middle you made up a definition of 'ostracism'. Now you're saying a person convicted of sexual abuse of a minor should raise no questions when he brings women half his age to an MIT fundraising meeting. I'm happy to put it directly to you again. What the actual fuck?
  - darawk 7y ago
    > You started with conflating whatever happened to Epstein with felon disenfranchisement I have articulated a justification for that comparison. You making an actual point would be referencing that justification and attempting to debunk it. That's how you make actual points. > Somewhere in the middle you made up a definition of 'ostracism'. I made one up? MIT refusing to accept donations from someone is not my definition of ostracism. It is the definition of ostracism. You may believe that that ostracism is justified, but the word's meaning is quite clear. > Now you're saying a person convicted of sexual abuse of a minor should raise no questions when he brings women half his age to an MIT fundraising meeting. I did not, in fact, say that.
    - pvg 7y ago
      It is the definition of ostracism. No. Not even close. I left you a lengthy comment about this to which you did not respond. I have articulated You're making excuses for a child rapist. Over and over and over. Again, what the fuck, man? Once again, I'm asking you this directly.
      - darawk 7y ago
        > No. Not even close. I left you a lengthy comment about this to which you did not respond I responded now. I simply hadn't seen it. > You're making excuses for a child rapist. Over and over and over. Again, what the fuck, man? Once again, I'm asking you this directly. I'm not sure why you insist on misreading me. I'm not making excuses for a child rapist. I'm not excusing Epstein's behavior. I'm excusing Ito's behavior.