I've upvoted you for two reasons. First, I think you're sincere. Second, I think it's important that someone respond to you rather than just downvote you and yo

I've upvoted you for two reasons. First, I think you're sincere. Second, I think it's important that someone respond to you rather than just downvote you and you're currently greyed. > There is no one victim. This is not relevant. @iron0013 didn't cite anything other than a brief snippet of the Wikipedia article. No other evidence was provided and no argument was made linking the snippet to Krauss' credibility or arguments. As far as I can tell, @iron0013 saw this snippet and immediately wrote of Krauss. That's not a reasonable position and it spawned this subthread, which, although I've participated in it, I find to be mostly off-topic. > She merely said (in effect) that she was not particularly bothered that Krauss had touched her breast without permission. You're paraphrasing a Buzzfeed article which is paraphrasing an ASU report which paraphrased the alleged victim. Here is her statement to the public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr9OIty2XGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr9OIty2XGg > See also the ASU investigation report, which is available here: Actually, here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015756-Krauss-Determinations.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015756-Krauss-Deter... It's important to note that this report was prepared by a potential party to the allegations for the same party. It cannot simply be cited as evidence. At best, it should be treated as a suspect secondary source. In no case is it appropriate to treat it as a conviction. Krauss' appeal also ought to be considered, whether it redeems or condemns him: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10lHwatvaGfmWNc3NdoioncYi7daK1a-M/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/10lHwatvaGfmWNc3NdoioncYi7da... As well as his retirement letter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015757-Krauss-Retirement-Letter.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015757-Krauss-Retir... > Besides all that, Krauss unapologetically helped Epstein after he was released from prison. This is wholly unrelated to his argument against the Doomsday Clock than the allegations which lead to his resignation from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. And this is the crux of the issue. With extremely limited evidence (far, far less than you or I have provided), @iron0013 decided Krauss should be completely ignored, without even consider Krauss' argument. He's certainly free to do so, but based on the voting down of his comment, I'm happy to believe that the majority of people don't want to live in a world where others can be socially, professionally, and politically ostracized for alleged wrongdoing without so much as a trial. I've offered the evidence here so people can make their own determinations, but I do so with the understanding that this entire subthread is off-topic and irrelevant to the issue at hand. For me, personally, I don't have enough information to convict him or acquit him; and I think the rational choice is to acknowledge that the accusations exist. At best, I think @iron0013 could have pointed out the circumstances of Krauss' resignation, but even then, it's not relevant to the arguments Krauss makes. His motivation largely doesn't matter unless you're trying to somehow not 'let him win.'