> We do not have to accept that people who have violated our basic ideas about humanity should be allowed to do science.

Science is permissionless. The ethical restrictions of the research are good enough to monitor and remain vigilant about.

The idea of whitelisting transactions is misguided.

Science is permissionless, yes, but science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Science is made up of scientists, journals, universities, institutes, etc, which are all a larger part of our society. We have to apply our same moral compass and ethical responsibility to them that we would anywhere else.

Let's try a relatable thought exercise: there are a lot of misogynists in tech, many of them will be "cancelled" or ostracized in some way. All of their ideas should be ignored and their money should be barred from, let's say, cancer research?

Is that what we are going for here? I'm trying to understand if there is something deeper than I'm perceiving.

That certainly sound like some of the more extreme attacks on science and mathematics from certain political perspectives.

I think ultimately this is a situation where the process is the product. There is no end goal really. People just feel good about themselves for annihilating the transgressors. People do not feel good about conflicted situations or living with realities.

It’s some kind of only those of pure heart may partake in our magic type mentality.

... The centerpiece of which is "Your process/idea/thinking must consult our oracle of moral rightness and adhere to its adjudication" which is why it's so useful to woke culture proponents as a political tool, because it implies that it's not possible to write down the rules by which the oracle operates so that you don't need to consult it every time. You just have to keep paying into your political capital with the rent-seeking oracle of moral rightness and hope that it is merciful in its ministrations.

The real question is are there enough serial rapists in science? They seem to be many more women than serial rapists in science, perhaps that's where we should be focusing our diversity efforts. It really doesn't matter who they rape, as long as it isn't their research subjects, as that would be unethical.

A rapist, in prison, can still operate their own scientific research organizations, invest in others, donate to others

Someone that raped is in prison for rape. Their funds are not subject to civil or criminal forfeiture, and it wouldn’t make sense for it to be, so explain the expectations of illiquidity here.

>Someone that raped is in prison for rape. Their funds are not subject to civil or criminal forfeiture, and it wouldn’t make sense for it to be //

It would make sense to me. Take away all the luxuries from those who commit the vilest of offences; use the money/resources for those not committing atrocities.

Could you expand on why you feel rich people who are convicted of rape should be allowed to enjoy massive wealth status and control of resources far beyond their needs. Isn't putting people back to zero, with support to continue in a societally beneficial way (healthcare, housing, food, education) a proper reaction?

“Prosperity preaching” is the root of your cognitive dissonance, there is no relation to moral behavior and economic reality and we have no framework for making that so, primarily due to the 5th amendment of the constitution which that bars expropriation. It is pure theology which tries to intrinsically tie morality and economic reality, and puts many people at a disadvantage amongst those who never subscribed to that theology.

Even the 6th amendment which has been used to circumvent the 5th amendment in civil forfeiture still requires the property being related to the alleged or actual action, and anyone wealthy enough can undo a civil forfeiture. Criminal forfeiture has a much higher bar of review and also wouldn't be able to be part of your version of reality.

It is not a prerequisite that prisons are full of people that own nothing and return to society with little ability to acquire anything, while people that do own things are able to avoid prison because their lawyers understand the law than the prosecutors. That's just what has become commonplace and is familiar. But the prisons or conviction itself does not strip people of their property titles, when the title is unrelated, and when wealthier people do wind up in prison they do not have the same level of inconvenience in prison or when returning to society, as they don't need as much external infrastructure to get by.

Thanks for your comment. I should note that I'm just feeling this idea out:

>Prosperity preaching //

I think you've got it flipped. I'm not saying financial gain comes to those who 'believe' (I assume we're meaning those who are beneficial in society; indeed to some extent I think it's the opposite) but that justice should strip at least some of the cushion from the wealthy who are convicted of the most heinous crimes.

Yes, I realise that might not be consistent with USA constitutional law - but that doesn't necessarily show it to be a wrong course.

Basically I agree with your last paragraph and seek to equalise things - make leaving prison less onerous for the underprivileged and more for those for whom it causes little hindrance.

Why morally shouldn't punishment of convicted offenders sell to bring them down financially to a basic level?

> This just isn't true. I'm quite sure that Epstein supported what he thought was good science. I'm also quite sure that Epstein had opinions about why his treatment of girls was justified. We do not have to accept that people who have violated our basic ideas about humanity should be allowed to do science. The most obvious example is the controversy around what to do with the results of the Nazi / Unit 731 human torture / experiments[1]. Both the idea that Epstein should be allowed to fund research and the idea that he should not are ethical positions. We should not pretend we don't have a choice.

To be crystal clear, i'm not arguing that he shouldn't be ostracized, or that Harvard should have let him donate. I'm just arguing against over-simplifying his identity because we don't want to share anything in common with him (liking science).