Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist. The world is just complicated sometimes.

The idea that all his science funding was an elaborate ruse to insulate himself from prosecution is just not a very well grounded view. His chosen method of insulation was terribly inefficient with respect to time and money. He would have gotten a much better ROI by investing in politicians directly, the fact that he chose to focus more on science than politics makes it pretty clear that he had a genuine interest/passion for it.

I don't see why he can't like science for its own sake and be a child abuser. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Epstein is not a great scientist. In fact, he's not a scientist at all.

That wasn't my point. My point was that people can simultaneously do evil things and like science.

Have you considered the option that Epstein didn't like science as such but liked the influence and air of respectability that hanging out with scientists and being seen as a supporter gave him? It could easily be a form of whitewashing of his reputation that he would not be able to do otherwise. Nothing spells 'good guy' more clearly than large donations to science and education.

> Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist.

Some recent research suggests he might not have been that great a scientist after all. The story goes that he was an impostor who got to his position mostly due to his influential father and whose main skill was managing others who did the actual work.

Here's a bachelor's thesis from 2018 and an interview with the author - both in German, unfortunately:

https://www.christopherlauer.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/C...

https://wrint.de/2019/01/15/wr903-wernher-von-braun/

What are you even arguing???

Yes, everyone knows that.

It was horrible.

But that doesn't tell us whether he had one motivation or two motivations in donating the way he did.

I could understand if you were saying "we should focus on his horrific crimes, and not care about what his motivation was in donating". But that can't be it, because you've also been posting in-depth about what his motivation was in donating.

So why are you making this post? I really hope it's not that you're trying to make it so awkward to respond that you 'win' the argument. But I can't think of any other non-hypocritical motivation.

That "Epstein abused women" was not an accurate description of his behavior. I think I was plenty clear.

Oh, you're complaining about one badly-chosen word. Women instead of girls.

Well I look dumb. Sorry.

But do you have any response to the other 99% of that post?

> I think I was plenty clear.

Normally people, especially those already in the reply chain, reply to the main argument of posts, so I don't think it was sufficiently clear. I would suggest quoting the part you're responding to if it's that small a section.

For what its worth, it was totally lost on me too. I thought it was a non-sequitur rant ignoring the entirety of the post

But that doesn't mean they're legally adult. Or that it's fine to pressure them into sex with older men.

I stated a legal fact, without any judgment. That this gets downvoted says very little about me. It says a lot about Hackernews.

You stated it in a particular context. Either it was intended for this context and therefore meant to defend child sex trafficking, or it was not meant for this context, and thus off-topic.

If you meant it to be more nuanced than that, maybe include that nuance in your comment.

Among them, that we're not sympathetic to child sex trafficking.