Re:Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can ...
by tptacek on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @01:43AM
(#24268412)
That "Epstein abused women" was not an accurate description of his behavior. I think I was plenty clear.
Re:Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can ...
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @01:50AM
(#24268434)
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.
Re:Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can ...
by s1artibartfast on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @02:17AM
(#24268556)
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
[dead]
Re:Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can ...
by mcv on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @06:49AM
(#24269964)
But that doesn't mean they're legally adult. Or that it's fine to pressure them into sex with older men.
Re:Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can ...
by hlfy_hn on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @02:56PM
(#24274710)
I stated a legal fact, without any judgment. That this gets downvoted says very little about me. It says a lot about Hackernews.
Re:Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can ...
by mcv on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @07:43PM
(#24277557)
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.
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.