| > I think OP means that it's irrational to throw Bill Gates entirely to the side based only on -another person- he associated with. Why is that irrational? > Epstein's lawyers and his realtor, his tailor and his golf partners also associated with him Surely we as reasonable people can acknowledge the societal difference between Bill Gates and his tailor, no? > It's not just OK but maybe even preferential and encouraged by you to take a dump on certain people when a tiny vague chance presents itself only because the person is powerful. Powerful people's decisions deserve to be scrutinized at a higher level than societally irrelevant people, yes. > I found this earlier comment from you on this topic which is a bit funny given your statement. To me youre kinda describing yourself. That comment is in response to a person saying they simply asked "Why" and were downvoted. The answer is because rational thought is thrown away in favor of binary thinking with regards to people like RMS. To be direct, my comment is almost not about RMS at all. Simply, every human is allowed to decide what they are or are not okay with. If you think what RMS did was wrong, you're welcome to hate him for it. This is not the same as a jury deeming a person guilty of a crime, and relating the two is a strawman. |
I think the opposite, at least as far as this is concerned. To Epstein's tailor, Epstein is very replaceable, whereas to Gates, the tradeoff for ditching Epstein would be something like millions fewer people getting vaccinations