I don’t know what we’re arguing. If you want to professionally associate with people who have raped and exploited kids from a position of extreme wealth and privilege, then I guess you’re probably legally allowed to, as long as you’re not putting people in danger. You have to decide where you’re at on that. I know where I’m at. I think most people do. Which is why they’re disgusted.
The question isn't about legality. It's about morality. Is it morally wrong to judge people who decide to associate with criminals after they have served their sentence? That to me is the crux of the issue here.
What it sounds like is that criminals are not absolved by serving their sentence. Or maybe some are but it depends on the crime? And sometimes it's okay to ostracize those that believe that criminals are absolved by serving their sentence, depending on the crime?
> What it sounds like is that criminals are not absolved by serving their sentence. Or maybe some are but it depends on the crime? And sometimes it's okay to ostracize those that believe that criminals are absolved by serving their sentence, depending on the crime?
Sounds about right.
I'll add that it is difficult to forgive people who show no remorse for their crimes.
There are also certain crimes and evil actions that are hard to forgive, period. Sexual abuse, rape, and murder are all very hard to let go of (with very good reason), and even more so when the victims are children.
Epstein checks all those boxes, which is why even the people around him are so tainted by association.
> Is it morally wrong to judge people who decide to associate with criminals after they have served their sentence?
No. Judge away.
> What it sounds like is that criminals are not absolved by serving their sentence. Or maybe some are but it depends on the crime? And sometimes it's okay to ostracize those that believe that criminals are absolved by serving their sentence, depending on the crime?
