A Moral Quandary

PostA Moral Quandary by **Lex-Man** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:50 pm

I was recently listening to a bunch of podcasts about Epstein. The thing that bothers me about the whole thing is that a lot of people must have know about it but never did anything. Take Obama for instance, there is nothing to directly link the two men but Obama nominated George Mitchell to be part of a special envoy to the Middle East.
Mitchell is one of the people linked to the whole Epstein thing. There's also a similar link via the Clinton's.

My assumption is that Obama must have been given a document about George Mitchell which would have documented any allegations that were know to the FBI.

My question is, should Obama have done more to get Epstein prosecuted if he had heard rumours about the man's behaviour?

It's hard to say without knowing the full circumstances. The woman's allegations against Mitchell that were revealed to the public in 2019 were first made in 2015 and the Special Envoy to the Middle East was 2009. I'm not sure what the FBI would have had on Mitchell in 2009.

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Lagamorph** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:02 pm

Thanks Obama

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Festivus Maximus** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:22 pm

Lex-Man wrote:My question is, should Obama have done more to get Epstein prosecuted if he had heard rumours about the man's behaviour?

Assuming Obama knew, then it's not much of a moral quandary - of course he should have done more to get him prosecuted!

Why would Obama have known anything?

He appointed Mitchell in 2009, Mitchell resigned in 2011. The allegations against Mitchell surfaced in 2015.

This thread smells like “pizzagate”.

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Lex-Man** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:45 pm

Moggy wrote:Why would Obama have known anything?

He appointed Mitchell in 2009, Mitchell resigned in 2011. The allegations against Mitchell surfaced in 2015.

This thread smells like “pizzagate”.

I just get the impression that these rumours would have been floating around for years before being made public. It's the same with Jimmy Savile and people working in the BBC in the 70's or people in Hollywood and Weinstein. Also there's meant to be a private Instagram that has the names and allegations of a load of people working in the music industry. So there are a load of people floating around that have heard about big name celebrities doing dodgy things but who are keeping things to themselves.

I just wanted to ask what responsibility they personally held for keeping secret the allegations they've been informed of?

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Karl_** » Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:18 pm

There are quotes from the early 2000s from his connections - like Donald Trump - laughing off how Epstein "liked them young". In 2006 Epstein was already known by the police to have raped dozens of underage girls, but because he was well-connected in the finance sector, he was eventually convicted with only one count of soliciting prostitution of a minor. The elite were certainly more ginger about openly praising him since 2008, but as we all know, plenty still associated with him.

If you are wealthy and have connections to other influential people, then criminality is laughed off as eccentricity; investigations are shelved or minimised; victims are intimidated into silence. Within high society there are plenty of people willing to abuse their privileged position to operate above the law.

I think it is probably a red herring to speculate as to which particular politicians might have looked the other way (although that would certainly be reprehensible). The problem is actually systemic. This handful of people should not be able to wield such power. I think the real questions are: why does the system allow these people to hold and abuse so much power with so little accountability; and isn't it time we demanded that system be changed?

(P.S. Whether by murder or providing the opportunity for suicide, his death was clearly arranged by the people he was about to be made to out in court. I find that to be a pretty frightening indication of where real power is and a damning indictment of our society.)

The thing is, to the people operated at that kind of wealth and power, people like us barely qualify as human. This is why even the seemingly affable elites can excuse the crimes of their peers so easily. They might think such crimes are cruel, maybe even wrong, but it's not like they are being perpetrated on 'real' people. At least, that's my take on it. They just don't view people on our level as being of equal moral worth to those on their own.

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Alvin Flummux** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:15 am

Was the podcast The Mysterious Mr. Epstein, by any chance?

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Vermi Claus** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:45 am

Lex-Man wrote:I was recently listening to a bunch of podcasts about Epstein.

Sounds boring as, especially when you could have listened to some Taylor Swift songs instead (which is what i did yesterday).

Vermilion wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:I was recently listening to a bunch of podcasts about Epstein.

Sounds boring as, especially when you could have listened to some Taylor Swift songs instead (which is what i did yesterday).

Except Taylor Swift is the current head of the New World Order of Paedophiles. The NWOP funds their operations through the sale of music, so well done to you. Well done.

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Karl_** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:07 am

^^^ this but unironically

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Lex-Man** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:56 am

Alvin Flummux wrote:Was the podcast The Mysterious Mr. Epstein, by any chance?

That's the one.

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Bethlehemster** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:25 am

Meep wrote:The thing is, to the people operated at that kind of wealth and power, people like us barely qualify as human. This is why even the seemingly affable elites can excuse the crimes of their peers so easily. They might think such crimes are cruel, maybe even wrong, but it's not like they are being perpetrated on 'real' people. At least, that's my take on it. They just don't view people on our level as being of equal moral worth to those on their own.

Sadly. I fear this isn't that wide of the mark. Even Saville and how he operated. Operating as he did for years with impunity.

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Bethlehemster** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:26 am

Karl_ wrote:^^^ this but unironically

Well that's ruined 'shake it off' now.

Meep wrote:The thing is, to the people operated at that kind of wealth and power, people like us barely qualify as human. This is why even the seemingly affable elites can excuse the crimes of their peers so easily. They might think such crimes are cruel, maybe even wrong, but it's not like they are being perpetrated on 'real' people. At least, that's my take on it. They just don't view people on our level as being of equal moral worth to those on their own.

strawberry float the wealthy elite.

It's nothing particularly special about them. That's just what happens when you have extreme levels of inequality. There have been numerous studies indicating that empathy is reduced by wealth disparity. The further you are removed from the material circumstances of another the harder it is to relate to them. This occurs on all levels (like how many ordinary people lack empathy for the homeless, asylum seekers, famine victims in other countries). When you get the point of one person having hundreds or thousands of times the wealth of another they might as well be different species as far as they are concerned.

Take charity donations for example. You would assume the rich donate more of their income to charity because they have more disposable income, right? Nope, the poorer you are the higher proportion of income you tend to donate.

PostRe: A Moral Quandary by **Vermi Claus** » Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:57 am

Karl_ wrote:^^^ this but unironically

A Moral Quandary

Who is online

Affiliates