> Reframed: No, MIT shouldn't knowingly give money to child traffickers and drug cartels.
I think that just confuses the issue.
> For politicians and political organizations, there is an implicit association with bribery.
1. Alice accepts money from Bob
2. Alice discovers Bob is running a underage sex trafficking ring on the side.
3. Alice continues to accept money from Bob.
So let's ask the following questions:
1. Is Alice implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?
2. Does Alice look like she's implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?
3. How does the public know what the true motives of Alice are? Does she support underage sex trafficking or not?
4. How do we know if Alice is telling the truth as long as she accepts money from Bob?
5. How does this affect Alice's reputation? Would you go to Alice to seek help with trying to stop underage sex trafficking? Or has Alice been "tainted" with Bob's money?
I think that just confuses the issue.
> For politicians and political organizations, there is an implicit association with bribery.
1. Alice accepts money from Bob
2. Alice discovers Bob is running a underage sex trafficking ring on the side.
3. Alice continues to accept money from Bob.
So let's ask the following questions:
1. Is Alice implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?
2. Does Alice look like she's implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?
3. How does the public know what the true motives of Alice are? Does she support underage sex trafficking or not?
4. How do we know if Alice is telling the truth as long as she accepts money from Bob?
5. How does this affect Alice's reputation? Would you go to Alice to seek help with trying to stop underage sex trafficking? Or has Alice been "tainted" with Bob's money?