Cool ad hominem fallacy. Your lack of reason isn’t an argument. Next time try logic instead of failure.

Nah, not really. When someone is holding their mobile device, we haven’t the slightest clue unless they’re overt & clumsy about it. No indicator light, either. This selective outrage is peak ninny nonsense for dullards who can’t manage a second’s thought & need fellow average brains to point this out.

Or don’t, because we aren’t fragile ninnies unfamiliar with the concept of carrying a microphone & camera everywhere we go & easily carried away by sensational headlines for dumbasses.

From earlier comment on similar post

Moreover, human activity before capitalism has led to extinctions of megafauna, plants, & animals dependent on those plants. The quaternary megafauna extinction was likely driven by overhunting by humans. Those extinctions & increased fires coinciding with the arrival of humanity to Australia transformed the ecosystem from mixed rainforest to drier landscapes. Aboriginal landscape burning

may have caused the extinction of some fire-sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats

More recently, [indigenous people] killed off the elephant bird likely due to major environmental alterations & overconsumption of their eggs.

and I see like before the same OP still won’t do the decency to support fellow humans by following web accessibility. That sums up our conviction of humanity.

gif 51.6 M

Do we know about this cool tech called video?

Maybe diospyros virginiana?

I’m accused of being AI on other sites

Other sites? Happens here, too. The best answer is troll them by imitating AI.

What part of science is guilt by association fallacy? Rash judgement is at odds with science. Did you know criminals can associate with noncriminals?

To flip this around, ostracizing others “out of safety” for associating with ex-convicts (who had been processed & released to society) is morally compromised & dishonest, ie, immoral. Talking to someone who did something wrong doesn’t imply you did something wrong. Neither does taking their money. Indulging fallacies is not a hallmark of scientific thought & is more consistent with the repressive, medieval thought scientists fought very hard to overcome.

Sages of major religions famously associated with undesirables: outcasts, untouchables, murderers, dangerous felons, etc. By the “logic” of that announcement, communities should have banned Buddha & Jesus (also mentioned in the Epstein files). Those that didn’t were “deplorable” for “not taking firm action to protect” members “in light of” blanket “allegations” that fail to specifically accuse them. If they were sanctimonious enough, they too could have done “more”.