Connecting people's characters to their deed is a double edged sword. It's not that it's necessarily mistaken, but you have to choose your victories. Maybe today you get some satisfaction from condemning the culprits, but you also pay for it by making it even more difficult to get cooperation from the system in the future. We all have friends, family and colleagues that we believe to be good. They're all still capable of questionable actions. If we systematically tie bad deeds to bad people, then surely those people we love and know to be good are incapable of what they're being accused. That's part of how closing ranks works. I think King recognizes this too, which is why he recommends that Penalties should reflect the severity of the violation, not be all-or-nothing.

▲

ambicapter an hour ago | parent [-]

The entire point of recognizing bad people is to make it harder for them to work with or affect you in the future.

> If we systematically tie bad deeds to bad people, then surely those people we love and know to be good are incapable of what they're being accused.

A strong claim that needs to be supported and actually the question who’s nuances are being discussed in this thread.

	▲	mekoka an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It doesn't need to be made into something other than logic. Anyone can do a bad deed. Anyone can also be a good person to someone else. If a bad deed automatically makes a bad person, those who recognize the person as good have a harder time reconciling the two realities. Simple. Also, is the point recognizing bad people or getting rid of bad science. Like I said, choose your victories.