Oh, a hell lot of those students didn't fuck the professor in question to learn (about all of them) and nobody would need to do that, my dear, even if the professor in question had asked for it in the cases reported, which he, in all likelihood did not.

If anybody wants to give a blowjob in payment for a doctor's and the doctor accepts she should be able to it without prejudice. It is a consensual relation and it is not your business, the government's or anybody else but of those who agreed to do it.

You are a fanatical book burner. A thing that should be shunned on sight by anyone with a brain. We should deport people like you to Islam. That is the place where you belong, my dear. Go back to your hole.

Oh, I am not upset at all. I am far beyond the level at which such material would help me. The people that should be upset are all the students that will be deprived of knowledge because people like you like to burn books because their authors offended your sensibilities.

But by all means, keep being an hypocrite. It suits you.

Sorry, but that is not power. He has no way of making her fail or succeed. He can help her, but so can a lot of other people. He is in no position of power as legally defined, and the law defines it this way because it is waaaay more sensible than people like you. ;)

Regarding making oneself a fool, in your case you don't even need to take action to accomplish this. You are a fool and a whiny one.

Ethics is a group concept. The global ethics to which he is subjected in this case is the law. We, as a society draw the line where the law does. Whatever else you find ethical or not is your problem not his.

Adult people are responsible for themselves and fully able to do whatever they think it is better for them, even if it is selling the use of their bodies for benefits. If a person is emotionally dependent on you it is her problem to deal with, People do not have a right to think that they are entitled to force their problems and insecurities over others and that they aren't responsible for their own lives or their own bad choices.

Only if this guy had any power to approve or reprove the person, which is not the case considering he is not part of the institution that decides this anymore. Your knowledge of law is lacking.

First what exactly did he do? You don't know, and nobody knows.

I do believe, though, that as long as people stay within the law their private lives are not in any way the business of any institution or person but themselves.

Regarding of it being "unethical". Even in my extreme example, which is most certainly not what happened in this case, there is no ethical violation, because there is no code of ethics by which the person in question is bound, retired as he is. Trying to say the opposite is trying to impose your own code of ethics over other people, which is tyrannical, to say the least.

It is not harassment because the law says it is not, because the word "harassment" implies that you are actively pursuing someone, not proposing anything when consulted among at least a dozen other motives, none of which has anything to do with my personal opinion about the matter.

He does not work in the University anymore. He is retired. If some girl looks for my help in something I did in the past and I tell this girl that I will help in exchange for sex, she can say no and that is it. I will not be "harassing her" in any sensible way of defining the term. Let's stop being hysterical, please.

Sure he does. Performance drops are exactly what the end user notices.

Oh, and EU "efforts" to make attacking another country to be suicide are pathetic at best. This only works when you are stronger than any possible attacker, which is unfeasible in a world where many factions have nuclear weapons.

Unstable it may be, but there is nothing better, and therefore the best option we have is to keep it working, and we have been quite successful at that, mind you.

In this case it should be and most likely will be treated with other means than a massive second strike, because there isn't even a target for it. This threat must be dealt in different ways. The second strike capabilities are the deterrence against nuclear powers, not against sole bombs that terrorist groups may be able to procure somehow, and the need for this deterrence will keep existing regardless of the presence or absence of terrorists.

Nobel peace prizes say absolutely nothing about the people who got them except for the fact that it was politically profitable at the time to give it to them.

Yes, mutually assured destruction has its shortcomings and limitations, but it is still the only possible way to prevent nuclear wars in a world where this technology has been developed. Any other idea of equilibrium based on good will and niceness is even more far fetched and delusional than the idea of a permanent MAD equilibrium.

And censorship is a tool of thought policing. Thank you for reinforcing my point.