On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that it's unlikely that a
pedophile could edit with
the degree of productivity that that we ordinarily demand of editors
in good standing?
No. I'm am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though.
I don't
see anything unjust about treating someone differently because
they're a pedophile.
Okay, so your position is not that the degree of collateral damage
(the banning of pedophiles who are productive editors) would be
negligible, but that this is irrelevant (because all pedophiles
deserve to be banned from editing, regardless of how they conduct
themselves). Correct?
No. I *am* saying that a degree of collateral damage (the banning of
pedophiles who are productive editors) would be negligible, and
acceptable. But I'm also saying that this has nothing whatsoever to
do with "justice".
"Openly [admitting] to
being a pedophile" could apply to the public statement "I struggle
with a condition called pedophilia, for which I receive therapy."
Yes, if you ignore the context in which I said it, of which my
footnote was part.
You just conveyed your suspicion that "a number
of Wikipedians on this
very mailing list" condone pedophilia.
Yes. And it's more than just a suspicion. Many Wikipedians on this
mailing list have said things which have brought me to this
conclusion, but on and off the list. I could start naming names, but
that'd probably get me into trouble.
What I equate
with a lack of willingness to judge pedophiles as "wrong"
is when someone refers to a such a ban with a comment that "We should not
judge people by what their opinions are, however apalling we may find
them".
Then you've completely missed the point. What part of someone finding
an opinion "appalling" do you associate with the absence of
disapproval?
The part about not judging them, and the referring to pedophilia as an
"opinion".