While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are
usually pretty weak.
Why not take away 3RR citing the argument that "Eventually we won't be
allowed to edit. It is a slippery slope"? Or NPA on the basis that it
infringes free speech?
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree
not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how
disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least
somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy
this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they
are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action -
I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a
pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a
of Hamas" then "I support Eta" and so on and so forth. Is it not
better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who
they are or what they believe"?
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
(My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
- Track your money's travels.