On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@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".