[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in reality,
> What is?

A perfectly productive pedophile editor.

>> and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in simply blocking
>> pedophiles on sight.
>
> Are you suggesting that we needn't even address a contention of unjust
> editing bans, provided that the number of affected individuals is low?

I don't see anything unjust about treating someone differently because
they're a pedophile.

>> Jesse mentioned "the idea that paedophiles are inherently evil and can do
>> no good".  I'm not saying that, but I do find the idea that someone who
>> openly admits to being a pedophile (*) could also be a good encyclopedia
>> editor, to be a bit far-fetched.
>>
>> (*) Which implies that they don't think there's anything wrong with being
>> a pedophile.
>
> I reject the premise that someone who "openly admits to being a
> pedophile" inherently "[doesn't] think there's anything wrong with
> [that]."

Perhaps you're taking me out of context, then.  In the case in point
(and in fact I believe all the cases where pedophiles were blocked),
the person was caught effectively bragging about being a pedophile,
and it's hard to see how one would get caught without essentially
doing just that.

> This accurately describes some, of course, but I don't
> regard any of this as relevant.  We routinely ban editors who
> habitually cause disruption (irrespective of our prior knowledge of
> them), and I see no need to formulate blanket assumptions that
> particular societal classes cannot be productive contributors.

Pedophiles are not "particular societal classes", and it's ridiculous
that you'd regard them as such.

>> I don't expect to convince anyone of this.  In fact, I suspect a number
>> of Wikipedians on this very mailing list would take the pedophiles side
>> on the issue of whether or not there's "anything wrong with that".
>
> Wow, that's entirely uncalled-for.  It's disheartening that you would
> equate opposition to an outright ban on editing by known pedophiles
> with approval of pedophilia.

I don't.  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".