[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

Anthony wrote:

> > > This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in
> > > reality,

> > What is?

> A perfectly productive pedophile editor.

What do you mean by "perfectly productive"?  We don't ban editors for
being less than perfect in their contributions.

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?

> > > 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.

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?

> > > 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.

I'm not referring to any particular case(s).  "Openly [admitting] to
being a pedophile" could apply to the public statement "I struggle
with a condition called pedophilia, for which I receive therapy."  And
yes, it also could apply to boasting.  As I said, I don't view the
distinction as relevant to the matter at hand.

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

Class: "a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by
reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/class

> > > 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.

You just conveyed your suspicion that "a number of Wikipedians on this
very mailing list" condone pedophilia.

> 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?