[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[David Levy]

I 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?

Anthony replied:

> No.  I'm am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though.

Please elaborate.

> > Okay, so your position is not that the degree of (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".

To clarify, assuming that the aforementioned collateral damage can be
prevented, do you believe that pedophiles who are productive editors
should be permitted to edit?

Regardless, please explain why we shouldn't simply ban
unproductive/disruptive editors (irrespective of whether we know them
to be pedophiles).

> > "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.

That context simply wasn't stated.  But okay, I accept that you were
referring to a situation in which someone boasts about his/her
pedophilia.  What, in your assessment, is the proper course of action
when it's discovered that an editor has made a public statement along
the lines of the above example?

I'll reiterate that I don't view the distinction as relevant, but I'm
curious as to what you think.

> > 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.

Then it probably is best that you simply remain silent on the issue
(rather than implying that opposition to your stance reflects approval
of pedophilia).

> > What part of someone finding an opinion "appalling" do you associate
> > with the absence of disapproval?

> The part about not judging them,

That means that it isn't our place to pass judgement (in the judicial
sense), _in spite of_ how we personally view one's actions.  It does
*not* mean that we lack such a personal view.

> and the referring to pedophilia as an "opinion".

An "appalling" opinion.  Construing this as a lack of disapproval is rubbish.