[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[Anthony]

> > [I] am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though.
>
> Please elaborate.

Bad editors are often allowed to edit for years before they finally
get indefinitely banned.  I'm not getting into specific details,
that's far outside the scope of this thread.  Even this comment is
pushing it.

> 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?

Along with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, maybe.

Seriously, if we could shut off their ability to use
[[Special:EmailUser]], and then have someone examine their every
contribution with a fine-toothed comb, and then ban them at the first
sight of anything approaching "pedophile advocacy", maybe.  But that's
a lot of work for very little benefit.  Better to just ban them
categorically.

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

I think I explained that above.  Too much work for too little benefit.
 There's also the issue of negative publicity.

> 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 don't know.  I certainly wouldn't complain if they were banned
anyway.  But maybe they could be given some sort of supervised editing
permission, to edit topics wholly unrelated to children and
pedophilia, of course.  And their [[Special:EmailUser]] privileges
should either be revoked or, with their explicit agreement, monitored.
 I don't know if that would be worth it, though.

> 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).

I never made that implication, though.  I do think some people's
opposition is tantamount to approval of pedophilia, but not
everyone's.

>> > 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.

In the judicial sense?  As in court of law type stuff?  I don't think
that's what was meant.

>> and the referring to pedophilia as an "opinion".
>
> An "appalling" opinion.  Construing this as a lack of disapproval is rubbish.

If you take "appalling" to imply judgment as (morally) wrong, then
"appalling opinion" is a contradiction in terms.  The word "opinion"
means there is no right or wrong choice.  If I had to try to parse
"appalling opinion", I'd guess it means "something which isn't right
or wrong, but which I personally find distasteful".