On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM, David Levy <lifeisunf...@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". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
