(April 22, 2016 at 7:27 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 4:13 pm)abaris Wrote: So let's rephrase that. Disliking and being vocal about it. Actually advocating to exclude them, based on belonging to a certain group.

I'd advocate to exclude pedophiles from jobs involving children just on the basis of them belonging to that group. I mean just on that basis with no prior convictions or incidents.

I think this is the problem with the definition is if that is the definition it makes most people bigots. It's not even clear what you're excluding the group from, from being in the country, from getting a certain job, having sex with you, coming into your home, riding certain riders in a theme park? these are all forms of exclusions.
And does the group have to be based on inherent racial or gender characteristics or fluid characteristics like being loud or drunk?

Good point. I should further clarify that the group they are a part of is not directly relevant to the point you are making.

And, to me, it doesn't extend to your personal life. Who you allow into your home, who you talk to, who you have sex with etc. is entirely your business. Some things you don't need a reason for. But denying someone something from your personal life is much different to actively interfering in someone else's life, refusing to provide a service to someone because of your personal feelings about them, or lobbying for them to be generally less well treated by society.

With regard to excluding pedophiles from jobs involving children, I don't agree personally. But I wouldn't say it's irrelevant either, so I wouldn't call that bigotry so much as being overly cautious (in my opinion).

It's also (in my opinion) a harmful position to hold because:

1) It further makes sure no one will ever publically identify as a pedophile, making it harder for them to get help, by removing opportunities as well as all the mistreatment they will no doubt get. If instead they could identify and then receive support, they'd actually be much safer working with children, when they could have got away with not mentioning it in the first place.

2) It isn't of any practical use, because you're never going to know. So in fact you'd just be discriminating against incredibly honest pedophiles; or else subjecting "suspicious" people to random interrogations.

Again, just my opinion on the matter.

I don't know much about the subject, sorry, but isn't advocating pedophiles to not work with children because they are sexually attracted to children similar to advocating homosexuals to not work with men because they are sexually attracted to men?
Isn't it discrimination to forbid a group of people just because of their sexuality? Something they were born with? Isn't it problematic only if they act on their sexual desires without consent or break a law?

I'm extremely sorry if I offended anyone,I'm just curious to know more about the issue.

It is similar, but not quite the same. On average a child is much more vulnerable. But as I stated above, I think it's an overreaction to make blanket policies.

(April 23, 2016 at 2:24 am)robvalue Wrote: It is similar, but not quite the same. On average a child is much more vulnerable. But as I stated above, I think it's an overreaction to make blanket policies.

Oh, I get what you mean, children wouldn't recognize when they are "touched" as much as adults, so I understand what you mean when you said they are on average more vulnerable.
Now I'm stuck though, on one side I think it's bigoted to discriminate against a group of people because of something they were born with on the other side there is the variable of children's safety. Fuck man.

Yeah. It's not clear cut.

But I made my case above why such a blanket policy is actually of no practical use, and actually harmful even for the children.

Sex is sex, I don't understand this. It's not like your starting up a long term relationship into a marriage with a bunch of half bigoted kids. It's like asking if a male who supports feminists with his time and his wallet watches porn.

Sure. It depends how much sex means to you.

If it means nothing more than a game of chess, then sure. Personally, it means a great deal, even if it wasn't to lead to a relationship. It's a level of intimacy I wouldn't want to share with someone I found morally repulsive.

Obviously everyone realistically has foibles, so it's a matter of how bigoted. I strive to not be bigoted at all, but I can't be sure I'm succeeding all the time.

(April 23, 2016 at 4:49 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure. It depends how much sex means to you.

If it means nothing more than a game of chess, then sure. Personally, it means a great deal, even if it wasn't to lead to a relationship. It's a level of intimacy I wouldn't want to share with someone I found morally repulsive.

Obviously everyone realistically has foibles, so it's a matter of how bigoted. I strive to not be bigoted at all, but I can't be sure I'm succeeding all the time.

Your being unfair here. Sex isn't black and white. Like most issues and most of life it's gray. You can have sex with somebody you never want to see again but that you are attracted to and even carry on a sexual relationship with somebody who's thinking you are very much against. To compare a relationship, be it sexually based or emotionally, to a "game of chess" is cheap.

You'd have cheapened yourself by making the comment if chess wasn't so nuanced. You have to account for many future in chess, and in relationships. I think you maybe seeing it all as a "one night stand" when meaningful, if sexual, relationships can be carried out even when the people in the relationship can't stand each other in "normal" social situations. They enjoy coitus with each other very much, but one might find the other very selfish and the other find the other to be foolish and unambitious. 

Point is it's Gray, to blanket it with your on values is ... well whatever it is when you do that.

What I said was that it may mean as little to someone as that. I'm not saying it does mean that to everyone.

Of course, it's going to mean different things to different people. What I'm saying is playing a game of chess isn't a great level of intimacy, so I'd share that experience perhaps with someone who I didn't necessarily like that much, or without getting to know them even. But the more intimate experiences are, the more I'd reduce who I'm prepare to do them with. That's just me, I'm not telling anyone else what to do. It's up to each person who they do what with, it's no business of mine. Personally, inviting them to my house to play chess would be more intimate. There's less people I'd be prepared to do that with. And so on.

I'm just saying in my case, sex is never casual, so I would never do it with someone unless I felt very close to them. It always means a great deal to me. My point is I don't expect anyone else to feel the same way. I'm not saying it necessarily means nothing; that would be the extreme example of someone who would likely care much less who they slept with. And that's up to them, it's not a judgement.

(April 23, 2016 at 2:15 am)robvalue Wrote: Good point. I should further clarify that the group they are a part of is not directly relevant to the point you are making.

No, it's not. It's the usual semantic escape route of people wanting to feel comfortable in their own prejudices. Not even an original one but an often heard one.

There's quite a difference between judging a criminal and judging someone simply for being born.