(April 23, 2016 at 2:15 am)robvalue Wrote:

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

My most important objection would be to the 2nd point, in that I would hope and incredibly honest pedophile would be honest enough to accept that working with children will be a bad idea for them.
And for first point I imagine from the perspective of a pedpphile its always going to be dangerous to reveal yourself, you're basically a lion programmed to kill young bison and you're surrounded by strong adult bison who want to beat the shit out of you whenever you go near their children. It will always be better to remain anonymous just for the sheer sexual opportunities you might get and the amount of potential beatings you will avoid.

(April 23, 2016 at 6:40 am)abaris Wrote:

(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.

You mean I took the very specific definition you gave for what a bigot means too literally?
When you say simply for being born are you trying to say judging someone for inherent characteristics they're born with?

(April 23, 2016 at 6:40 am)abaris Wrote:

(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.

I don't know what you mean. I'm saying it's not bigoted to refuse to employ someone because they belong to the group of people who aren't qualified to do the job. But it is bigoted not to employ someone because they belong to an irrelevant group, such as a skin colour.

Paul: If you are hoping pedophiles won't work with children based on their own morality, how would making it illegal make any difference? How would the law ever be practically enforced?

heh... this needs to go yes... please vote your passions not your brainboners.

Brain boners? I don't have enough blood to use both at once

I can barely get either to work.

(April 23, 2016 at 6:55 am)robvalue Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 6:40 am)abaris Wrote: 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.

I don't know what you mean. I'm saying it's not bigoted to refuse to employ someone because they belong to the group of people who aren't qualified to do the job. But it is bigoted not to employ someone because they belong to an irrelevant group, such as a skin colour.

Paul: If you are hoping pedophiles won't work with children based on their own morality, how would making it illegal make any difference? How would the law ever be practically enforced?

No I'm saying if there was an honest pedophile I'd hope he'd be reasonable and logical enough to accept that it's a good idea for himself her to avoid jobs working with the children they're sexually attracted to and will have a lot of physical contact with.
And I didn't talk about enforcing a law or making it illegal I'm saying it's a bad idea for them to work with children and I'd support any employer who didn't want to hire a pedophile for a job involving children. I just looked back and the specific words I used where that is advocate excluding them from certain jobs. That's all I've said so far I hadn't even put any thought into legal issues but we could talk about that if you want, it just hasn't been a part of my argument so far.

Ah sorry, I got confused, yes. Apologies.

So, my question should have been how would this ever come up? How would the employer know someone was a pedophile? Or is it merely a hypothetical?

I'm saying that employers having such a policy is actually harmful to the children they are trying to protect, because any pedophiles that do apply, and who would have gone undetected, cannot as easily seek help.

I was probably reading too much into your comment though, sorry!

PS: are you suggesting employers ask people if they are pedophiles?

(April 23, 2016 at 7:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Ah sorry, I got confused, yes. Apologies.

So, my question should have been how would this ever come up? How would the employer know someone was a pedophile? Or is it merely a hypothetical?

I'm saying that employers having such a policy is actually harmful to the children they are trying to protect, because any pedophiles that do apply, and who would have gone undetected, cannot as easily seek help.

I was probably reading too much into your comment though, sorry!

No need to apologise. It's hypothetical in the sense that I'm saying that if being a bigot is being vocal, disliking a person and excluding them for just being part of a specific group then I would possibly be classified as a bigot since I advocate excluding pedophiles from jobs involving children just because they're a part of that group.
I don't believe that situation will be very common because it's always much more beneficial to remain anonymous if you're a pedophile and that would be the case even if you allowed them to work with children.

(April 23, 2016 at 7:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Ah sorry, I got confused, yes. Apologies.

So, my question should have been how would this ever come up? How would the employer know someone was a pedophile? Or is it merely a hypothetical?

I'm saying that employers having such a policy is actually harmful to the children they are trying to protect, because any pedophiles that do apply, and who would have gone undetected, cannot as easily seek help.

I was probably reading too much into your comment though, sorry!

PS: are you suggesting employers ask people if they are pedophiles?

For the last part employers do a CRB check, but they wouldn't ask that question on the basis of it being unreasonable to expect an honest answer so I definitely wouldn't suggest that.

OK, thank you