(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.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
