The point is that as a matter of human rights, we assume people are innocent until proven guilty.
That is a common saying, repeated more often than understood. The police can hardly do their job by actually assuming that everyone is innocent. What the slogan actually means is that they have the burden of proof, and even that only applies to the processes of formal justice. Law enforcement can suspect who they please, for any reason whatever, and direct their enquiries accordingly. And outside of the justice system, everyone is free to use whatever data they have to update their beliefs and actions in whatever way seems justified by the data.
A fundamental theme of this site, if you hadn’t noticed. But you’re not actually interested in the matter of LessWrong, are you?
In the present context, “innocent until proven guilty” is an irrelevance, another Power Word: Stun. It does not mean that as a matter of human rights (Power Word: Stun again) I must believe that someone avowing their attraction to children has never acted on it and is never going to. I have no reason to assign them to the “celibate” pseudo-category.
The tolerance that celibate pedophiles seek is far more basic than that. Would you still be friends with one?
I would very much keep at least at arms length from any such character, and to the extent it were in my control, keep them away from children. You see, where do I get this supposed knowledge that they are a “celibate pedophile”? Their own word? Why should I believe it? Why should I believe you? The supposed class of “celibate pedophiles” makes about as much sense as “drunk drivers who have never had an accident”.
And outside of the justice system, everyone is free to use whatever data they have to update their beliefs and actions in whatever way seems justified by the data.
No they aren’t. It happens to be legal to act on prejudice against celibate pedophiles. It is not legal to act on prejudice against people for their sex, race or the aspect of their sexual preference specific to whether they are attracted to males or females.
Be as prejudiced as you like. It’s almost certainly socially beneficial to you. But you cannot pretend (here) that it is an obvious and natural implication of a generic legal right to do so. The right to discriminate is allowed in some cases (such as this one) but not others.
You see, where do I get this supposed knowledge that they are a “celibate pedophile”? Their own word? Why should I believe it? Why should I believe you?
Presumably you get the knowledge about the second word in the phrase from the same place you got the knowledge about the first word in the phrase. It does not seem to be a particularly unbelievable claim.
The supposed class of “celibate pedophiles”
Supposed class? What? The connotative claim here is that there are exactly zero people with a primary sexual attraction to prepubescent humans who have not and will not rape children.
makes about as much sense as “drunk drivers who have never had an accident”.
Note to JoshElders: I have a personal aversion to conversations riddled with the type of expression described by Frankfurt in the above linked essay. It seems abundantly clear to me that you directly engaging here with RichardKennaway or anyone similarly mindkilled will result in my exposure to such distasteful reasoning. It is likely that I would downvote both sides of such a conversation according to a “do not feed the moralizer” policy. I give you this information so you know the reason you would be getting downvoted is nothing to do with your sexuality and everything to do with the choice to provoke easily avoidable bullshit.
And outside of the justice system, everyone is free to use whatever data they have to update their beliefs and actions in whatever way seems justified by the data.
No they aren’t.
You are referring to the contingencies of this and that legal system. I am referring to the rational obligation to properly update on observations. As I said, a theme of this site on occasion, but apparently not on the occasion of your post.
Presumably you get the knowledge about the second word in the phrase from the same place you got the knowledge about the first word in the phrase. It does not seem to be a particularly unbelievable claim.
I am quite willing to believe that there are those with pedophile inclinations who have never acted on them. What I am taking issue with it the idea that “celibate pedophile” is a natural cluster of things, any more than “drunk drivers who have not had accidents”. That is why I have called it a supposed class, not because I think it is empty.
Thanks for the explanation. I was formulating a reply shortly after he made the post. At the time, Richard’s post had a −4 karma, so I was actually prohibited from doing so (with my lowly karma ranking). I guess that is the system working as it should. As a newcomer in a situation where most reactions have been negative and none that I recall has moved beyond “grudging tolerance” to “friendly tolerance”, it’s easy to assume that any given opinion might be shared by lots of others.
That is a common saying, repeated more often than understood. The police can hardly do their job by actually assuming that everyone is innocent. What the slogan actually means is that they have the burden of proof, and even that only applies to the processes of formal justice. Law enforcement can suspect who they please, for any reason whatever, and direct their enquiries accordingly. And outside of the justice system, everyone is free to use whatever data they have to update their beliefs and actions in whatever way seems justified by the data.
A fundamental theme of this site, if you hadn’t noticed. But you’re not actually interested in the matter of LessWrong, are you?
In the present context, “innocent until proven guilty” is an irrelevance, another Power Word: Stun. It does not mean that as a matter of human rights (Power Word: Stun again) I must believe that someone avowing their attraction to children has never acted on it and is never going to. I have no reason to assign them to the “celibate” pseudo-category.
I would very much keep at least at arms length from any such character, and to the extent it were in my control, keep them away from children. You see, where do I get this supposed knowledge that they are a “celibate pedophile”? Their own word? Why should I believe it? Why should I believe you? The supposed class of “celibate pedophiles” makes about as much sense as “drunk drivers who have never had an accident”.
No they aren’t. It happens to be legal to act on prejudice against celibate pedophiles. It is not legal to act on prejudice against people for their sex, race or the aspect of their sexual preference specific to whether they are attracted to males or females.
Be as prejudiced as you like. It’s almost certainly socially beneficial to you. But you cannot pretend (here) that it is an obvious and natural implication of a generic legal right to do so. The right to discriminate is allowed in some cases (such as this one) but not others.
Presumably you get the knowledge about the second word in the phrase from the same place you got the knowledge about the first word in the phrase. It does not seem to be a particularly unbelievable claim.
Supposed class? What? The connotative claim here is that there are exactly zero people with a primary sexual attraction to prepubescent humans who have not and will not rape children.
Bullshit.
Note to JoshElders: I have a personal aversion to conversations riddled with the type of expression described by Frankfurt in the above linked essay. It seems abundantly clear to me that you directly engaging here with RichardKennaway or anyone similarly mindkilled will result in my exposure to such distasteful reasoning. It is likely that I would downvote both sides of such a conversation according to a “do not feed the moralizer” policy. I give you this information so you know the reason you would be getting downvoted is nothing to do with your sexuality and everything to do with the choice to provoke easily avoidable bullshit.
You are referring to the contingencies of this and that legal system. I am referring to the rational obligation to properly update on observations. As I said, a theme of this site on occasion, but apparently not on the occasion of your post.
I am quite willing to believe that there are those with pedophile inclinations who have never acted on them. What I am taking issue with it the idea that “celibate pedophile” is a natural cluster of things, any more than “drunk drivers who have not had accidents”. That is why I have called it a supposed class, not because I think it is empty.
Thanks for the explanation. I was formulating a reply shortly after he made the post. At the time, Richard’s post had a −4 karma, so I was actually prohibited from doing so (with my lowly karma ranking). I guess that is the system working as it should. As a newcomer in a situation where most reactions have been negative and none that I recall has moved beyond “grudging tolerance” to “friendly tolerance”, it’s easy to assume that any given opinion might be shared by lots of others.