This is kinda interesting, especially since the first update gives some reasoning behind the decision. Specifically they state, "For the safety of our attendees." But if they are worried about the safety of their attendees why are they only forbidding attendance by those with a history of sexual violence and/or paedophilia. Do they not think those who committed normal assault would endanger the safety of their attendees?
I think that is a really interesting question because I would certainly think people should make decisions based on "blind" reasoning. You should have a general set of principles and then cases should be decided by seeing how they apply in those principles. What seems to happen a lot is that people make a set of, sometimes contradictory, special cases where they have a predetermined outcome rather than any committent to a specific way of thinking.
Is it really the case that people with a history of sexual violence are, overall, that much more likely to reoffend that their presence is a threat to the safety of attendees? It would be really cool if Sonious followed up that aspect of the story. Why do they single those people out specifically instead of just everyone who was convicted for a crime? Or for a violent crime? What is the evidence that sexual violence offenders are more of a threat to safety? Is it actually based on anything?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
This is kinda interesting, especially since the first update gives some reasoning behind the decision. Specifically they state, "For the safety of our attendees." But if they are worried about the safety of their attendees why are they only forbidding attendance by those with a history of sexual violence and/or paedophilia. Do they not think those who committed normal assault would endanger the safety of their attendees?
I think that is a really interesting question because I would certainly think people should make decisions based on "blind" reasoning. You should have a general set of principles and then cases should be decided by seeing how they apply in those principles. What seems to happen a lot is that people make a set of, sometimes contradictory, special cases where they have a predetermined outcome rather than any committent to a specific way of thinking.
Is it really the case that people with a history of sexual violence are, overall, that much more likely to reoffend that their presence is a threat to the safety of attendees? It would be really cool if Sonious followed up that aspect of the story. Why do they single those people out specifically instead of just everyone who was convicted for a crime? Or for a violent crime? What is the evidence that sexual violence offenders are more of a threat to safety? Is it actually based on anything?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~