5 ms·

I would argue that it does. Being a child molester shows a horrifically bad sense of judgement and a flagrant disregard for the law.

AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
So, here's a thought experiment: consider "Carl H". Carl H ran the site computerscienceforeveryone.com. He was an incredibly passionate individual who spent his time creating free video tutorials on C programming. Along with these videos, he created supplementary materials, quizzes, and engaged with anyone who had questions. He even provided live one-on-one instruction to people over Skype, all for free. By all accounts, he was an excellent Computer Science teacher. Carl was arrested for molesting his nine year-old son. He committed suicide in jail awaiting trial. With that said, do we disregard all of the learning materials he created? Is their value inherently reduced to zero now that we know they were the product of a sick individual? This isn't just an thought exercise. Carl was a real person. He had a Reddit board dedicated to his lessons and instructing people. His website has since lost its host and pretty much all the videos are gone from the web, save for p2p torrenting, because no one will be caught dead hosting videos from a child molestor, not matter how innocuous the videos themselves were.
- manfredo 9y ago
  Creating learning material isn't something that hinges entirely on trustworthyness. Sure authors of learning materials may be biased towards certain practices or styles, but it's trivial to verify that the content itself is legitimate - any coding tutorial that says 1 byte chars can increment up as far as 4 byte ints is going to get called out quickly. But for a referee putting down high scores from a video game, the referee's value stems entirely from the idea that the referee is a trustworthy observer.
- 794CD01 9y ago
  It sounds like you answered your own question. Yes, society has clearly decided that everything he created has lost all value.
- Anarch157a 9y ago
  Apples and Oranges. Distributing knowledge, like Carl H was doing, does not involve the kind of sensibilities required to be a referee, judge or notary. Were Carl H a federal judge, his crime would definitely put all trials presided by him under scrutiny.
- kahnpro 9y ago
  As the other commenters have pointed out, publishing knowledge is not the same as acting as an impartial referee or judge. In the latter case, his inability to make fair decisions in life is directly relevant to his qualification for a job that involves making fair decisions affecting other people. Unfortunately I don't think this thought experiment is very relevant.

AdmiralAsshat 9y ago

So, here's a thought experiment: consider "Carl H". Carl H ran the site computerscienceforeveryone.com. He was an incredibly passionate individual who spent his time creating free video tutorials on C programming. Along with these videos, he created supplementary materials, quizzes, and engaged with anyone who had questions. He even provided live one-on-one instruction to people over Skype, all for free. By all accounts, he was an excellent Computer Science teacher. Carl was arrested for molesting his nine year-old son. He committed suicide in jail awaiting trial. With that said, do we disregard all of the learning materials he created? Is their value inherently reduced to zero now that we know they were the product of a sick individual? This isn't just an thought exercise. Carl was a real person. He had a Reddit board dedicated to his lessons and instructing people. His website has since lost its host and pretty much all the videos are gone from the web, save for p2p torrenting, because no one will be caught dead hosting videos from a child molestor, not matter how innocuous the videos themselves were.

manfredo 9y ago
Creating learning material isn't something that hinges entirely on trustworthyness. Sure authors of learning materials may be biased towards certain practices or styles, but it's trivial to verify that the content itself is legitimate - any coding tutorial that says 1 byte chars can increment up as far as 4 byte ints is going to get called out quickly. But for a referee putting down high scores from a video game, the referee's value stems entirely from the idea that the referee is a trustworthy observer.
794CD01 9y ago
It sounds like you answered your own question. Yes, society has clearly decided that everything he created has lost all value.
Anarch157a 9y ago
Apples and Oranges. Distributing knowledge, like Carl H was doing, does not involve the kind of sensibilities required to be a referee, judge or notary. Were Carl H a federal judge, his crime would definitely put all trials presided by him under scrutiny.
kahnpro 9y ago
As the other commenters have pointed out, publishing knowledge is not the same as acting as an impartial referee or judge. In the latter case, his inability to make fair decisions in life is directly relevant to his qualification for a job that involves making fair decisions affecting other people. Unfortunately I don't think this thought experiment is very relevant.