Meh, Those kind of wild generalizations is what's really wrong with America. Sadly, the majority of people will relate to you void of the obvious logical holes. Come on man, you're an LSAT tutor, you have to understand where I'm coming from.
Please explain again how his child porn case is in any way connected with the LSAT. Put another way, say you were using his sexual preferences or desires to make a global "character" based decision that connects unrelated things- like say condemning someone for gay sex used to determine if the person is good at math.
P.S. I am not condoning child porn. Keep heart, I cannot win this argument either. I'd have just a difficult time trying to explain how the mid east invasions are crusades (just replace "Christianity" with "democracy" and everything else fits, but now you see democracy is sacrosanct- which frickin strengthens the argument- arg). Regardless of truth, you can't tell people thing the don't want to hear. People want to think you can take a small piece of info and use the powers of induction to understand everything about a person, its stupid but its human.
I disagree that I made any wild generalizations. Please point out the logical holes you see.
We are not discussing a closed universe LSAT LR argument where you can only reason in and infer things from the few sentences presented and are not allowed to bring in outside knowledge except for common sense and basic pedestrian/warranted assumptions about the topic of the argument.
It's a matter of character, previous behavior and possible future behavior that can be seriously harmful to young people that get victimized.
Haven't you watched any of the many Dateline "To Catch a Predator" episodes? They produced tons of them. Those alone, and I'm not basing my judgment simply on that show, contain mountains of evidence which demonstrate that people who desire and seek to obtain sexual gratification from underage children (in whatever form, in person, with pictures, videos, online chats, etc.) have super high recidivism rate and frequently cannot resist their urges to do it again, even when they know it is wrong and that they may be caught again and locked up.
Beyond the Dateline series, there are mountains of peer reviewed studies about sex offenders that contain many verified statistics and well done research from law enforcement agencies and respected academics that have focused on studying the problem.
One of the well held conclusions that has even been agreed to be true by many repeat convicted offenders is that there is no cure, and that people with pedophilia sexual desires keep having the strong urges to seek gratification and do it again even though they know they are risking serious prison time and that it is wrong. Basically, they cannot help themselves with the urges and desires to get off that way.
So, to connect the dots of relevance, the question is simple.
Should a documented caught and convicted guy with proven deviant sexual desires that according to science and research he will continue to have and may again act on be teaching/tutoring young impressionable people one-on-one in private without them knowing about his predisposition before agreeing to hire the guy as their teacher?
It doesn't matter how well he knows the LSAT and the logic it tests. I'm sure many serial killers, child molesters, mobsters and other types of criminals that have hurt people in serious ways are experts at all sorts of things they could teach others about. Does that make it ok for them to be allowed to teach students without their informed consent and knowledge of the character and serious criminal behavior patterns/history of the teacher and possible risks getting involved with and interacting with that teacher and type of person carry along? I say NOOOOO!
If the dude discloses it up front and some people are willing to hire him and trust him, then that is fine with me. Take your own risk. My main focus is on disclosure, especially in this context with young impressionable people seeking a good teacher/tutor to spend time and work with in person. It sucks, but in reality there are bad people out there in the world that do bad things to other people they try to hide while frequently putting forward a 'nice guy next door' public persona. There are many very strong legitimate reasons behind the lifetime sex offender registry laws and freely accessible/searchable public databases/registries.
Think about this question:
As a mother or father, if your child wants to go to law school and asks you to pay for a private tutor, while sorting through the many options available, would you opt to hand over a lot of $$ to a guy you knew had already committed a very serious sexual offense crime and let your child spend time with and be taught by that person in private one-on-one sessions?