I don't think forgiveness is a synonym for treating someone as if X didn't happen entirely.
I forgive the guy who tried to invade my home. But if I see him coming up the walkway, I won't greet him with a warm beverage and a handshake. Maybe he's had a change of his heart and has been rehabilitated in a heartwarming final act of the story in a Oscar bait feature film presentation, but we all know the odds.
I'd forgive a guy who defrauded me, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to do a deal with them again. Maybe he's a good old honest fellow who has accepted the light into his once Grinchey heart, but we all know the odds.
If there's no separation between speech and the BST, which has already been stipulated, it seems quaint to me to state that we must forgive by allowing them to do deals with people who surely will not all know their record and what they are probably getting into. It's just setting up an environment to take an area lately littered with scammers into a place where the knowledgeable stay away from and folks who don't know everyone's history get scammed, while adding 0 benefit. If it was stated as a possible allowance of a particular, single person that could be debated, it might be different, but as a blanket policy for hobby scammers and fraudsters, why would anyone think opening the floodgates could possibly lead to a somehow more positive outcome than a policy of not allowing universally acknowledged scammers and fraudsters?
|