# Cesario, you're awfully sanctimonious for a pedophile **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 29, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973 "2009-09-29T14:48:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/462 "2009-10-07T05:36:44Z")
Why, though, when he’s likely to go away on his own? It’s not like he’s going to stay around with the reception he’s (deservedly) getting. You’re asking that the topic not be brought up because it makes you uncomfortable and you don’t like it. I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to not discuss something. If the poster is hijacking other things and bringing discussions of pedophilia into those, then the administration should do something about that. If there’s a good reason to believe that he’s going to molest kids, then the administration should do something about that. But if all he’s doing is arguing, in a thread about pedophilia, that sex with kids should be legal, then argue with him, mock him, or just ignore him. ---
**Author:** ![3trew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/13edae/32.png) [@3trew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3trew)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/463 "2009-10-07T05:45:55Z")
> [@MikeG](#): > > …, but when pedophiles are given a forum to espouse their beliefs, it’s time to say enough is enough. Hey, there’s an idea. We could call it The Play House. The necrophiliacs… sorry, necromantics, could have The Charnel House, and the interspecies romance contingent could have… I was going to say The Doghouse, but then it occurred to me that I might be being insensitive, so we could just repurpose The Barn House and then everyone would be happy. The torture rapists could post in The Last House On The Left. As long as none of the posters there advocate the things they want to be legal so they can do them, we’re golden! Oh, and nobody is to tell anyone to fuck off. That’s just beyond the pale. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/464 "2009-10-07T05:47:09Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > The simple truth is that “racissts or sexists or varous extreme political partisans” are not talking about fucking children. He is. What stuns me, quite frankly, is the complete abdication of any degree of moral authority that you are displaying – and honestly, it’s not like we’re asking for much. The only think we’re asking be placed off limits is discussions about FUCKING CHILDREN. Why? Why do you feel that you need to be protected or shielded from a topic that you can avoid simply by not opening certain threads? I genuinely do not see your point. > [@Jodi](#): > > At this point, I am bafffled by you, honestly. I used to hold you in very high esteem, but now I think you’re just a coward. I choose to chalk your current spinelessness up to cowardice, because the only other option is that you lack of even a fundamental personal moral compass, and I choose not to believe that of you. I am baffled by how you can see my actions as cowardice when all I would need to do to avoid all the vitriol I am catching in this thread would be to ban someone whom I do not like, to begin with. I am not making a case for any bravery on my part, but a charge of cowardice seems just silly. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/465 "2009-10-07T06:02:34Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Actually, since you suggested that there are threads about dopers’ drug use, I thought it would help to clarify. Though to be honest my post was mostly directed to **tomndebb** , who doesn’t seem to understand the rules very well. And yet, the rules you quoted are exactly the rules I have held on this thread. > [@Fenris](#): > > Dude…he wants to fuck _three year olds_–there ARE no nuanced discussions about ethics to be had. > > He wants to fuck three-year olds. What kind of expose do you want to do? It’s not like there’s a debate about it. Why do you want to give him a platform? I have made no mention of nuanced discussions, so I have no idea why you are attacking that point. Everyone, here, gets the same “platform” and everyone, here, gets to pillory anyone’s ideas that are so clearly stupid. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > **tomndebb** , I see you’ve declined to respond to my concern regarding the possible negative consequences for some young child in the future as a result of allowing a platform for this pedophile to promote acceptance for his inclination. You have some imaginary scenario where his posting on a message board and being held in utter contempt by every other poster is going to lead to some child somewhere being molested? I can come up with an imaginary scenario whereby posters reading his crap will come to recognize the odd workings inside his skull and, recognizing the symptoms in some other individual, rescue a child from harm. I am not going to pretend that I believe that is a reason to encourage that crap, but it is every bit as realistic as your unsupported and insupportable extrapolation. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > If I recall, you are a Roman Catholic. I’ve always wondered what you do for a living. You have so much SDMB time on your hands. You are not a lawyer, but could you be a priest ? > > Have I got your attention now? I have been a programmer, then unemployed, then working in retail. I’ve never worn a Roman collar even as a joke, and I find your attempts at an insult to be at about the same silly level as your other arguments. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/466 "2009-10-07T06:06:03Z")
> [@](#): > > What are you talking about? He’s been active in this thread since it started, with his most recent post at 7pm last night. Not that he’s learning anything. I wasn’t counting this thread, obviously. I said I hadn’t seen him. I’m not about to read this thread all the way through. It’s infuriating. And I’m not going to go looking for him. I just was noting that he hasn’t popped up and ruined any thread I was actually interested in. Anyways. I thought the problem was him posting about his agenda in other threads. In here we’re pretty much talking about banning him (or worse) I think he has a right to post in such a thread. ETA: I still think the problem would go completely away if we’d use a certain little feature on the boards, along with the philosophy that feature was designed to support. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/467 "2009-10-07T06:06:15Z")
**Jodi** Actually **Tomndebb** would be a coward if he capitulated to your demands. Morally, he is correct. If you don’t like the topic, don’t open the thread. It is not the mods job to be your personal filter. I always LOL when someone uses the ‘you’re a coward’ argument. They clearly do not know the definition of the word coward. It is not cowardly for me not to stand up for what YOU believe in. It is cowardly for me to not stand up for what _I_ believe in. That is why he’d be a coward for standing up for your beliefs, since he clearly based on his arguments, believes the opposite of what you believe on this particular issue. So if he capitulated to your demands it would be due to your haranguing him, which would then be cowardly. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/468 "2009-10-07T06:24:50Z")
> [@MoodIndigo1](#): > > Uh, how would you know that about post-menopausal women? That’s first news to me, I’d better have myself checked. Lubrification still working fine. That’s what they’ve told me. Maybe they’ve been dishonest with me. Who knows. > [@MoodIndigo1](#): > > One question has been niggling me: your competency test won’t be applicable to infants and toddlers, so why include them on your preference list? Was that 0-10 age group just chosen for shock value? > > If you’re a troll, you certainly got what you were seeking. I don’t chose my preferences. I listed honestly the range I was attracted to. Whether they’d be applicable to the proposed test doesn’t change who I think is attractive. > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > True, but what man doesn’t like to feel “big” during sex? And if you’re lacking in God-given size, what choice do you have but to miniaturize your partners? At least we’ve gotten back to the standard penis size insults, instead of the bizzare backhanded compliments we’d been dealing with lately. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Cesario, I think you don’t understand that we’re not being all " ewwww kid-adult sex!!!" b/c it’s some sort of conditioned cultural thing. Of course you are. If you’d actually thought about it critically, you’d either agree with my position, or you’d have a far more convincing argument in favor of your position. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Basic developemental psychology says that little kids aren’t “developed” EMOITIONALLY to really know about sex and its proper place in realtionships. Define the emotional capabilities necessary to understand sex. Explain what its “proper” place in relationships is. Provide the studies that demonstrate that no human being below your personal preffered arbitrary-line-based-on-nothing has these capabilities. And then maybe we’ll be able to make some progress. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > You may yap on and on about how your screening tool will prevent that…But the fact of the matter is, is that ANYONE under 13 is far more interested in playing then sex. Even the geniuses or the kids who are “mature” for their ages don’t really have a great hold on what exactly sex is. Heck many teens are still trying to figure all that out you know. If they aren’t interested in sex, they won’t consent to it or even go in for the test, and if they don’t understand it, they won’t pass the test. I fail to see what you’re so worried about. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Yes, genitials are hardwired to feel good when you stimulate them. > BUT, the thing is …KIDS are at the developmental stage of discovering what it means to be human. Well, since you’re apparently already past this stage, how about you explain it to the rest of the class. What does it mean to be human? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > They don’t have the concept of sex as lovemaking…they are at a completely different developmental stage! Why is the concept of “sex as lovemaking” important? Does everyone who trolls the bars looking for a quick fuck prove themselves developmentally deficient in your eyes? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Virtually all adults are NOT at that stage. And being equally ignorant and underdeveloped helps matters how? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I honestly think you don’t remember what it was like to be a kid. I honestly think the same about you. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I think almost everyone on the board can look back at when they were a kid or a teen…when they thought they knew EVERYTHING…and you just smile at what an out of it DORK you were back then! Me, I look back and generally feel anger at my situation and find I agree in pretty much every detail with my younger self’s analysis of the situation. Well, I’m less inclined to use bio-weapons in pursuit of my goals, but that’s mainly because other options have opened up since that time. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > And the reason why I refered to my friend’s experiances as rape is b/c it WAS RAPE! It was rape plain and simple. It was a classic pedophile set up. If it “was rape plain and simple”, then it had nothing at all to do with pedophilia. Try to learn that words have meanings. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > The jr high gym teacher RAPED (took advantage) of two girls who " consented" They thought they were in a realtionship with him. (and I’m sure HE thought that the realtionship was OK) but both of them are now really fucked up. You do realize I’ve been quite clear in my presumption that even a fully consensual sexual relationship in this culture is likely to cause psychological trauma, right? Just because we differ in our beliefs about the mechanism doesn’t mean I’m unaware of the general outcomes. As to the specific situation, I can’t really speak to it. You’ve provided no details regarding what this “consent” consisted of, what the “RAPE” consisted of, or what “really fucked up” specifically means in regards to these girls. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > You keep on yapping about the difference between child molesters and pedophile, as if they are two completely different things. That’s because I know what words mean, and I’m trying to help you acheave the same. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Sorry…but there ARE active pedophiles out there!!! Again, stop using made-up terms. The word you are looking for is “child molester”. Try it. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I can name TONS of them…the one from “I Know My First Name is Stephen”, the dude who kidnapped and raped Elizabeth Smart, and MANY others! > And yes the FBI stat may be legit…but maybe it simply reflects on how few people really are true pedos…and it does seem that almost all the active ones (as well as the nonactive ones) are batshit insane. Um, you do realize I presented that statistic alongside another one which demonstrates that pedophiles make up 20-33% of the adult male population, meaning that pedophiles are less likely to molest children than nonpedophiles when you adjust for the relative population sizes, right? > [@Meatros](#): > > So I indeed got that right. Yes. In fact, I’ve pointed it out on this board already when someone assumed I took it from the Shakespeare play. I assumed that’s where you got that from. If not, then it’s great to see another fan of Kiddy Grade. > [@Meatros](#): > > No one is arguing that you don’t desire it (well, actually I am, as I don’t quite buy your act - but that’s not relevant to your response here). > > Your desire of something doesn’t justify that something. In short, desire doesn’t change into defensibility. People are arguing that I must assume something exists because I desire it. I’ve been pointing out that this is completely unnecessary. Simple as that. > [@Meatros](#): > > It’s unclear whether or not this will suffice, since you say ‘lately’ (and I haven’t checked out the board). I’m specifically looking for evidence of past defenses of your desires; not weeks ago, but months ago. I’m also not looking to get to know a whole bunch of people just to ascertain whether or not you are being upfront with us here. > > Do you have any direct links? As to ‘silly questions’, I’m merely trying to establish that you are legit. The earliest post that’s still avalible on Gaia is from December 11, 2006 under the account Iron Sole: > **[Posts By User Unknown User | Forum | Gaia Online](https://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/search/posts.user/4674824/?sequence=491)** > > Gaia Online is an online hangout, incorporating social networking, forums, gaming and a virtual world. The most recent posts by me on Gaia are from the account Demon of the 14th Shadow: > **[Posts By User demon of the 14th shadow | Forum | Gaia Online](https://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/search/?type=posts.user&val=demon+of+the+14th+shadow)** > > Gaia Online is an online hangout, incorporating social networking, forums, gaming and a virtual world. The reasons for the name change are complicated and not at all relevent to the current discussion. You can ask about them over there if you’re curious. I did provide you with the information to run a search on those sites yourself without too terribly much hasstle. Since you’re already calling me a liar, the least you could do would be to actually look where I told you to look for the evidence. As things stand, I’m not entirely convinced you’ll so much as click the links before continuing to declare that I’m lying. > [@Meatros](#): > > Do tell then. Property rights and the legal concept of guardianship. > [@Meatros](#): > > Fair enough. > > And this is why you’ve never presumably acted upon your desires - because the child who would not be damaged by them doesn’t exist. > > Correct? > > If this is correct, then why attempt to change people’s minds, the laws, etc? In order to undermine the mechanisms whereby that damage takes place. I don’t assume that the current system is harmless even to those who tow the line, just that the harm increases significantly to those children who are sexually active. Undermining the source of that harm diminishes the harm to both children who are sexually inactive and children who are sexually active. > [@Meatros](#): > > Convincing evidence would stop me. Considering the only reason you haven’t seen the evidence already is your own laziness… > [@Meatros](#): > > You were not responding to me here, but it has provoked a question: What exactly is your familiarity with children? That is, have you ever raised one? Or is your knowledge of children ‘from afar’, so-to-speak? > > To be clear, I’m not asking about ‘sexual relationships’ or anything of that nature. I’m not a father, though perhaps one day I will be. I have been a teacher at an elementary school, and have interacted with them significantly in that setting. I’ve also instructed them in martial arts, and interacted with them in that setting. Outside authority positions, I’ve interacted socially with both the children of relatives and the younger relatives of friends. My little brother has recently had a son, and I’ve enjoyed what little quality time with my nephew I’ve been able to get, what with them living in a different state. Does this answer your question? > [@Meatros](#): > > Again, this is not directed to me, but it provokes a question: Do you think that adults and children under 10 are mentally equivalent? If not, then how is your rebuttal relevant? It is relevent because the scenario she is describing is one where one partner lies about their willingness to have sex. Age doesn’t change that situation one bit. > [@Meatros](#): > > Since you have stated that you care about your hypothetical lover’s well being more then your own I am curious how - in a hypothetical world - you would actually determine whether or not you would do damage to a child. Do you believe their word is sufficient? When combined with an assessment of their knowledge of the subject and their general decisionmaking capabilities as described in the RMSC, yes. > [@Meatros](#): > > Further, to clear things up: You say that your age range is from 0-10. Does this mean that you believe a 0-10 year old can give consent? No, it does not. It means I think kids in that age range are attractive. > [@Meatros](#): > > If not, how do you determine consent? Simple assent combined with a full understanding of the situation you are assenting to. > [@Mtgman](#): > > Kind of makes me want to start a poll in IMHO “Could you be a better advocate for youth emancipation, including sexual emancipation, than **Cesario**?” The reality is that if given youth emancipation as a debate topic, there are any number of people on the boards who would do a great job advocating for it. And as a plus side you would know they were acting in good faith, not just wanting to get laws changed so they could satisfy their desires without legal ramifications. > > Hundreds of thousands of people are capable of putting themselves in someone else’s shoes and working to enact laws which are more fair than the ones some minority is currently wearing. Women’s suffrage was granted by non-women. Jim Crow was overturned by both blacks and non-blacks. Virtually every major civil rights victory has come because the majority, without ulterior motives, was able to empathize with the person oppressed and re-work the system to be more equitable. We don’t need someone who wants to have sex with children to advocate for more fair treatment under blanket laws like the Age of Consent. > > **Mr2001** was a proponent of youth rights. I’m generally a proponent of youth rights, although my support comes from my general philosophy that one size never fits all, as opposed to any particular affinity with youth issues. I’ve seen youth emancipation threads on this boards for years, and there is widespread support for the proposition that age of consent laws are unfair. Neither of these topics requires the presence of either a pedophile or a troll to happen, and both are better for their lack. > > Enjoy, > Steven What point would there be in such a self-assessment poll? Why not make a little wager? Assuming the bank manages to get its shit together, I’ll be moving in a few week’s time, and will likely be away from the board, or at least too busy to post for a month or so. During that time, you advocate precisely that. An end to all age lines, including the age of consent. If I see that you’ve been more effective than I have been at doing so, I’ll have no reason to come back after that little break. What do you say? You want me gone, here’s your chance. > [@Jodi](#): > > But what if instead of silencing this one particular poster, we actually are seeking to have the _subject_ ended because it is beneath civilized discussion on a Board dedicated to reasoned discourse and fighting ignorance? Help me understand something. How do you fight ignorance if you make yourself willfully ignorant about certain topics? > [@eleanorigby](#): > > No, there are not. There is no such thing as a “factually willing child” because children must trust the adults in their world due to the child’s lack of perspective and ability to make choices regarding their sexuality. There is a meaningful difference between mere factual willingness, and the standard of informed consent. Do you need me to elaborate on that? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Let me ask you – have YOU been molested? Or have YOU had sex, as a child, with an adult, or as an adult, with a child? The old “only a queer would defend another queer”? > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Because then you set up the precedent of the mods and administrators of the board deciding what topics are acceptable to debate and what topics are unacceptable. And obviously, this particular example is an easy case, but eventually a topic will come along that’s not so easy, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to give the mods the responsibility or the power to decide what’s acceptable to debate. I’ve always found this quote useful in these situations: The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. H. L. Mencken ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/469 "2009-10-07T07:26:00Z")
Whether he actually believes what he says or not, I’m a little disappointed at how easily many of you are letting him get to you. At this point, he just has to keep repeating how the accusations against him are for things he hasn’t actually said because he’s been misunderstood, and he can keep this going indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/470 "2009-10-07T07:27:31Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > But let’s just address your blythe dismissal: It begs the obvious question of whether there anyone, really, who is not a sick twisted pervert, who finds the subject NOT icky? I don’t find it icky. Not _enjoyable_, certainly, but interesting none the less. And I say this as someone with a) a four year old daughter b) 2 separate rapes by child molesters in my pre-teens. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/471 "2009-10-07T08:31:12Z")
> [@](#): > > In fact, I’d say that in most situations where a child initiated non penetrative sexual contact, they’d be less messed up if the adult engaged in it and no one found out than if they engaged in it and they were found out and the child were dragged through an investigation and trial and the adult were sentenced to 10 years in prison and the child were taken to less-than-useless “therapy” where they were told over and over that they were a victim. Oh like Lolita? " Oh I can’t help it! She led me on…Boofreakinghoo! I think that ANY kid who has a sexual encounter with an adult needs counseling and therapy. Virtually ALL active pedos prey on kids with VERY low self esteem. If a kid isn’t treated, they could think " Oh nothing happened…it felt good when Joe touched me and made me feel good. Maybe a little kid and an adult man (b/c almost all the time it’s a man abusing the kid) isn’t too bad. I have nothing else in my life that makes me feel good. I won’t tell other grown-ups that Joe’s friend touched me" Like make sure that they know about what healthy relationships are, and that they shouldn’t use sex for their entire source of self-esteem. Cesario… …Kids know about sex…but they don’t think about it the way a mentally healthy adult does. You really are grasping at straws here with your " Oh you don’t remember what it’s like to be a kid! Or do you remember what it was like to be a preschooler and wanting to get laid by some sperm or ova? or that pecentage of pedophile cite. I was a kid…and while I remember some sex stuff, it was just SO distinctly different from the way I view sex as an adult. We are NOT blindly arbitartaily going " ALL kids under such and such an age cannot consent" It’s basied on clear SCIENCE! Psychology tells us that most kids are still learning about basic realtionships. I mean there’s a HUGE diffy between " You like chocolate milk? I like chocolate milk? We’ll be best friends!" and the adult concept of a healthy romantic realtionship. Someone can think someone is attractive without wanting to have sex with them.(my girlfriend is a lesbian and thinks a lot of men are hot, but she doesn’t want to have sex with them) Heck when I found out that my current girlfriend was still a mid-teen when I first fell in love with her, (she’s of age now, and we waited to have a relationship until she was of age) I felt kind of oogie about that. (I’m ten years older then she is) Oh…and I’d have to say that the problem with pedos is that they are FIXTATED on the fact that they are attracted to kids, in an almost Asperger’s Syndrome way. They are FIXTATED…and they don’t understand that simple attention isn’t a sinal saying" I want to have sex with you!" And you know Cesario…I totally and completely give up on you. It is CLEAR that you are mentally ill. You’re like a borderline or a sociopath or an extreme narcissitist. " Oh it’s not ME. It’s everyone else who is wrong! Oh boo hoo hoo…Sorry but it IS you. You need HELP. You honestly honestly need help. Go and see a psychologist. I’m sure many of the folks on this board who have dealt with people like you can attest that you are not alone in your distorted thinking…Maybe you’re a sociopath and that’s why you don’t understand that something like what you propose is all shades of fucked up! Kids cannot consent. They really have no clue what sex is from an ADULT point of view! It’s FAR too complex for them to understand! End of discussion. ---
**Author:** ![miamouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@miamouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miamouse)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/472 "2009-10-07T08:39:30Z")
Are you guys kidding me? We can’t type c\*nt, **Airman Doors** can’t ask to have a game recorded for him, but posting the offensive things that **Cesario** has done is ok? Fighting ignorance seem to not include common sense. (yes, I understand why **Airman Doors** request was shut down, I was a little :rolleyes: about it, but I understand) ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/473 "2009-10-07T09:03:54Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am baffled by how you can see my actions as cowardice when all I would need to do to avoid all the vitriol I am catching in this thread would be to ban someone whom I do not like, to begin with. I am not making a case for any bravery on my part, but a charge of cowardice seems just silly. What a crock. You’re digging in your heels - you’ve made a stupid decision and now can’t admit it. (And you’re not-so-subtle implication that it’s brave to stand up to the popular opinion…pathetic) > [@tomndebb](#): > > And yet, the rules you quoted are exactly the rules I have held on this thread. You really should try reading them again. That a mod isn’t able to understand the rules is quite sad. > [@](#): > > I have been a programmer, then unemployed, then working in retail. I’ve never worn a Roman collar even as a joke, and I find your attempts at an insult to be at about the same silly level as your other arguments. Oh great. I can see how you’re qualified to make these sorts of decisions. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/474 "2009-10-07T10:41:34Z")
> [@leander](#): > > What a crock. You’re digging in your heels - you’ve made a stupid decision and now can’t admit it. (And you’re not-so-subtle implication that it’s brave to stand up to the popular opinion…pathetic) > > You really should try reading them again. That a mod isn’t able to understand the rules is quite sad. > > Oh great. I can see how you’re qualified to make these sorts of decisions. :rolleyes: First, I explicitly said that neither bravery nor cowardice is an issue in this case, so you are just making stuff up on that point. Second, Marley’s views, my views, and the posted rules are all in accord and you are simply imitating another troll on this board who posts stuff in direct contradiction to his own position, claims that it supports his position against evidence and sense, and simply repeats the error as though repitition brings truth. And, of course, you are clearly a Supreme Court Justice, incognito, amazing us all with your perceptive abilities. (That, or simply a poster whose only point when posting, at all, is to whine about the staff, regardless the issue or what you actually believe on any topic.) ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/475 "2009-10-07T10:58:22Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Oh great. I can see how you’re qualified to make these sorts of decisions. :rolleyes: What sort of past or current employment would be suitable for a mod at the Dope, in your view? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/476 "2009-10-07T11:00:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have made no mention of nuanced discussions, so I have no idea why you are attacking that point. :rolleyes: Hyperbole–look it up sometime. The point is the sum total of possible discussion is: Cesario: I wanna make fucking three-year old children legal so I can fuck three year old children without going to jail. Who’s with me? EVERY PERSON ON THE DOPE: Not me. Shut up, pervert. > [@](#): > > Everyone, here, gets the same “platform” and everyone, here, gets to pillory anyone’s ideas that are so clearly stupid. To quote someone from earlier in the thread “This is clearly a false statement.” You personally have warned people who advocated genocide. I believe several of the Stormfronters were banned for that. One of the regular anti-Israel types made some comment about wanting Tel Aviv(?) nuked. He got a formal warning and A Talking To. And given that he had no ability whatsoever to do it (as opposed to the deviant here who certainly can find little children to rape), he meant that he hoped a government did it. So clearly there are some “platforms” which are out of bounds, even in terms of discussing a government allowing them. I’m astonished that you’re having such trouble with the idea that “Let me legally fuck three-year-old children” is one such. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/477 "2009-10-07T11:02:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > First, I explicitly said that neither bravery nor cowardice is an issue in this case, so you are just making stuff up on that point. Yeah, right. You claim that you’re taking the really difficult position by going against what’s popular opinion/common sense/human decency, but you’re not looking to be called a hero (wink, wink). This of course has nothing to do with your battered pride. > [@](#): > > Second, Marley’s views, my views, and the posted rules are all in accord and you are simply imitating another troll on this board who posts stuff in direct contradiction to his own position, claims that it supports his position against evidence and sense, and simply repeats the error as though repitition brings truth. Hey dumbass, what about “fostering illegal activity”? You have a funny habit for ignoring information that directly contradicts your posts. > [@](#): > > And, of course, you are clearly a Supreme Court Justice, incognito, amazing us all with your perceptive abilities. (That, or simply a poster whose only point when posting, at all, is to whine about the staff, regardless the issue or what you actually believe on any topic.) I’d be happy to share my profession with you, and I can tell you it ain’t selling shoes in a mall. Now anyone can search on my posts and see that you are lying when you say “only point when posting, at all, is to whine about the staff” but of course you know that and are simply trying to divert from the fact that you’re like a cornered dog fighting to justify a despicable position simply because he refuses to admit he is wrong. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/478 "2009-10-07T11:04:53Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > What sort of past or current employment would be suitable for a mod at the Dope, in your view? Well, generally when you’re looking to hire someone, even in a volunteer position, you look for someone who will have similar skills and experience. Selling shoes in a mall probably wouldn’t fit the SDMB mod role. Of course, YMMV. ETA: And frankly, I don’t know why I bother. I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with the local mall shoe salesman, so I shouldn’t bother here. As I said earlier, I think the only wise thing to do is inform the new owners of what their staff are allowing. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/479 "2009-10-07T11:08:59Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Um, you do realize I presented that statistic alongside another one which demonstrates that pedophiles make up 20-33% of the adult male population, meaning that pedophiles are less likely to molest children than nonpedophiles when you adjust for the relative population sizes, right? Since I defended the Rind et al study, I feel in the interest to fairness to point out that the Blanchard study assumed that arousal, as measured by a Penile Plethysmograph indicated interest which is a [deeply contentious assumption](http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/plethysmograph.html). Given the problems it has measuring sexual orientation: > [@](#): > > Dr. Bradford’s penile tumescence testing could only correctly classify 62% of the admitted homosexual child molesters and 52% of the admitted heterosexual child molesters. According to the report, twenty-five (25%) accuracy in classification would have been expected from mere chance. I don’t think the Blanchard study could have reliably measured pedophilia. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/480 "2009-10-07T11:21:23Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Well, generally when you’re looking to hire someone, even in a volunteer position, you look for someone who will have similar skills and experience. Selling shoes in a mall probably wouldn’t fit the SDMB mod role. > > Of course, YMMV. > > ETA: And frankly, I don’t know why I bother. I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with the local mall shoe salesman, so I shouldn’t bother here. As I said earlier, I think the only wise thing to do is inform the new owners of what their staff are allowing. Hmm…the most obvious career path would include previous experience in moderating. Failing that, perhaps the legal profession, counselling, or, in fact, any job that includes interacting with people. Working in the retail environment (particularly at management level) demands significant interpersonal skills. You need great ‘moderating’ skills dealing with both the public and staff. You have assumed (maybe correctly: I have no idea) that **tomndebb** was/is a mall shoe salesman; apart from the obvious attempt to belittle him, what do you base this on? He could be the CEO of multinational retailer, for all you know. Even as the manager of that mall shoe shop would have him dealing with people on a daily basis. He may not do it well - or he may be brilliant at it. We just have no way of knowing. I would say that his brief sketch of his employment history doesn’t allow us to tell if it qualifies him for this job. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/481 "2009-10-07T11:30:47Z")
When people say they “work in retail” they are generally not talking about being the CEO of a multinational. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=25)