# 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:** 25
**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, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/482 "2009-10-07T11:52:29Z")
> [@leander](#): > > When people say they “work in retail” they are generally not talking about being the CEO of a multinational. True. But, equally, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are a shoe salesman. I know you know that, and that you were using it to make a point. The fact that you made it up weakens your point: to me it comes across as snark. ---
**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, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/483 "2009-10-07T12:02:49Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > True. But, equally, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are a shoe salesman. I know you know that, and that you were using it to make a point. The fact that you made it up weakens your point: to me it comes across as snark. Fair enough. But a middle-aged man working in retail does not really shout success to me, snark or not. ---
**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, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/484 "2009-10-07T12:09:49Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Fair enough. But a middle-aged man working in retail does not really shout success to me, snark or not. I appreciate that we going way off topic, but, for example, I have a friend, who, quite often to people he doesn’t know very well will say he works in retail. He is actually the manager of a large supermarket branch. His wage is not inconsiderable and he has about eighty staff under him. I know he is very proud of his job, and I admire his achievement. I think that retail is one of those jobs that is not valued enough by many people. ---
**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, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/485 "2009-10-07T12:14:32Z")
Well, I guess we’re just speculating here. Perhaps \*\*tomndebb \*\*will come back and tell us what he does for a living these days. Frankly I doubt it. He has so much free time to mod these boards that I wouldn’t be surprised if he was unemployed and on some sort of “disability”. So what say you **tomndebb**? ---
**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, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/486 "2009-10-07T13:13:40Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Well, I guess we’re just speculating here. Perhaps \*\*tomndebb \*\*will come back and tell us what he does for a living these days. > > Frankly I doubt it. He has so much free time to mod these boards that I wouldn’t be surprised if he was unemployed and on some sort of “disability”. > > So what say you **tomndebb**? Would you think less of him if he was? Having plenty of time to mod is a definite advantage, I would say. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/487 "2009-10-07T13:16:32Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Well, I guess we’re just speculating here. Perhaps \*\*tomndebb \*\*will come back and tell us what he does for a living these days. > > Frankly I doubt it. He has so much free time to mod these boards that I wouldn’t be surprised if he was unemployed and on some sort of “disability”. > > So what say you **tomndebb**? You know, I must say your last few posts have finally made me agree with the Management decision to remove moderation etc discussion from the Pit. Indulging in overheated rhetoric about our probable troll is one thing. Nastily attacking Tom with really childish and fundamentally jerkish insituations that he’s a failure or whatever, for simple reason he’s not indulging the “Off With the Head” crowd has made me see the light on at least one item. Bloody hell what a precious lot you are. Tom may well be wrong, hardly a rational reason to engage in petty personal attacks on the man. And over a bloody fucking troll. Jaysus. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveroptic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiveroptic/32/8257_2.png) [@Fiveroptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveroptic)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/488 "2009-10-07T13:17:29Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Well, I guess we’re just speculating here. Perhaps \*\*tomndebb \*\*will come back and tell us what he does for a living these days. > > Frankly I doubt it. He has so much free time to mod these boards that I wouldn’t be surprised if he was unemployed and on some sort of “disability”. > > So what say you **tomndebb**? Who the fuck cares? God **leander** , this is weak, even for you. (Not to be taken as approval for Tom’s dickishness in this whole thread…just that his occupation/mode of income is entirely irrelevant to how big of a dick he might be.) ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/489 "2009-10-07T13:35:53Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > 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. I haven’t really read any of the other threads you’ve been in. I don’t get around to the SD all that much and the reason this thread interested me was because Dio made it and he’s generally a poster (albeit usually on another board) that I respect his opinion. As to your question - I just did some research; I’m not familiar with either the Shakespeare play or the Kiddy Grade show. > [@Cesario](#): > > 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. Here’s the problem with your position - which I assume is the following (if it’s not, then it’s not a problem): 1. You desire these sorts of sexual relationships (0-10). 2. You think they should be legal with the provision that the 0-10 year old: A. Is not harmed either physically or mentally B. Knowingly gives their consent (by knowingly I mean, understands it). Thus enter the hypothetical child. Now, the problem that I see is that it’s really not possible for such a child to exist. I think you would go so far as to say this probable (but not impossible) - am I right? If I am right, then I don’t see any reason why the laws should be changed since it’s highly improbable (I would say impossible) for such a hypothetical child to exist. > [@Cesario](#): > > The earliest post that’s still avalible on Gaia is from December 11, 2006 under the account Iron Sole: > [Guest Authentication | Gaia Online](http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/sear.../?sequence=491) > > The most recent posts by me on Gaia are from the account Demon of the 14th Shadow: > [Guest Authentication | Gaia Online](http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/sear...he+14th+shadow) > > 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. No, you are correct, they are not relevant. I will check out your links when I get home and am able to. > [@Cesario](#): > > Property rights and the legal concept of guardianship. Okay, go on… > [@Cesario](#): > > 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. By undermine, you mean effect people’s opinions - correct? If so, do you think you’ve been successful at all? To take this further, you think that the harm is primarily due to the laws and attitudes the culture has towards these actions. Do you deny any actual harm to the child outside of the stigma of society? > [@Cesario](#): > > Considering the only reason you haven’t seen the evidence already is your own laziness… Your charming words are certainly not motivating me. > [@Cesario](#): > > I’m not a father, though perhaps one day I will be. What are your views on incest? > [@Cesario](#): > > 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? Have you ever had interactions with children who have been abused, sexually or physically? That is, have you ever seen the end results of the relationship that you hypothetically would like to have? > [@Cesario](#): > > 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. Actually I think it does since in one situation one of the partners actually has an awareness of what will take place, whereas in the other situation the partner does not. Now you could hypothetically posit the ‘Nell’ adult, but that’s not going to help your case, since the entire point is about knowledge and the ability to make an informed decision about sexual relationships. > [@Cesario](#): > > When combined with an assessment of their knowledge of the subject and their general decision making capabilities as described in the RMSC, yes. How would you assess this knowledge? > [@Cesario](#): > > No, it does not. It means I think kids in that age range are attractive. So none of the children in your age range can give consent, this is what you are saying, correct? > [@Cesario](#): > > Simple assent combined with a full understanding of the situation you are assenting to. This is problematic since, presumably, children under 10 would necessarily lack the physical knowledge since they have not gone through puberty. Also, how would they acquire such knowledge? I mean, in order to fully understand you would have to educate them - but then wouldn’t you run the risk of ‘grooming’ them to be partners? In short, it seems like a vicious circle. Another thing that has come to mind, you have been accused of trolling and of having a persona (by myself and others) and you are attempting to clear this up (ie, you’ve provided links for me to assess your claims) - but, and try to be as clear as possible, what do you believe the end results will be to your avocation of your hypothetical behavior? You have said that you wish to change the laws and society, but I’m not entirely clear why since it seems that even according to you, 0-10 year olds can’t give consent. So why should the laws/society change to be more accommodating? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/490 "2009-10-07T13:36:39Z")
The more I read what **Cesario** ’s saying, the more I think we’d all be better off if the interesting parts of what he has to say (People currently considered “children” may actually be better able to make “adult” decisions than we think they are, here’s a proposed test for one such thing, what do you think?) were disjoint from his admitting that he’s a pedophile who is mostly attracted to pre-pubescents. Arguing for youth emancipation is a lot less “squicky” when we don’t have to question the motives of the people doing it. Frankly, I see a lot of knee-jerking and hysteria, and I don’t think it’s warranted when the guy in question has A) stated he’s not planning on acting on his attractions unless they’re found to be legal (regardless of his amazingly idiotic statements of how he’d never get caught) and B) is willing to live with it if a discussion of possible tests for determining adult-level competency in youth shows that in the absence of a bright-line age law, youth in “his age range” are STILL not capable of giving meaningful consent. This to me tells me that if we take him at face value, he’s attempting to cope with his disorder without completely subsuming it. Fair enough, says I. This doesn’t address the fact he was putting it out there in a lot of unrelated or semi-related threads, but at least some of that is the fault of posters baiting him by mentioning him now that he’s our celebrity of the whatever. I think an Evil Captor/Handy approach is the right one–officially encourage him to post about other topics, because while censorship of ideas is a iffy area, warning someone for being a one-trick poster who’s getting on many people’s nerves is not. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/491 "2009-10-07T14:43:28Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Frankly, I see a lot of knee-jerking and hysteria, and I don’t think it’s warranted when the guy in question has A) stated he’s not planning on acting on his attractions unless they’re found to be legal (regardless of his amazingly idiotic statements of how he’d never get caught) … Frankly, I don’t believe for a second someone who says he wants to have sex with children, but, golly-gee, would never actually do it. Call it knee-jerk if you like. I prefer to call it bullshit rationalization and petulant ass-covering. I’d bet \*\*Cesario \*\*is up to his tiny dick in kiddy-porn and candid pics of girls in his neighborhood he’s keen on grooming. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/492 "2009-10-07T14:51:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. It’s beyond ridiculous at this point. It’s particularly stupid because he is obviously relishing the attention, and yet people keep giving it to him even though they can’t be sure he’s telling the truth about himself in the first place. I thought this board was more skeptical than that. People keep complaining that **Cesario** is a one-trick pony, which is mostly true, _but they won’t stop talking about his favorite topic, which gives him a legitimate reason to post about it ad nauseam._ If he started talking about his predilections in unrelated or barely-related subjects, he’d be told to tone it down or stop it, like **Evil Captor** was. But it sounds like people expect us to warn **Cesario** for talking about pedophilia in threads that are bashing him, or in other topics related to pedophilia that were started in response to his posts on the board. (I think the posts in the poll were out of line, but he’s generally stayed within the rules.) Even a one-trick pony usually wouldn’t get a warning for answering direct questions. **Cesario** would not be that hard to ignore. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/493 "2009-10-07T14:54:46Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Why, though, when he’s likely to go away on his own? So? It seems to me that forcibly and vigroously ejecting blatant evil is an appropriate and reasonable thing to do - No need for us to wait for natural selection; a little pruning seems in order. All points of view are NOT equal. There are subjects which are, or should be, taboo, for reasons legal or social (and properly so). To name a few: Advocating treason. Advocating genocide. Advocating child molestation. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/494 "2009-10-07T15:09:46Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 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. The evidence thus far strongly indicates that you are incorrect. > [@](#): > > 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. I am asking that the topic not be brought up because allowing it to be respectfully discussed implicitly states that it is worthy of respectful discussion – as I’ve only said about a billion times. I think I’ve been pretty clear as to my rationales – I even linked to them above – and they don’t boil down to “It makes me uncomfortable and I don’t like it.” You may wish that were all there was to it, but in fact it’s not. ---
**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, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/495 "2009-10-07T15:10:41Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Frankly, I don’t believe for a second someone who says he wants to have sex with children, but, golly-gee, would never actually do it. How’s it any different from wanting to have sex with women who are not my wife, and not actually doing it? It’s not like it’s his only possible interpersonal sexual outlet. [QUOTE=Tranquilis] All points of view are NOT equal. There are subjects which are, or should be, taboo, for reasons legal or social (and properly so). To name a few: [.. my snippage…] Advocating child molestation. [/QUOTE] Not that that’s what **Cesario** is doing. ---
**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, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/496 "2009-10-07T15:13:12Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I am asking that the topic not be brought up because allowing it to be respectfully discussed implicitly states that it is worthy of respectful discussion – as I’ve only said about a billion times. “Discussing it” and “discussing it respectfully” are two different things. I’ve seen precious little of the latter here. And this is the Pit, it’s OK to be disrespectful to **Cesario** here. Isn’t that enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/497 "2009-10-07T15:14:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. Then you have a reading problem, because I’ve set forth my points repeatedly and at some length – twice in a numbered list – and you have never bothered to respond to any of them. If in fact you “genuinely don’t see my point” – not just mine, but many others’ as well, and not agree with it, don’t even SEE it – then I frankly cannot help 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. As I said, it’s either cowardice or a complete lack of moral clarity on what is, at the end of the day, a very easy and obvious decision for the vast majority of people possessing even a modicum of common sense. If you want me to assume the latter I can sure do so. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/498 "2009-10-07T15:17:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “Discussing it” and “discussing it respectfully” are two different things. I’ve seen precious little of the latter here. Then we’re reading different threads. And even _allowing_ the discussion legitimizes it as a topic fit for discussion by reasonable people, when it just isn’t. > [@](#): > > And this is the Pit, it’s OK to be disrespectful to **Cesario** here. Isn’t that enough for you? No, it absolutely is not. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/499 "2009-10-07T15:19:27Z")
> [@miamouse](#): > > 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. QFT. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/500 "2009-10-07T15:27:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > People keep complaining that **Cesario** is a one-trick pony, which is mostly true, _but they won’t stop talking about his favorite topic, which gives him a legitimate reason to post about it ad nauseam._ Which of course contradicts the assertion that,gee, the problem would be solved if only people ignored him. People _don’t_ ignore him. And if between themselves they want to have a nice stimulating discussion about the merits of pedophilia legalization, that’s their perogative – but I’ll be damned if I can understand why on earth this Board would provide them with the forum to do so. > [@](#): > > If he started talking about his predilections in unrelated or barely-related subjects, he’d be told to tone it down or stop it, like **Evil Captor** was. But it sounds like people expect us to warn **Cesario** for talking about pedophilia in threads that are bashing him, or in other topics related to pedophilia that were started in response to his posts on the board. This evades the main issue, which is whether advocating extreme pedophilia should be allowed on the Board in the first place. Your response of “Well, he only talks about pedophilia in the right threads,” completing ignores the question of whether there should be ANY threads where that sort of respectful and legitimizing discussion is allowed. ---
**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, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/501 "2009-10-07T15:31:40Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Then we’re reading different threads. So you’re not reading the one where **Cesario** has been called a molester even though he says he’s done no such thing? > [@](#): > > And even _allowing_ the discussion legitimizes it as a topic fit for discussion by reasonable people, when it just isn’t. Your saying so doesn’t make it so. I’m a reasonable person, and I have no problem discussing it. As I indicated upthread, it’s a topic close to my heart, in fact. I’ll be quite dissapointed if discussion gets shut down by the likes of you. > [@](#): > > No, it absolutely is not. Figures. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=26)