# 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:** 30
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/582 "2009-10-08T10:35:45Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Actually, probably not. He was a professor of English and Comparative Literature. A very smart guy, but maybe not a bigtime fighter. True to form if nothing else. Actually, I have to credit you’re the child of a hack academic, the traits of petty and misplaced snobbery show rather clearly. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I think that the SDMB is an exceptional place, and I do have to wonder if it is being run by amateurs and shoe salesmen. Oh, the so special _message board_ isn’t being run by… what, editors with a proper education in English? Message Board ‘professionals’ perhaps? You’re pretty precious eh. > [@](#): > > But for this thread, the only evidence in play is the stupidty of TPTB allowing a pedo to foster and promote behaviour that is illegal in the US. Foster and promote? Taking the little git at face value, he’s really been piss-poor at fostering and promoting. Provoking and leading some around by the nose, now that he’s been good at. ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/583 "2009-10-08T10:39:22Z")
> [@leander](#): > > But for this thread, the only evidence in play is the stupidty of TPTB allowing a pedo to foster and promote behaviour that is illegal in the US. If this is the crux of your complaint, then there is a precedent for the contrary. Illegal behaviour is promoted on these boards. For example, desire to legalise marijuana. What I think you’re asking is for TPTB to draw an arbitrary line between illegal things you deem taboo. I doubt anybody is ever going to be happy with wherever the line lands, there’s always going to be a sizeable chunk who would oppose it. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/584 "2009-10-08T10:45:47Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > True to form if nothing else. Actually, I have to credit you’re the child of a hack academic, the traits of petty and misplaced snobbery show rather clearly. > > Oh, the so special _message board_ isn’t being run by… what, editors with a proper education in English? Message Board ‘professionals’ perhaps? > > You’re pretty precious eh. > > Foster and promote? Taking the little git at face value, he’s really been piss-poor at fostering and promoting. Provoking and leading some around by the nose, now that he’s been good at. This is funny! If you’re trying to get a rise out of me, you fail. Sadly, this place \*is \*being run by amateurs and shoe salesmen, but hopefully the new owners will see that and turn things around. Though I must admit, you’re cute when you’re angry. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/585 "2009-10-08T10:50:06Z")
> [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](#): > > If this is the crux of your complaint, then there is a precedent for the contrary. Illegal behaviour is promoted on these boards. For example, desire to legalise marijuana. What I think you’re asking is for TPTB to draw an arbitrary line between illegal things you deem taboo. I doubt anybody is ever going to be happy with wherever the line lands, there’s always going to be a sizeable chunk who would oppose it. You’re right. The line is blurry and it always has been. But in this case I see no justifiable reason for allowing this discourse. As many others have pointed out, there is nothing of any value whatsoever that can possibly be gained from allowing this type of discussion to take place. \*\*tomndebb \*\*has argued that people are free to point and laugh; but what purpose does that serve? TPTB are allowing a pedo to freely argue the case that he should be allowed to molest children. Is there anyone who can give any credence to that argument in any way, shape or form?? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/586 "2009-10-08T12:29:19Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Do you see some sort of flaw with this reasoning? No, not with those premises if they are possible - I just don’t think it’s realistic, which is why I don’t think it’s a reasonable position to hold, ultimately. I think the child would be damaged. > [@Cesario](#): > > And your belief in this impossibility is based on what exactly? Impossible is probably too strong - however I base the idea on the fact that most children have not even gone through puberty at that point, are still gripped by the dogmatic worldview of authority figures, and all that. > [@Cesario](#): > > No, but neither of our estimations of the probabilities are even remotely relevant. I fail to see how they could not be relevant. Can you explain? I see them as relevant because most laws are meant to protect people. The pertinent laws in these sorts of cases are meant to protect children. > [@Cesario](#): > > Because my particular age of attraction has absolutely nothing to do with the legal reforms I am proposing, obviously. What exactly are you proposing? > [@Cesario](#): > > The entire point of guardianship is to take the power over a person’s life and put it in the hands of someone other than that person. Add to that the fact that the guardian is the legal owner of any property the individual would otherwise be considered to own (hense why they can take things like gifts from other people away from the child as punishment), and we have a number of paralells. Fair enough - however the parallels end with the idea behind the reasoning for guardianship; ie, the inability for children to be properly responsible for their actions - due to a wide array of reasons, one of which being the inadequate knowledge. That is one reason why children are not tried as adults (usually) in murder cases. They do not possess the mental facilities to fully understand their actions. It would seem that a logical follow up to your position would be to charge children as adults in murder trials - is this something you are also in support of? BTW - the definition of ‘children’ right now depends on your response to the prior question (what are you proposing) and I will keep that in mind. > [@Cesario](#): > > The path to correcting those social structures lies, among other places, in tearing down the laws which relegate children to the status of second-class citizens at best, and human chattel at worst. So you see children as mentally equal to adults? If not, then isn’t it necessary to treat them differently? Would you support them voting? Again, these questions depend on the definition of children… > [@Cesario](#): > > I haven’t seen any proof of such harm. Do you have some to present? I’ve been looking for it for some time now. Well, before I would provide proof, I’d need to know the differentiation you are making, since harm does occur. > [@Cesario](#): > > And your unbacked accusations are hardly encouraging me to go out of my way for you either. Unfortunately for a person of your unique position you should expect some disbelief. Is that right or fair? Perhaps not, but this is the real world. Remember the burden of proof is on you here, since you are clearly the outlier and you want something about society changed. > [@Cesario](#): > > Relveance? Beyond the obvious ad-hominim attack, I mean. It came to my mind. Also, please familiarize yourself with what constitutes an ad-hominim logical fallacy, since I most certainly did not commit one. An ad-hom fallacy is where one person attacks the person **in order to discredit the argument** ; ie, don’t believe Cesario _because he has_ committed incest. This is not what I did here, obviously, as I only asked what your views were. > [@Cesario](#): > > Yes. And you think that all the damage they appeared to have was societal? > [@Cesario](#): > > I don’t think you understand the nature of the relationships I would like to have. You are probably correct - what would you like (please don’t be graphic, I understand that you want a sexual relationship - that’s not what I’m asking about). I’m still curious, have you ever seen the end results of the relationship that you hypothetically would like to have? > [@Cesario](#): > > Age is not the same thing as awareness or knowledge. Why is this so difficult a concept? Because you seem to be attempting to get around a sorties paradox by saying there is no such thing as heaps. In short, while their are certainly elements of gray in regards to sexual development and knowledge, there do seem to be definite boundries. For example, I do not think you could convince anyone that a child between 0 and 4 has any awareness of sex, any knowledge about it, etc. I would argue that ages 5-10 would be only slightly more aware - but still well within the ‘heap’ of ignorance. > [@Cesario](#): > > Nell? A title of a movie where a woman is basically raised outside of society and is ignorant of societal norms and what constitute adult behaviors. I’m not sure if she had sex in the movie or not, my point was to put forth the ‘adult’ who was not cognizant of sex and so on. > [@Cesario](#): > > Have you seen the RMSC proposal? No. > [@Cesario](#): > > No. I’m saying nothing of the sort. Me finding someone attractive does not say anything one way or the other about their ability to consent. Yes, I realize your attraction has nothing to do with their ability to give consent. I am asking you the specific question of whether you think that a child 0-10 can give consent or not. Do you think they can? Do you think that any children in that age range can give consent, or do you think there are definite age limits - do you think that it is possible for a 5 month old to give consent? > [@Cesario](#): > > Define “physical knowledge”. What do breasts and pubic hair have to do with knowledge and understanding? Puberty is more then ‘breasts and pubic hair’ there are also hormones involved. In any event, I’m more referring to a lack of sexual education here. > [@Cesario](#): > > Only because you seem to assume that knowledge is inherently bad, or that what I would be doing would have little, if anything, to do with passing on knowledge. It’s less a vicious cycle than it is you choosing to assume things without any reason. You are making assumptions about what I ‘assume’. So how would you go about educating these children. Would you have all children 0-10 educated in whatever manner you are thinking of? > [@Cesario](#): > > An end to age lines in all areas of society. Bodily domain being just one important area of debate. So do you think 5 year olds should be able to vote? Drive cars? Drink? > [@Cesario](#): > > Some can’t. I don’t discount the ability of all of them as you seem to be implying. Have you met any that can? How would a two year old be able to give consent? > [@Cesario](#): > > Because none of my proposals have anything to do with my age of attraction, obviously. I’m not clear on this since you want to end age lines. That seems to indicate that your age of attraction is relevant here. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/587 "2009-10-08T12:58:47Z")
> [@leander](#): > > You’re right. The line is blurry and it always has been. But in this case I see no justifiable reason for allowing this discourse. As many others have pointed out, there is nothing of any value whatsoever that can possibly be gained from allowing this type of discussion to take place. \*\*tomndebb \*\*has argued that people are free to point and laugh; but what purpose does that serve? TPTB are allowing a pedo to freely argue the case that he should be allowed to molest children. Is there anyone who can give any credence to that argument in any way, shape or form?? Funny how a lot of us are managing just fine to have an interesting discussion with him, including the part where he said that he DOESN’T want to have sex with anyone who can’t consent (as defined by a psych exam, and not a legal bright line) and he’ll live with it if it turns out that there are no people he’s attracted to who can pass a test proving their ability to consent. And he’s not arguing that “he should be allowed to molest children”, he’s arguing that the state should redefine the law to potentially allow younger people to prove they’re in possession of adult decision-making and reasoning skills. There’s nothing wrong with what he’s actually advocating in this regard, unless you believe that 100% of people are unable to make said decisions until 18 AND you believe that some portion of people could fraudulently pass the test anyway. Having actually read his proposal, it’s probably a pipe dream for him as I doubt anyone under 14ish could pass it, and I probably couldn’t have passed it at 20. Regardless, I don’t understand how you COULDN’T find it fascinating. It’s something like having a real-life Hannibal Lecter to talk to (obviously the crimes are not comparable)–this is a person who can have a discussion and follow a train of logic, etc, but their base desires, taboos, and thought processes are very different from what’s the norm. ---
**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 8, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/588 "2009-10-08T13:05:08Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by Jack Batty: > > I’m 44 year old. I’m attracted to nubile young women in their 20’s with perfect bodies, preferably with long supple legs, and shapely little behinds. > > > > On the surface most people would say, “get a life Jack. 20 year olds are not in your wheelhouse anymore.” Other’s might say, “you’re a nothing but a dirty old man.” To which I would reply, “that may be, but I guaran-goddamned-tee you, if I ever have a chance to fuck a 20 year old, with long supple legs and a shapely little behind … I’m gonna.” > > > > This isn’t about rational daliances with fantasy partners. This is about this guy wanting something. Wanting it bad. If he has the chance, he’s gonna do it. Don’t fucking fool yourself. > > So, you plan on raping such a woman if you feel you could get away with it, and you believe we should be looking to you as an example of normalcy? You fucking idiot. I’m not the one looking to “get away” with anything; that’s you Chester. I said that if I had the chance to have sex with a person that I’m attracted to I would – as I know you would too, you pasty little shit. I think it’s telling that you jump from “have a chance to have sex with” to “rape if you can get away with it.” You need to take a big giant bath in a pool of go fuck yourself. Why don’t you do the board a favor … go turn on the Disney channel, rub one out, and let us normal people talk for a while. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/589 "2009-10-08T13:50:13Z")
> [@leander](#): > > This is funny! If you’re trying to get a rise out of me, you fail. Sadly, this place \*is \*being run by amateurs and shoe salesmen, but hopefully the new owners will see that and turn things around. ] Ah right, those ‘professional’ message board people eh? > [@](#): > > Though I must admit, you’re cute when you’re angry. 😛 Angry? Contemptous of you, but hardly angry. Really weak response mate. You’re the one with your knickers all in a bunch and playing playground insult games. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/590 "2009-10-08T13:58:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am disappointed that you would tell such a blatant lie. I don’t believe you. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/591 "2009-10-08T16:03:18Z")
I’m not participating in your IMHO thread based on that fake police conservation, **The Flying Dutchman** , but you used my words out of context. A coworker is not the same thing as an anonymous person on the internet. In any case I congratulate you on giving **Cesario** yet another opportunity to talk about himself. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/592 "2009-10-08T21:52:08Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > ] > > Ah right, those ‘professional’ message board people eh? > > Angry? Contemptous of you, but hardly angry. Really weak response mate. You’re the one with your knickers all in a bunch and playing playground insult games. Right, sorry I forgot - you’re that cute little Brit with the big chip on his shoulder. Carry on there “mate”! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/593 "2009-10-09T00:35:29Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Both examples refer to rituals which are/were fully endorsed and accepted by their particular cultures, which makes a HUGE difference. There’s also a coming-of-age mentality inherently ingrained in the relationship, which simply does not exist in society at large today. It’s still pretty fucked up, though. A lot of people use that same argument for “female circumcision”, or just general oppression of women. “Part of one’s culture” doesn’t make something right. ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/594 "2009-10-09T00:47:39Z")
Then what does make something right? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/595 "2009-10-09T02:43:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not participating in your IMHO thread based on that fake police conservation, **The Flying Dutchman** , but you used my words out of context. A coworker is not the same thing as an anonymous person on the internet. > > In any case I congratulate you on giving **Cesario** yet another opportunity to talk about himself. 😉 I’m sorry. I had no intention to misrepresent your view. Your post got me thinking about all of us who have to endure a a particular co worker because his presence is sanctioned by the employer as similar to us posters who have to endure a particular co poster whose name I will not mention. In the case of this thread, we can only appeal to the management of this board to do the right thing as we have no means to report the potential danger to the authorities of the co workers jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/596 "2009-10-09T03:09:12Z")
I don’t normally like to throw my credentials around, but I had four semesters of high school Latin and I’m pretty sure the term is _ad hominem_. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/597 "2009-10-09T03:22:50Z")
> [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](#): > > Then what does make something right? The question is really what makes something wrong, and what makes something wrong is if it hurts other people, especially those who are the most defenseless and vulnerable. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/598 "2009-10-09T03:22:53Z")
10 Semesters, and I can very that VT is correct in his latin usage of the term. You’re A-Okay, Turnips! ---
**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 9, 2009, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/599 "2009-10-09T05:48:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The question is really what makes something wrong, and what makes something wrong is if it hurts other people, especially those who are the most defenseless and vulnerable. I agree completely. Now - show where the hurt is in a consensual relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/600 "2009-10-09T06:56:34Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I agree completely. Now - show where the hurt is in a consensual relationship. The hurt comes when mistaking a non-consensual relationship for a consensual one. I mean, the hypothetical of a three-year-old being able to give informed, meaningful consent to sexual intercourse is so far into fantasy-land that we may as well start debating the merits of fucking super-intelligent space hamsters. The danger occurs when the deluded project their own wants and desires onto a child, mistaking these for objective facts. Non-messed up people recognise children as children; paedophiles seem to mistake children for adult midgets, and I would not trust anyone with such a skewed perception to be able to judge true consent from the “other” in the relationship. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/601 "2009-10-09T07:03:20Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > It’s still pretty fucked up, though. A lot of people use that same argument for “female circumcision”, or just general oppression of women. > > “Part of one’s culture” doesn’t make something right. Scarification, bloodletting, and other painful rituals are common the world 'round, but I don’t hear a lot of outcry against, say, the Amazon’s Satere Mawé tribe forcing their young men to [wear gloves filled with stinging ants](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGIZ-zUvotM) – frankly, drinking semen doesn’t sound so bad by comparison! :eek: That said, I fail to see how **Cesario’s** proposals create any cultural benefit; it’s clear that his sole motivation (aside from blatant trolling) is only so he can get his rocks off. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=31)