# 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:** 36
**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 13, 2009, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/702 "2009-10-13T10:44:37Z")
> [@leander](#): > > I think it’s really wonderful when people defend pedos. I think it’s really wonderful when people think stupid shit like this is intimidating. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/703 "2009-10-13T10:46:36Z")
> [@leander](#): > > I think it’s really wonderful when people defend pedos. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I think it’s really wonderful when people think stupid shit like this is intimidating. :rolleyes: Congrats. Enjoy your time Mr Kiddy Dibbler. It must make you feel really good to advocate child rapists. ---
**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 13, 2009, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/704 "2009-10-13T10:53:12Z")
> [@leander](#): > > Congrats. Enjoy your time Mr Kiddy Dibbler. It must make you feel really good to advocate child rapists. If that’s what I was doing, I’d feel pretty bad. But since it isn’t, yes, I’m feeling pretty darn good, yes. 🙂 ---
**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 13, 2009, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/705 "2009-10-13T11:29:36Z")
Curse that adult respect for freedom of expression that compels us not to get all huffy when someone says something we don’t like! Curse it! Anyway, if the SDMB administrators bounce Cesario, that’s their right, but in the meantime I’m unclear why his describing his personal tastes (so long as he doesn’t try to work them into random conversations) is something we need to be shielded from. Granted, there are going to be _very_ few threads where such descriptions are not viewed as wildly inappropriate and I recognize that for many people here, it will never be appropriate under _any_ conditions, but in the meantime, I don’t feel hurt or cheapened (or even particularly affected) by his mere presence. ---
**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 13, 2009, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/706 "2009-10-13T12:00:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Curse that adult respect for freedom of expression that compels us not to get all huffy when someone says something we don’t like! Curse it! Springboarding off this comment…imagine the irony if one of strongest defenders of the pervert’s right to advocate child rape was the one who got huffy when _his_ ox was gored and started several multi-paged threads over the word [“Hottentot”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=414278&highlight=Hottentot) used in an historical context. So it’s ok to not have freedom of expression if a word that offends you is used, but it’s a huge crime against that freedom of expression if someone says “Hey, letting a pervert brainstorm way to try to make it easier to commit toddler rape is a glorious expression of the free exchange of ideas.” ---
**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 13, 2009, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/707 "2009-10-13T12:14:01Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Springboarding off this comment…imagine the irony if one of strongest defenders of the pervert’s right to advocate child rape was the one who got huffy when _his_ ox was gored and started several multi-paged threads over the word [“Hottentot”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=414278&highlight=Hottentot) used in an historical context. Bzzzzt. Fail: A username is _not_ a historical context. It was one thread (that I started, anyway). The Powers That Be agreed with me. So far, no joy for the Precrime Unit here. Using racist language is an actual _action_, not a thoughtcrime. Call me when Cesario actually _does something_. And I’m not here defending Cesario’s freedom of expression. I’m here because some people are shitty at debate and even worse at being human beings. But nice attempt at the _tu quoque_ fallacy, anyway. Even if you had the facts right, it still wouldn’t make it relevant. ---
**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 13, 2009, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/708 "2009-10-13T12:23:07Z")
Sez you, hypocrite. The poster in question knew the historicity of the name and chose to use it to “take it back” so to speak. You got butthurt and threw a tantrum of epic proportions across like 8 threads and stalked her for months. To quote someone from that thread though “I don’t think the user’s motives have anything to do with the offensiveness,” ---
**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 13, 2009, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/709 "2009-10-13T12:37:21Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Sez you, hypocrite. No, sez Logic101. _Tu quoque_ is a fallacy that merely shows the one using it to be an idiot when it comes to actually debating anything. > [@Fenris](#): > > The poster in question knew the historicity of the name and chose to use it to “take it back” so to speak. You got butthurt and threw a tantrum of epic proportions across like 8 threads and stalked her for months. You can, of course, back this slew of lies up with cites, since you already bothered to search for the first occurence, yes? > [@Fenris](#): > > To quote someone from that thread though “I don’t think the user’s motives have anything to do with the offensiveness,” This is true. What’s the relevance? ---
**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 13, 2009, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/710 "2009-10-13T12:39:58Z")
And BTW, as I explained to the then **Venus Hottentot** , she wasn’t in any position to “take back” a name that had no connection to her own heritage whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/711 "2009-10-13T13:36:30Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Validity is all that is required of my position. Your guesses as to the truth value of the premises are irrelevant. No it’s not - not if you wish to have a rational position. An argument must be valid **AND** sound in order to be rational. Consider this: All men can fly through walls Socrates is a man .: Socrates can fly through walls. The syllogism above is valid, but not sound. > [@Cesario](#): > > You train your children to obey any random adult on the street? And you wonder why your kids are in danger? Of course not - but you should be aware that adults ARE authority figures to children. Also, I don’t think my kid is in danger. > [@Cesario](#): > > Mention all the relevant factors. It’s getting tedious shooting down your arguments one at a time. If you have a fully realized argument, present it. The only thing that is gained by your continuing to obfuscate your argument is you get to hold on to the slim hope that the next thing you put forward will be the one thing I can’t respond to. If you have something I can’t beat, put it on the table and shut me up for good. If you don’t, stop pretending and drawing out your inevitable defeat. The onus is not on me, as I’ve explained. As to an argument - the argument that is on the table is yours, not mine. I haven’t really presented one, so your dismissal above is…well, odd to say the least. We’ve established that your argument is valid, but the soundness is suspect. You seem to refuse to support your argument, which tells me that you can’t. I’ve already presented things you cannot/have not adequately responded to - your chest beating here doesn’t help your case. > [@Cesario](#): > > Because no child could ever be coersed into lying about their age under the current system… > > As to the actual cheating, how do you fake a theory of mind? Are you suggesting that children fake birth certificates or that people get suckered into believing that a 10 year old is actually 18? I’ll have to ask you to clarify the second half of your post here. > [@Cesario](#): > > For starters, we use real words. “Physical and emotional knowledge” is a meaningless phrase. > > More to the point, if you don’t know how to test it, you can’t know that adults have it, so it’s a moot point to begin with. You don’t believe that there is such a thing as physical knowledge? When someone learns to ride a bike, what type of knowledge is that? I’d call it physical. There is a difference between knowing the mechanics of an act and actually knowing the physicality of the act. This isn’t knew, by any means, btw. When someone learns how to deal with heartbreak, what type of knowledge is that? I’d call it emotional. > [@Cesario](#): > > You have demonstrated neither the good intentions of the law, nor any good results, nor have you constructed an argument for why my proposal wouldn’t do everything an age of consent does but better. Was there anything I’ve missed? Yes, your proposal actually **comes with an age line** , even though you adamantly deny it. You’ve admitted it yourself - there are certain ages that cannot even take the tests. As to good intentions - it’s to prevent harm. As to good results - children are not psychologically or physically abused (without punishment). Really, the case is open and shut. You wish to challenge the case, but so far all you’ve presented is hypotheticals and nay saying. You have no test cases, you have no solid refutations of the current knowledge. Yet you have the audacity to say that you’ve covered everything? > [@Cesario](#): > > If they wouldn’t pass, then you’ve no reason to fear them taking it. Seems we have a win-win. Then there is no reason for the test. So yes, it is a win-win. > [@Cesario](#): > > The paralells aren’t diminshed regardless of how well meaning and paternalistic the legislation’s justification is. Need I bring up sincere quotes from slave holders about how blacks are naturally incapable of self-governance, and that they need the firm hand of the white man to keep them from starving on the streets? You keep saying this, but you need to actually defend it. As to your point about slaves, unless you are admitting that they were not on par mentally with their slave holders then you have no case. Remember, you’ve admitted that children are not on par mentally with adults. In short, unless your argument is that adult blacks are the mental equivalent of children, your analogy fails. > [@Cesario](#): > > Not familiar with the defense of infancy? That is what you were trying to invoke after all. Not in the way you are taking it, no, I’m not. I’m familiar with diminished capacity cases where the person is subject to juvenile detention or mental wards. > [@Cesario](#): > > You think that someone who had no criminal intent in that case ought to be held criminally liable? I think they should be held liable - sent to a mental ward - yes. They are not safe to be on the streets. I’ll ask you again: _So you see no difference in a murder committed by a fully reasoned adult killing someone by hitting them in the head with a shovel and a murder committed by someone who was not mentally able to comprehend that hitting someone in the head with a shovel would end their life?_ > [@Cesario](#): > > Like I said, I don’t find the government’s convenience to be a compelling reason to opress a minority. I think that’s for your own reasons and that’s why you use rhetoric such as ‘oppress’. > [@Cesario](#): > > Because they are irrelevent and unecessary. They are irrelevant to you because you don’t want to admit that they exist - yet it is clear that they do (which you also grudgingly admitted). Again, no 5 month old can give reasoned consent in any fashion. Ergo, the ‘heap’ or ‘age line’ exists. Your entire argument is flawed. > [@Cesario](#): > > Then there’s no harm in letting them take the test and try to prove you wrong. An appeal to ignorance is not convincing. Again, the burden of proof is with you, **since you are attempting to change people’s minds**. > [@Cesario](#): > > Wrong. Well that is convincing. Outside of your own emotional opinion, do you have anything to back that opinion up? > [@Cesario](#): > > If they want to, yes. Please, see the thread in question. That is where we should be taking our suffrage arguments. So the question of rights comes down to if someone ‘wants to’. I don’t think you can get very far with this, but since it appears to be the subject of another thread I’ll let it go. > [@Cesario](#): > > In any case. Intelectual capacity is referenced in neither definition. Merely age. Since age is not intelectual capacity, it’s proven by definition. Nonsense, age is tied in with physical/mental development. We age at specific rates, which is why no 5 month old attends Harvard, despite the education you try to give the 5 month old. > [@Cesario](#): > > I have no need to prove anything of the sort. You seem to love putting words in my mouth. Seems to suggest you can’t actually beat the arguments I’m actually presenting. You do need to prove it if you want any one to actually take it seriously. As to putting words in your mouth - I was telling you want you should do in order to argue your case effectively, I was not putting words in your mouth and I don’t see how you can construe what I said as doing so - but since you seem to be unfamiliar with certain things (such as what constitutes an ad-hom), I’ll let this further transgression slide. > [@Cesario](#): > > Harm derived soely from the act itself, which was demonstrably not caused by society’s reaction to the act. Is that clear enough? So an act that occurs from the physical act. How do you determine the harm done based on societies reaction (since it is ‘demonstrable’)? > [@Cesario](#): > > Can’t make your argument so you demand I prove a negative? What argument do you think I’m making, Cesario? This is bizarre, since all we have been discussing is **your argument**. You are **deflecting here**. Also, I’m not asking you to prove a negative, unless you are suggesting there are no studies. Do all the studies point to harm? I’ll ask again: \*Also, can you point me towards any studies with ‘fully consensual sexual encounters’ where there was no harm? \* If there are **no such studies either way** , then from where can we get a basis for whether such encounters would do no harm or not? Are you actually arguing that fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm because there are no studies to show that **they don’t**??? Remember, the **onus is on you** because you want to change people’s minds. **The burden is on you to demonstrate your claim that these sorts of encounters do no harm**. > [@Cesario](#): > > Deal with it. Okay, then I won’t take your position seriously and nor will society. > [@Cesario](#): > > And since your side has utterly failed to meet its burdon of proof… Maybe according to you, however as have been demonstrated through this thread, damage does occur. You are the one suggesting that there is a qualitative difference between the scenario you are proposing and the ones that the studies have suggested. Ergo, the onus is on you - again - to support this qualitative difference. > [@Cesario](#): > > Oh, this is pathetic. You’ve realized you can’t win the argument, so instead you try to change the format of the debate. What argument am I presenting, Cesario? I am suggesting that society should stay as it is. You are suggesting it should change, ergo you need to support your case. You cannot and therefore you depend on an appeal to ignorance, yet you claim it’s pathetic. > [@Cesario](#): > > There’s something rather simple you need to grasp. I don’t need to prove a negative for you. I’m not going to make up your arguments for you. If you don’t want to present evidence from your side, I’m more than willing to accept your concession. Here’s something you need to grasp, we are not merely arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin. We are not arguing about what clothes you should wear. We are discussing the behavior of society and you, in particular, have been advocating for it’s change. Instead of advocating for it’s change, you chicken out and declare victory because you cannot reasonably argue for the abolition of age lines. > [@Cesario](#): > > I’m willing and able to provide evidence supporting each of my positive assertions, and I’m willing to respond to any evidence you care to present in support of yours, but this utterly laughable tactic of declaring the rules of debate invalid because you’re losing is going to get you nowhere. No, you clearly aren’t. If you were willing to provide evidence then you would have presented a 2 year old who was able to take your test. Shoot, you would have presented positive evidence that your test works, that there are “fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm” (your major contention), and so on. You cannot because there aren’t any. I’ve reduced you to ridicule and false victory. > [@Cesario](#): > > You don’t get to make an argumentum-ad-popularum fallacy just because you can’t win without resorting to fallacies. Cesario, you are asking for an actual change, are you not? This isn’t just an intellectual exercise - my initial assumption about your reason for being here isn’t correct, is it? Seriously, because if it is - that this was all just an elaborate game - then tell me. Otherwise I’m not the one who needs to ‘win’ here. You do, and you need to win by more then just mere assertion. You need to actually be convincing, which you aren’t. > [@Cesario](#): > > The studies I’ve read suggest exactly the opposite, in fact. Children are more resilient to many forms of psychological trauma. What studies are those? Are they in this thread? > [@Cesario](#): > > Shall we get your date a shrink to make sure she’s not just staying with you because she’s afraid you’ll beat her worse if she leaves? If there is a reason to believe that this might be probable, yes, actually. > [@Cesario](#): > > On the basis that in all the years I’ve been arguing with people just like you, not one of them has ever presented a damn thing that shows intrinsic harm. This is what your case boils down to, an appeal to ignorance. You are begging the question. > [@Cesario](#): > > You’d think that if there were all these mounds of evidence of this universal, intrinsic harm you types keep blathering on about, someone, at some point, would have been able to produce some when asked. I think this may be because you are defining ‘harm’ out of existence and disqualifying what is presented as harm. > [@Cesario](#): > > I’ve done more than my due diligance looking for the evidence that would disprove my belief, not all of my searching relying on dishonest debators like yourself. But if you care to prove me wrong, feel free to present one of these mountains of studies that you type love to claim exist and shut me up for good. So you haven’t actually done in due diligence to prove your belief then? > [@Cesario](#): > > It is my position that one ought to be allowed to attempt to prove they are able to give consent if they so chose. I doubt they could meet the standard, but that is not sufficient justification for denying them the oportunity to make the attempt. Then prove that a 9 month old could give consent. Provide some positive evidence that a 1 year old is able to give consent by passing your test. You can start by giving a hypothetical if you like. Or are you just going to bluster about and declare victory? > [@Cesario](#): > > I realize this is threatening to your worldview, but we don’t need heaps if we can determine where each individual grain belongs. You only need heaps when you’re too incompetent to figure out which grains are red and which ones are blue. Trying to use heaps in that case really just leaves > you with various shades of purple. You ‘realize’ this, do you? Interesting. My point is that while you seem focused on the grain, any rational individual will recognize that there are heaps in which you are putting those grains - despite how much you wish to deny them. You can attempt to say that people who hold to heaps are ‘incompetent’ and that there position shouldn’t be taken seriously (an ad-hom), but if you wish to be rational, you need to demonstrate that there are no heaps. You need to demonstrate that a 5 month old can ‘bust out of his heap’, for instance. > [@Cesario](#): > > You don’t see the advantage of being able to tell a teenager “you aren’t ready for sex because”, and have something concrete to point to? You don’t see the advantage of routinely protecting developmentally delayed adults from sexual predation? > > And more to the point, you still haven’t started thinking outside the box of my age of attraction? That one in particular baffles me. I’m sorry, but do you believe that a teenager constitutes someone under the age of 10? I see the advantage to your test, I believe I’ve already said this - but I do not see an advantage to it for people under 10. I think there are ‘age lines’, as I’ve pointed out. I think that your test is fine and that it should be administered at a somewhat arbitrary point - say puberty. Yes, you might miss an amazing prodigy, but you will cover far more. My focus on your age of attraction is that it’s a convenient point to attack your argument from since it contains ‘age lines’ that could not give consent. I would think this was clear, but you seem to be misconstruing my position. > [@Cesario](#): > > If no nine month old could pass the test, there’s no harm in letting any nine month old take the test and fail. If no nine month old could pass the test, then what is the _reason_ for administering the test?? What’s your support for arguing that they should take the test? > [@Cesario](#): > > I’m not prepared to discount the possibility entirely. And even if no 5 month old could do so, that’s no reason to prevent them from taking the test and trying to prove the presumption wrong. Why give them the test if no 5 month old could? As to discounting the possibility entirely - with the knowledge we have of physiology and development, it’s currently impossible for such a developed child to exist. > [@Cesario](#): > > Again, where is the harm in allowing anyone to take the test and fail it? Where is the value in denying huge tracts of people access to the test? > > More to the point, what are you prepared to tell someone who has taken the test illegally and passed? You drew a bright line, and someone under it passed it. What do you say to that person who has just proven they are capable of consent? I see no reason to administer the test wantonly - please provide a reason. As to this hypothetical person who passes it - I see no reason to believe that such a person could exist. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/712 "2009-10-13T13:37:33Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > If there are definate age lines, the test will identify them, and no one who’s below them will pass anyway. No harm done there. How will the test determine this for a 5 month old? Also, again, I don’t see any reason to subject them to the test. Just because none will pass doesn’t mean they should take the test. > [@Cesario](#): > > One. Not all. Plenty of people with hormonal abnormalities still desire sexual intimacy. Doesn’t change a damn thing. Okay, strip all context away from all situations, see if that helps your case. > [@Cesario](#): > > Adults have been known to lie and conceal information. Never heard of this phenomenon? Relevance? My point is that the changes foster an interest. Yes, other things can foster it as well. Lying adults do not change this. > [@Cesario](#): > > Again with that undefined term. Provide a definition or stop using it. I forget that not everyone is familiar with certain concepts in philosophy. When we talk about knowledge there are several things we can mean. We can talk about factual knowledge - ie, Washington is the Capital of the US. We can talk about physical knowledge - what it is to know how to ride a bike. Physical knowledge involves more then factual knowledge because it includes things like qualia and muscle memory and such. > [@Cesario](#): > > You are aware we already have a mandatory sexual education in plenty of areas, right? Yes, now please answer the question: _Would these classes be available for those children that wanted to learn the material, or would they be mandatory?_ > [@Cesario](#): > > “Verbal” is not an age. Try again. ‘infancy’ is an age range. No need to try again. > [@Cesario](#): > > Also known as requirement 4. I guess it’s not fairly standard as you previously said then. > [@Cesario](#): > > Thank you. Concession accepted. Fair enough - I hope the idea of conceding when you rationally should (such as the age line points I’ve made) rubs off on you. > [@Cesario](#): > > Because the entire concept is irrelevent. If no one under 5 months can pass the test, no one under 5 months will pass the test. I can’t break an axiom down any further. If no one under 5 months can pass the test, then isn’t that an age line? Shoot, can anyone under 5 months TAKE the test? I can’t think of a reason why a 5 month old SHOULD take the test and you have consistently failed to give one! > [@Cesario](#): > > Considering the impossibility of pregnancy in a prepubescent, and the likely lack of exposure to STDs at that point, if they’re fully informed, the reasonable course of action would be to avoid going in to buy condoms. (Setting asside the sad lack of condoms properly sized for 5 year old boys in your average CVS.) If they are interested in sex, especially with adults, then why would there be a lack of exposure to STDs? > [@Cesario](#): > > Again, defense of infancy. Look it up. I think this could be a result of an equivocation (by me, unfortunately). You stated “there would be no juvinile punishment at all”, which I took to mean you were suggesting that the juvenile would simply be let go - but that’s not necessarily the case. Your entire point is that you don’t need ‘age lines’, but the fact seems to be that they are there. The test you suggest is useful, but I do not think it does away with age lines that are present. Yes, there is some gray areas in terms of the heaps (the age range) - so one could argue that the boundary is fuzzy and exceptional individuals should be recognized - but the majority of the heap should be also recognized. ---
**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 13, 2009, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/713 "2009-10-13T14:02:10Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Springboarding off this comment…imagine the irony if … Fine, I don’t see why we need be shielded from Cesario _or_ Dibble, nor do I feel obliged to take seriously what they individually find offensive or when others find _them_ offensive. Personally, I think “hottentot” is a nifty-sounding word, but the only place I’d ever seen it used was the occasional _Bloom County_ cartoon, including one in which a shellshocked mailman who’d been overrun by a bunch of rabid fans of something likened the mob to a bunch of hottentots. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/714 "2009-10-13T14:04:26Z")
This all seems kind of hypothetical. What’s the point of speculating on a sex test for kids so young? No parent is going to allow their kid to have sex with an adult, much less take a test for that purpose. ---
**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 13, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/715 "2009-10-13T14:19:50Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > This all seems kind of hypothetical. What’s the point of speculating on a sex test for kids so young? Because it gives Cesario something to jerk off to besides the latest Target back-to-school flyer. ---
**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 13, 2009, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/716 "2009-10-13T15:21:13Z")
I see the vivid imaginations are still at work - did that posting give you wood, **Jack**? Kudos to you, **Meatros** , BTW, for not losing your shit like some others. ---
**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 13, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/717 "2009-10-13T15:27:15Z")
I’m not the one advocating sex with children. That’s you and your little buddy Cesario. I haven’t lost my shit at all. I’m thinking very clearly and rationally. And I feel no guilt at all hurling insults at wannabe child molesters. You can whip out all the debate techniques and bullshit rationalizations you please. I am confident that I am on the right moral side of this argument. I point to Cesario’s contention that this is all about those rare children that \*want \*to have sex with adults. He, and you apparently, are fucking delusional. Those children don’t exist. Little Jenny playing jacks out on the sidewalk is most probably thinking, “I wish Hannah Montana was my BFF,” not “I wish the sweating, drooling stranger who stares at me all the time would teach me how to give a blow job.” When you start with the premise that sex with children should be ok, you fucking lose. End of argument. I’ll fling shit at Cesario as much as I please. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/718 "2009-10-13T15:29:48Z")
> [@leander](#): > > I really wish he would just shut the fuck up and go away. He’s a completely worthless human being who will more than likely one day hurt a child. He has no value here and should simply slither off into nothingness. You know, he probably would “shut the fuck up and go away” if people would stop engaging him. Every one of his posts is a line-by-line response to other people’s posts (which is also very annoying, especially because it’s been pointed out to him several times how annoying it is but he continues doing it). I can’t be bothered to check, but I don’t think he’s contributed to the board in any other way; at least some of our other one-trick ponies have posted on other topics once in a while. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/719 "2009-10-13T15:33:23Z")
> [@LurkMeister](#): > > You know, he probably would “shut the fuck up and go away” if people would stop engaging him. Every one of his posts is a line-by-line response to other people’s posts (which is also very annoying, especially because it’s been pointed out to him several times how annoying it is but he continues doing it). I can’t be bothered to check, but I don’t think he’s contributed to the board in any other way; at least some of our other one-trick ponies have posted on other topics once in a while. I did check some time ago, and, then, he had posted in twenty four threads, twenty two of which were about children and/or sex. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Happy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cab0a1/32.png) [@Mr\_Happy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Happy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/720 "2009-10-13T15:34:13Z")
People here defending the scum (pedophile), would you let the scum babysit yout children? ETA : I mean Cesario, not MrDribble. ---
**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 13, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/721 "2009-10-13T15:43:45Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’m not the one advocating sex with children. That’s you and your little buddy Cesario. I’ve never advocated sex with children, you idiot. > [@](#): > > I haven’t lost my shit at all. I’m thinking very clearly and rationally. “Fapping very clearly” more like it. > [@](#): > > I point to Cesario’s contention that this is all about those rare children that \*want \*to have sex with adults. He, and you apparently, are fucking delusional. Those children don’t exist. Little Jenny playing jacks out on the sidewalk is most probably thinking, “I wish Hannah Montana was my BFF,” not “I wish the sweating, drooling stranger who stares at me all the time would teach me how to give a blow job.” Again with the vivid imagery. Getting you hot, is it? > [@](#): > > When you start with the premise that sex with children should be ok, you fucking lose. End of argument. Yeah, this is the “not losing my shit” I’ve heard so much about, is it? > [@](#): > > I’ll fling shit at Cesario as much as I please. …and there’s some more of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=37)