# 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:** 40
**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 15, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/782 "2009-10-15T16:44:47Z")
But **Cesario** doesn’t think anything’s wrong with his fantasy. He thinks it’s society that’s wrong and that screws up rape victims by telling them they’re damaged. Most people know it’s wrong to hit the crying brat or stuff the cell phone down the asshole’s throat. (Well…mostly wrong.) ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/783 "2009-10-15T16:46:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Now you’re just moving the goalposts. > > And moving them further. I don’t care what Cesario fantasizes about. Heck, his fantasies are not automatically any more dangerous than someone fantasizing that the crying brat would shut the fuck up if only someone shook them hard enough. > > You said a stupid thing. Own up to it or not, as you choose. Then it follows that you would be quite happy, if **Cesario** were known to you and knowing of his fantasies, to let him babysit your children. And if not, why not, given that you have just said that his fantasies pose no threat to anyone? I’ll gladly own up to stupidity when it’s pointed out. Would that the same could be said of you. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/784 "2009-10-15T16:48:43Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But **Cesario** doesn’t think anything’s wrong with his fantasy. He thinks it’s society that’s wrong and that screws up rape victims by telling them they’re damaged. Most people know it’s wrong to hit the crying brat or stuff the cell phone down the asshole’s throat. (Well…mostly wrong.) For the latter, I don’t really think it’s wrong, i’m just conforming to society’s relatively strict rules against beating the living hell out of rude motherfuckers. On the other hand, I HAVE had therapy for anger management (and as said elsewhere, haven’t administered any beatdowns since the playgrounds or gym class) ---
**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 15, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/785 "2009-10-15T16:56:18Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Then it follows Does it? It looks like you’ve drawn six or seven conclusions in your last four posts and they’re all, to be generous, suspect. > [@](#): > > I’ll gladly own up to stupidity when it’s pointed out. It was and you didn’t, but no matter. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/786 "2009-10-15T17:52:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Of course you’re not _advocating_ thought crime. You’re just “concerned” about it. How do you feel about mass murder and torture and such, because I know some writers who’ve thought about it at length and, y’know, father of the deed and all. You are correct, of course, that the mere thought is _not_ the deed. We should take Cesario at his word, just as we would take our friends at their word if they told us that they were attracted to our spouses. I think the difference is that, as a society, we view our children as innocent and unable to take care of themselves and as such, they cannot protect themselves adequately (or in some cases cannot even ask for help), whereas my spouse could - theoretically - ward off attackers/manipulations or ask for help. Is this a rational/reasonable distinction to have? Probably not, but even though I acknowledge that it’s generally the same sort of attraction without action, I realize that **I’m a hypocrite** and would treat the two situations different. I cannot absolve my emotional need to protect my child with the salve of reason that suggests there might not be anything to protect my child from. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/787 "2009-10-15T17:54:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Of course you’re not _advocating_ thought crime. You’re just “concerned” about it. How do you feel about mass murder and torture and such, because I know some writers who’ve thought about it at length and, y’know, father of the deed and all. Apples to oranges. It’s actually quite difficult to murder someone, whereas fondling a young child who crawls into your lap is absolutely trivial. Plus, there’s the whole “fear of punishment” thing which prevents most rational people from breaking the social contract. Therefore, a person who fantasizes about murdering and torturing people is highly unlikely to encounter a situation where he/she has that opportunity, and is willing to act on it. **Cesario** , on the other hand, already has access to young children, as he himself has stated. He’s also stated that he has NO FEAR of being punished by the law, if he’s caught. Therefore, our concern that he is currently at high risk for molesting a child is well-founded. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/788 "2009-10-15T18:01:23Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Apples to oranges. It’s actually quite difficult to murder someone, whereas fondling a young child who crawls into your lap is absolutely trivial. Plus, there’s the whole “fear of punishment” thing which prevents most rational people from breaking the social contract. Therefore, a person who fantasizes about murdering and torturing people is highly unlikely to encounter a situation where he/she has that opportunity, and is willing to act on it. I’m not so sure about the comparison to begin with, but if you make the comparison with a person who is ‘typical’ (ie, attracted to adults), it might be closer. If a woman fell asleep in the typical person’s lap, I do not think that the person would be any more apt to molest the woman then the pedophile would be to molest the child. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > **Cesario** , on the other hand, already has access to young children, as he himself has stated. He’s also stated that he has NO FEAR of being punished by the law, if he’s caught. Therefore, our concern that he is currently at high risk for molesting a child is well-founded. He’s also stated that one of the primary reasons for his abstaining is the potential societal harm inflicted onto the child AND the idea that there probably isn’t any child that could give him consent to the level he’s said he would accept. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/789 "2009-10-15T18:41:19Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > He’s also stated that one of the primary reasons for his abstaining is the potential societal harm inflicted onto the child AND the idea that there probably isn’t any child that could give him consent to the level he’s said he would accept. And you take him at his word? How marvelously innocent of you. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/790 "2009-10-15T19:02:46Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > And you take him at his word? How marvelously innocent of you. So I should just assume that no pedophile can control his sexual impulses? Or are you referring to him in particular? Frankly I admit that I’m not an expert on the psychology of pedophilia, so if you have some relevant studies that I could access that support the idea that pedophiles have poorer impulse control then the average citizen, then I’d like to see them. ---
**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 15, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/791 "2009-10-15T19:21:17Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > And you take him at his word? Do we have anything _other_ than his word? I’m asking seriously. ---
**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 15, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/792 "2009-10-15T19:21:36Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > And you take him at his word? How marvelously innocent of you. Well, _you’re_ taking him at his word that he’s a) a paedophile and b)in contact with children. So what’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/793 "2009-10-15T19:35:36Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Does it? It looks like you’ve drawn six or seven conclusions in your last four posts and they’re all, to be generous, suspect. > > It was and you didn’t, but no matter. I’d welcome the chance to draw _any_ conclusion from your answers to my questions, but since you haven’t answered them it’s rather difficult. **Cesario** is a self-confessed pedophile who finds the bodies of young children (from 0-10) sexually desirable. Nobly he has stated that he would not act on these desires, the poor child would be terribly damaged by the reaction of a callous society and in any case he would keep his cock in his pants until he happens upon a child capable of informed consent. Wow, just the kind of pedophile you could bring home to tea with the family, certainly at the **Eckers** household, and engage in lively philosophical debate. A tame pedophile. So tame, in fact, that you accuse me of advocating the criminalizing of thoughts for suggesting that it might be in his best interests to avoid putting his high principles to the test by being alone with the objects of his sexual fantasies. Judging by you former posts I certainly don’t expect you to address anything I’ve actually said. Why break precedent? I just want to underline the silliness of your accusation. Quantum sufficit. ---
**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 15, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/794 "2009-10-15T19:51:45Z")
Here’s the thing … what the hell do you expect him to say? That he’s a proud, noble, celibate pedophile, and fuckin-A right he’ll molest a child the first chance he gets? Of course not. Of course he’s going to float the, “gee whiz, I would never really do anything like that.” Choose to believe him if you want. Not me. ---
**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 15, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/795 "2009-10-15T20:05:41Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I’d welcome the chance to draw _any_ conclusion from your answers to my questions, but since you haven’t answered them it’s rather difficult. > > … > > Wow, just the kind of pedophile you could bring home to tea with the family, certainly at the **Eckers** household, and engage in lively philosophical debate. A tame pedophile. Case in point. You don’t know anything about the “Eckers” household, but you’re basing your position on what you assume would happen there. You make many _many_ such assumptions. > [@](#): > > Judging by you former posts I certainly don’t expect you to address anything I’ve actually said. Why break precedent? I just want to underline the silliness of your accusation. Fine, let’s be dead serious. What do you mean, exactly, by “should concern us as the thought is often father to the deed” ? What form should this concern take? Aren’t all deeds “fathered” by thoughts? Are you suggesting some thoughts are bad? Aren’t laws that undermine individual freedom of thought “fathered” by the thoughts of someone who thinks those caught with overwrought thoughts ought be fought? Okay, that last line is a _little_ silly, but I’d appreciate it being addressed anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/796 "2009-10-15T22:25:06Z")
Hey, just you wait till he makes his first award-winning movie and moves to France. Then you rightious folk will change your tune! ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/797 "2009-10-15T22:36:26Z")
All this pedophile chatter is well and good, but when this thread veer off into the crazy talk about NOT hitting or shaking kids to get them to SHUT THE FUCK UP? I mean, if it’s debatable to have sex with kids, certainly it’s ok to beat on them! Am I right or am I right? Beat on them – beat off on them – these are minor quibbles! ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/798 "2009-10-16T08:27:05Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > A) No–_you_ can’t pass the test, maybe,but then, you’re a diseased creep who wants to lure little children into bushes because you can’t deal with grown-ups. Anyway, that assumes your psychobabble is fact. People can be coached to answer at whatever level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, they can certainly be coached to pass the fact based test you proposed. Are you familiar with the Turning Test? If something can “fake” having certain cognitive abilities, then it’s just as accurate to say it really has those cognitive abilities. > [@Fenris](#): > > B) “WE” in the educational business?! Good fuck–you’re claiming to be in the educational field? What, as the poster boy for “Don’t take candy from creepy strangers like this guy” campaign? I seem to recall mentioning my former job as an elementary school teacher. > [@Fenris](#): > > Stuff your demand up your ass, pervert. > Or else _what_, you goat-felching kiddie rapist?. So you don’t actually have anything to present. Just empty lies and a bluff you get huffy about being called on. What a surprise. :rolleyes: > [@Fenris](#): > > I did–and it’s really clear that your so called loophole-closing is nothing more than window dressing–if you lie successfully to this group of people you get a free pass to rape more kiddies. See, “reading carefully” includes figuring the writer’s motives: since your stated motive is to rape toddlers, it’s pretty easy to see where you’re coming from. So this has no basis on what’s actually written, just on what you assumed before looking at it. Got you. > [@Meatros](#): > > Obviously I don’t agree - which was the whole point of my contention. I do not think it’s possible for a 5 month old to give consent. Logical possibility, btw, is different from real world possibilities/probabilities. Then there’s no harm in letting them take the test and fail if they so choose. > [@Meatros](#): > > Why is this necessary? It’s not - I would say on average the adults they run into they tend to treat as authority figures, regardless of whether they actually are or not. And you see no issue with that? > [@Meatros](#): > > What are you talking about? What more do I have to present? This entire time I’ve been arguing against your position, not presenting one of my own. You are seeking for society to change, for opinions to be altered, for your position to be recognized by society as legal. > > All I’m arguing is that your argument doesn’t hold up. You seem to be attempting to put other arguments or positions onto me - perhaps to ease the burden of your position? So you have nothing to present? In that case, it seems safe to drop this conversation thread. > [@Meatros](#): > > The idea that realism of a 5 month old giving consent. That wasn’t one of the premises. > [@Meatros](#): > > Also, as I pointed out, laws are meant to protect the masses - a hypothetical logical possibility isn’t constituted as being part of the masses. It’s not even part of a minority. Once again, I find we have a fundamental disagreement on the function of law. I do not find it to be a legitimate use of the law to oppress minorities, however small their numbers, for the convenience of the government. Also, since there is no evidence of harm in the first place, then please explain how anyone is being protected, masses or otherwise. > [@Meatros](#): > > Specific age is relevant, since I’ve been arguing about categories (ie, heaps). Yes, “cheating” happens and it’s not clear how your system would prevent it. In large part, by virtue of the fact that if you can “cheat” your way to operating as though you have a theory of mind, you actually have a theory of mind. > [@Meatros](#): > > It’s also not clear why it is necessary to enact upon all children. It isn’t. It’s only necessary to enact on anyone who wants to have sex at some point and thinks they’re ready for that. > [@Meatros](#): > > No, I wasn’t - I’ve read the article and it’s not clear that we have definitive tests for it. > > “Whether children younger than 3 or 4 years old may have a theory of mind is a topic of debate among researchers. It is a challenging question, due to the difficulty of assessing what pre-linguistic children understand about others and the world. Tasks used in research into the development of ToM must take into account the umwelt—(the German word Umwelt means “environment” or “surrounding world”)—of the pre-verbal child.” If they’re preverbal, they aren’t capable of expressing consent anyway, so it’s a moot point. > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m also unclear between the link between this and self responsibility/consent. Can you please clarify? If you don’t recognize that other people have different knowledge and thoughts, you can’t understand that people are capable of lying to one another and believing lies. This is just one convenient cognitive assessment tool that helps establish whether requirement 3 is met or not. > [@Meatros](#): > > It’s not just muscle memory - as the knowledge of how to ride a bike necessarily includes the learning how to do so. I can know the definition of erection, of sex, of all of the above, but if I’ve never had an erection then there is something that is not known that is necessary for the experience. Now, some of that knowledge can only be obtained by going through the activity, but you can’t argue that all of it is. If you are requiring knowledge that can only be gained through having sex in order to be able to consent to sex, that’s an obvious catch-22, and obviously wouldn’t bear discussing. As to the other physical experiences, why do you claim that knowledge of how an errection feels (your example) is at all relevant? > [@Meatros](#): > > You misunderstand me - your proposal doesn’t explicitly state there is an age line, but the reality of the situation is that there is one. In other words, it’s implicit to your proposal since in order to pass the test you have to have been on this earth and your body has to have aged a specific amount. You have to have aged more then 5 months, for example, since biomechanics do not allow for a 5 month old to be the mental equivalent of an adult. I take no issue with a defacto age line of this sort. I take extreme issue with codifying any of this into the law itself, tacking on meaningless requirements and restrictions to who is and isn’t allowed to take the test. > [@Meatros](#): > > No, I’m not. It seems you are attempting to make a difference without a distinction. My issue is with legally mandated age lines, not defacto ones that crop up simply as a result of no one under a certain age passing the test. Is this more clear? > [@Meatros](#): > > Well, you certainly haven’t presented anything that establishes a sound reason for all people to be able to take the test, Because there is no sound reason for them not to be allowed to take the test, since anyone who you would disqualify from taking it could just as easily take it and fail (or do something surprising and pass it). > [@Meatros](#): > > since it’s clear that some cannot even take the test. You’d be surprised at how easy it is to take the test and fail it. That’s possible pretty much from the point that you gain the ability to ask to take the test. > [@Meatros](#): > > Who is asking about **universal** harm? Universal restriction requires universal harm to justify it. > [@Meatros](#): > > The question of laws refers to the safety of the majority. No they don’t. When you present an unrebuttable presumption, you declare that the presumption is true in all cases, not just the majority of cases. When you want to declare something to be true in the majority of cases, you introduce a presumption, but you make it rebuttable. I’m attempting to convert universal childhood incompetence into a rebuttable presumption, for example, whereas right now it is an unrebutable presumption. > [@Meatros](#): > > As I pointed out, not everyone is unsafe to drive with a BA of .09 - but the laws are in place to protect the majority from those people who are unsafe to drive with such a BA. Why in the world do you keep using that blood alcohol content thing as though I actually supported that sort of thing? > [@Meatros](#): > > Again, in order to support your position you need more then **negative evidence** - pointing out that such relationships don’t harm every member involved simply isn’t enough - you need **positive evidence** that such relationships are actually good, productive, and do not harm those involved. > > So far, you haven’t presented any. Your entire argument seems to be based on an appeal to ‘prove me wrong’ (ie, begging the question). > > You haven’t covered any positive evidence for your position. Start there. Show that such relationships with 10 and under are healthy and productive and produce no harm in those involved for the majority of the cases. Present me with positive evidence that adult-adult relationships are actaully good, productive, and do not harm those involved. That way I’ll see what sort of evidentiary standard you think I need to meet. > [@Meatros](#): > > I thought I was pretty clear - if they could not take the test (due to lack of cognitive development), how can they logically pass it? What do you mean by “could not take the test (due to lack of cognitive development)”? I’m not sure exactly what scenario you are reffering to. > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m quite clear with the concept of analogy - where I stumble is when someone tries to present a bad analogy and they claim it’s a good one. You didn’t seem to grasp that I was employing one, so it seemed important to check this point. > [@Meatros](#): > > The point is that the arguments of the slave holders were unsound - the premises factually wrong (ie, slaves brains are not more cognitively impaired then their owners). The argument that person X should not be able to give consent because of their mental status _IS_ applicable to children because is physiologically true; a 5 month old’s brain is not cognitively developed enough to give informed consent - nor can it be because of the stage of development. > > This is not the equivalent to slaves, since a slaves brain is cognitively developed enough AND it is developed enough. In short, you could teach an adult slave about consent, responsibility, and all that and the slave would be able to understand. You could not do the same with a 5 month old. So what you’re saying is, based on the racist evidence avalible at the time, slavery was morally appropriate. Because the science at the time suggested precisely that slaves were lacking in vital cognitive capabilities, and were generally incapable of governing themselves. I’m not seeing the distinction here. > [@Meatros](#): > > You are ignoring the fundamental distinction that I outlined above - unless your argument is that blacks are the mental equivalent of children. This cannot be your argument. They are mentally equivalent to the mentally developed children. Just like whites are. > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m saying that you are phrasing it this way for rhetorical reasons. I’m phrasing it that way because that’s what it is. > [@Meatros](#): > > Age in a vacuum is irrelevant - but when you consider that a child’s age is also relevant to their physical development, it _is_ relevant. No. Age is irrelevant, physical development is irrelevant. The only way those tie into anything resembling relevance is that they tend to correlate with mental development, which is the ONLY thing which actually _is_ relevant. > [@Meatros](#): > > What reason is there for them to take the test? They can’t even take the test, so how could they fail it? Again, what the hell are you talking about declaring people incapable of taking the tests, when I’ve repeatedly explained that anyone can take it if they so chose. If they don’t or can’t chose to take it, then they can’t take it, but that’s the _only_ requirement. > [@Meatros](#): > > You are proposing that they take this test - simply pointing out that there isn’t a reason not to is appealing to ignorance. No, it’s a basic, underlying tennet of a free society. > [@Meatros](#): > > How about this: It’s a waste of time to have them take the test? It’s their time to waste. Also, I’ve pointed out several reasons that even people who take it and fail are benefited. > [@Meatros](#): > > You do need to provide a compelling reason for them to take the test. So far, you haven’t. The only reason needed is that they desire to do so, and there is no valid reason to prevent them from doing so. > [@Meatros](#): > > I didn’t say that we all age at the same rate, I said that we age at specific rates - those rates are determined by our physiology (genetics, nurturing, etc). Age lines do not have to be definitive to be useful, they do not have to protect ‘all’, just ‘most’. However, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, even though there are shades of gray, there are definitive lines out there. There is ZERO justification for arbitrarily denying the rights of every human being under ANY age. NONE. It is NOT justifiable to oppress a minority just because they’re a minority. So fuck that. > [@Meatros](#): > > Your argument contains the implicit premise that all people can take the test. This is not true. > > Again, you need a reason for children who can’t even take the test (cognitively) to take the test. Are we speaking the same language? ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/799 "2009-10-16T08:28:12Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Has this been extensively studied? You’re the one who was going to provide evidence. I presume that this means you have none. Got it. > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m sorry, but the onus is on you here Cesario - you need to demonstrate that there would be no harm. Prove to me no adult will ever be harmed as a result of being allowed to consent to sex. Then I’ll provide the same standard of evidence for children. > [@Meatros](#): > > You need to show us studies with ‘fully consensual sexual encounters’ where there was no harm. Do you want anecodotal case studies? We’ve got them being posted here on this forum? Do you want published metaanalyses? Someone already posted Rind. What exactly is it you want? > [@Meatros](#): > > You are the one seeking to change society, seeking to change public opinion, and all that. It doesn’t do you any good to appeal to ignorance here. I’m not appealing to my ignorance. I’m pointing out that you’re appealing to yours every time you suggest that this harm exists and that this justifies oppressive laws which lack any meaningful basis. > [@Meatros](#): > > Again, _“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?”_ If there are no studies demonstrating harm, where are you getting the idea that we need to restrict behavior on the basis that there is harm? The basis is undermined by the lack of evidence itself. Is this unclear to you? Well, of course it is, but I’m afraid I can’t explain it any more clearly than that. > [@Meatros](#): > > In short, your case rests on an appeal to ignorance. You **are** arguing: > > _“that fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm because there are no studies to show that they don’t.”_ > > You have no evidence: > > 1. That children can engage in fully consensual sexual encounters. > 2. That even if they could engage in these encounters that there would be no harm. > > Please provide evidence and studies to support these two points. This is giving me such a headache. Let’s start **again** with whether or not we have a meaningful defintion of consent. You’ve accepted (for the sake of argument, apparently, though your desire to limit acceptance to that seems odd) that the RMSC provides a suitable definition for informed consent. Now, if a child passes the RMSC, they will have provided evidence of point 1. You arbitrarily denying them access to the RMSC is really just you hiding evidence of point 1, which is part of what pisses me off about your continuing to push age line requirements into this. As to point 2, if this isn’t the case, WHY THE HELL DO WE CARE ABOUT CONSENT IN THE FIRST PLACE? > [@Meatros](#): > > Maybe so, however please remember that you are supposed to be arguing against the traditional wisdom and appealing to ignorance is not going to cut it in the market place of ideas. Another appeal to majority. Can you argue this without resorting to these fallacies? Seems to me your inability to avoid using them isn’t helping your argument one whit. See, I can go meta on your arguments’ effectiveness too. :rolleyes: > [@Meatros](#): > > No, I am not. However if you’d like to take a poll of this small cross section of society (the SD) to see how many people align with your idea that 10 year olds should be legally allowed to engage in consensual sex then by all means create the poll and put me in my place. You forgot what you were asking in the first place, didn’t you? > [@Meatros](#): > > So are there studies with fully consensual sexual encounters with children that produce no harm or not? > > If you’ve got the studies, then present them. When you present the studies that show universal harm from fully consensual encounters. Considering we’ve already had postings of Rind which contains multiple such examples, it seems pointless for me to continue to add evidence when you’ve refused to do a thing to support your side’s assertions. > [@Meatros](#): > > I operate under that position to - the difference would be what constitutes a citizen that can give consent. Then you don’t operate under that position. You’re just using “creative” defintions to get around that fact. Sort of like the “slaves aren’t citizens” meme actually… > [@Meatros](#): > > So then we both agree that 2 year olds and under cannot give reasoned consent? That they should not take your test? No. Why is this so hard for you to understand? > [@Meatros](#): > > Possibly true - I don’t remember. > > I was saying: You have to present positive evidence that your test is adequate at determining consent and that children can engage in fully consensual sexual encounters that produce no harm. You’ve already agreed that my test is adequite at determining consent. As to the other, it doesn’t really matter if there is harm, since any harm that results was fully consensual. Same reason we let people engage in BDSM. > [@Meatros](#): > > I clearly wasn’t declaring victory here. If you’d like to set up a poll to see if your arguments are convincing and to see if you can get a majority of SDers to agree that 10 year olds should be legally allowed to engage in sex, then by all means do so. I’ll eat humble pie if that’s the case. You really have no idea how to judge the effecacy of an argument, do you? You can’t just take a snapshot, see how many people agree or disagree with the argument, and call it a day. Doing that proves nothing either way. You need to take a before and after shot to determine if people are changing their minds on the subject as a result of being presented with the arguments. > [@Meatros](#): > > Me in particular, or ‘me’ as in ‘any person’? If it’s the later, I’m not sure that’s good enough. Then why is it good enough if she’d been younger? > [@Meatros](#): > > Play semantics all you like, at the end of the day, your position has no support outside of (possible) negative support. Invoke your fallacies all you like. At the end of the day, your arguments are unsupportable and lacking in anything resembling substance. > [@Meatros](#): > > Nonsense - that is because of your position, not your evidence. People are not shouting at you and all that because they lack evidence necessarily (some may, some may not), they are acting that way because your position is widely outside of the mainstream. > > As to your dichotomy, I think the obvious is the third position - most of the people here aren’t even trying to engage in this issue with you. They aren’t discussing it, they are repulsed by it and do not want to address it on an intellectual level at all. That’s them being unmotivated. That isn’t a third option, that’s the first option. > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m uncertain why the bar is at ‘universal’ harm, btw, can you clarify? Because that’s the assertion, and the reason that we have an unrebuttable presumption of incompetence and an unrebuttable presumption of harm written into our legal system. > [@Meatros](#): > > Yes. I don’t believe you do. > [@Meatros](#): > > For the sake of argument, yes, the test can provide evidence for consent. Just for the sake of argument? What, in particular, about the requirements do you find to be insufficient? Is there some requirement you feel I’ve overlooked that you view as relevant? > [@Meatros](#): > > No the procedure for providing such evidence is not as simple as administering the test You agreed that it is evidence in your previous sentence. > [@Meatros](#): > > - since it’s clear that not everyone can even take the test, much less pass it! Someone not passing the test is evidence that they can’t provide meaningful consent. How is this not clear to you by now? > [@Meatros](#): > > In short, how do you determine whether or not a 1 year old could even hypothetically give consent? You give them the test and if they don’t pass it, they can’t give consent. What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp? > [@Meatros](#): > > I fail to see any reason what-so-ever to administer or even consider administering this test to a 1 year old. Why should we? No idea. You’re the one who brought it up. I’m only suggesting we administer it if they want it administered to them, which I can’t see a 1 year old asking for. > [@Meatros](#): > > So you refuse to recognize that a collection of all 5 months old in the ‘inability to give consent’ column constitutes a definitive age line? > > That seems to be your issue with reality - not mine. It’s a line because you’re drawing a line, not because there is anything special or relevant about the age you’re describing, nor because there’s any justifiable reason to prevent them from taking the test just because of your failure of immagination. > [@Meatros](#): > > It was unclear to me that you believed this since you apparently think that my position was that your test is of no use what-so-ever and could not be used with teenagers. > > You were attempting to construct a false position for me to hold - I pointed out the false assumption (that children under 10 constitute teenagers), now you are getting snarky with me. Why bother to use it at all if you’re just going to arbitrarily declare anyone under a certain line to have failed it anyway? It doesn’t matter where you put that line, its very presence undermines the entire concept. > [@Meatros](#): > > Probably because that’s not what I assume, obviously. If that were obvious, you wouldn’t seem to assume it. > [@Meatros](#): > > I assume that there are clear age-related lines that can be reliably used to determine who should be able to have access to the test and who cannot. You assume incorrectly. This is a value judgement, and in all cases where my value judgements come into conflict with someone else’s, my value judgement is correct and the other person’s is incorrect. > [@Meatros](#): > > It’s _not_ crystal clear to me why a 5 month old should even be considered here. You’ve got me, but you keep bringing them up. I only think people who want to take the test need to be considered. Got a bunch of 5 month olds who are banging on your door demanding to be tested? > [@Meatros](#): > > That’s fine - but it doesn’t justify the system for a 5 month old. Yes it does. The rigid “because I said so” concept applies just fine to people who see a five month old arbitrarily denied as it does to a 15 year old arbitrarily denied. It undermines the entire concept of the test and just proves that you aren’t giving people a fair shake (meaning they have zero reason to listen to you when you tell them you’ve got a good reason why they shouldn’t be doing this). > [@Meatros](#): > > You are just being obstinate here. The ‘groups of people who cannot pass’ because they cannot take the test are all under 10. This is a distinction without a difference. Then why do you continue to try to make a distinction? > [@Meatros](#): > > Was that in the proposal you quoted in this thread? I honestly don’t remember this portion. I don’t think it’s come up in this forum yet because it isn’t part of the proposal itself. > [@Meatros](#): > > Show me the outliers. Further, should we make laws based on the outliers? Should legal BA levels be adjusted so that it takes into the consideration that some outliers who can function with a BA above .08 should be allowed to drive while intoxicated? You really don’t want to get into drunk driving laws with me. You may assume I support this rediculus arbitrary standard, but you assuming I do is really baseless, and frankly willful blindness at this point considering everything else I’ve been arguing thus far regarding arbitrary lines. Trust me, you don’t want to get into this one. > [@Meatros](#): > > How would it prove anything to the individual who not only doesn’t understand the test, but doesn’t understand what mentally competence means? Who would this test actually prove the results to? People who understand those concepts but still lack the ability to provide meaningful consent, obviously. Also, for the really ignorant, it gives them a milestone to work towards that they can perceive themselves as approaching through effort and education, rather than an arbitrary line that they can do absolutely nothing to accellerate or slow their progress towards. Is there some reason this wasn’t obvious to you already? ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/800 "2009-10-16T08:30:55Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > How would a 5 month old even consider whether to take the test or not? You tell me, you’re the one positing that they’re asking to take it, after all. Otherwise you wouldn’t have to throw in a clause legally mandating that we tell them “no”. > [@Meatros](#): > > ? I’m saying that the are a pertinent factor, you are argue as though I’m saying they are the only factor - hence my comment on context. Your response here is completely confusing. Hormones aren’t a pertinent factor. If they were pertinent, people with hormonal abnormalities oughtn’t be allowed to consent. > [@Meatros](#): > > ? > > I’m not saying that everyone after puberty meets this requirement? I’m saying that puberty is one of the avenues that foster interest in sexual relations. I agree that adults lie and all that, but I don’t see the relevance here. I don’t actually think you are clear in your last sentence. I’m saying that since puberty is not deterministically correlated with sexual education, and that this education can be present before puberty and absent after it, you can’t use the presence of sexual education to declare that puberty ought to be a dividing line. Is this really so hard to understand? I mean, I’ve always thought of myself as intelligent, but I never really put myself in the superhuman genious category. > [@Meatros](#): > > So you think that the actual physicality of the action, the parts involved and all (how they feel to the person, how the functioning of them feel to the person, etc), bears no part in reasoned consent? If you want to declare that no one who’s never had sex should be allowed to consent, you either declare that no one ever be allowed to consent again after the current generation, or that people need to be raped before you’ll allow them to have consensual sex. > [@Meatros](#): > > According to you, perhaps, but obviously not according to me when I wrote _“then isn’t that an age line that could be drawn”_. And the response is still “no”. > [@Meatros](#): > > Also, you realize that ‘infant’ actually refers to the latin meaning unable to speak, right? I don’t speak latin, and the word origin is not at all relevant. > [@Meatros](#): > > Obviously, since you referred to the ability to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Remember, you wrote: “The words “yes” and “no” seem to be fairly standard…”, my point was that this was not necessarily true. You seem to agree by pointing to point 4, yet here you are questioning whether or not you were clear. What standard do you use to determine if your partners want to have sex with you, if you’re not using “yes” and “no”? Just guessing and finding out later when they file rape charges? > [@Meatros](#): > > Because the indication is that it is - you seem to be fighting tooth and nail for a hypothetical that there is no evidence is even physically possible. Because you’re arguing that we shouldn’t be allowed to even look for said evidence. That’s what I’m fighting you about. Was this unclear? > [@Meatros](#): > > So can any take the test? Was this unclear? I’ve been saying it rather consistently from the start, so I can’t imagine where you got the idea that this might not be the case. > [@Meatros](#): > > Possibly so - but I think it’s ridiculous to allow a group of people who cannot even take the test to potentially be able to. If they can’t physically do it, then what possible cause would you have for needing to declare that they aren’t allowed? Do we need a law that says people aren’t allowed to fly over the grand canyon on the back of a purple dragon? > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m still not sure why there would necessarily be no STDs to worry about. Shoot, the test for consent that you are suggesting does go over safety and such things, at least if i recall correctly - so wouldn’t these consensual 5 year olds be familiar with such things? They’d also be familiar with their transmission mechanism, and likely their prevelence in certain demographics. If they really know what’s what, they’ll recognize clearly that they risk far less from their slim chance of contracting STDs from one another than they do by it being learned that they’re having sex in this society. > [@Meatros](#): > > But one group is already recognized, the group that consists of those that cannot take the test; ie, 5 and under. And since they aren’t unrecognized by allowing them to take the test, you don’t need an age line. > [@Meatros](#): > > Prove my assumption wrong then And you accuse me of not supporting my arguments. > [@Meatros](#): > > - all you have to do is find the hypothetical 5 month old that is the mental equivalent of an adult. You don’t even have to do that, actually, you have to show that it’s remotely physiologically possible for such a child to develop. The whole point is that you are denying anyone the ability to prove your assumption wrong by denying them access to the test. If you don’t let them take the test, they can’t prove you wrong, but only because you are hiding/destroying/suppressing evidence against your point of view, not because your view is actually on solid ground. > [@Meatros](#): > > You are assuming that I see no value in your test That’s because you don’t. You see value in some other propsal that includes a worthless, arbitrary age line who’s sole function is for you to deny people access to legitimately deserved rights in the name of convenience. But you don’t see value in my test. > [@Meatros](#): > > - I’ve repeatedly said that this isn’t the case. Then you’ve repeatedly lied. > [@Meatros](#): > > I see value in it, to an extent. I see no value in potentially allowing consent for people who fall within certain age line (‘heaps’) - say 5 years old and younger (or 10, or I’d probably even go so far as we could establish such a line with what the psychological mainstream has determined about cognitive abilities). Where is the potentially allowing it? If your assumptions are correct, they won’t be allowed to consent, since they won’t pass the test. The only scenario where they get allowed to consent is if your assumptions are wrong. Thus the only reason for you to deny them access to it is because you aren’t so sure of your assumptions, but you’re damn sure that you don’t want to back off on your prejudices about what they ought to be allowed to do regardless of whether the underlying reasoning for those prejudies pans out. > [@Meatros](#): > > Yes, I realize that, I’m talking about generally, not specifically. In fairness, I admit I could be totally wrong in my appraisal of what constitutes ‘convincing’ to the public at large. Considering your proposed method for testing that, I’d say it’s almost guarenteed. > [@Meatros](#): > > I don’t know Come back when you’ve got something constructive to contribute then. Until then, I’m sticking with my plan. > [@Meatros](#): > > - I think it’s possible because societies mores and norms are constantly in flux. Society, usually, changes well before the laws change, which indicates to me that the specific law (ie, AoC) isn’t the relevant factor. Frankly speaking, I don’t think changing the AoC laws would be all that effective - I think better sex-ed would be a more powerful step and potentially a necessary first step. You’d need public support first, IMO. Then again, I’m not an expert or anything. I’m applying the school desegregation model. There the acceptance came after the law change, and it was by far the most effective at enacting social change in the areas where politicians provided the fewest concessions to the entrenched bigots who wanted to block or undermine it. > [@Meatros](#): > > If they aren’t based on anything, maybe, but the age lines are based on developmental stages of the general populous Bullshit. If they were, you’d have been able to present the studies they’re based on. Since you haven’t done that, you are either unable, or unwilling. The only possible answer that still leaves it possible the laws are based on something is the answer that you are unforgivably lazy in your arguments. Not so far fetched, I suppose, considering your repeated appeals to majority and tradition dispite acknowledging that they are fallacies, but your laziness is not, in itself evidence that this evidence exists. > [@Meatros](#): > > - and the specific ones I’m talking about don’t seem to be able to contain any outliers. Then you won’t see people being classified outside the category you would have expected anyway. If you do happen to see something like that, go ahead and investigate, and confirm it wasn’t a fluke, but something defying your expectations is not a good enough reason to declare it impossible and therefore illegal to test. You have stepped outside the realm of science and entered the realm of herricy when you do that. > [@Meatros](#): > > Interesting reaction - not what I thought. I assumed that you would change based on the idea that you would then be able to, more easily, find a partner. It’s a philosophical conclusion I came to long before my orientation became apparent, and my subsequent struggles haven’t convinced me to abandon the philosophy. > [@Meatros](#): > > No, not by that logic, since my logic was based on the general, not the outlier. Did you read your logic? > [@Meatros](#): > > However, I would say that if someone couldn’t **control** their sexual impulse and they had to engage in the activity ‘right now’ that is a sign that they aren’t ready to handle it. It’s a sign that they are possibly dangerous. The fact that you’re arguing against raising the age of consent to 90 suggests that you apparently think you shouldn’t have to wait. Guess that makes you possibly dangerous. > [@JRDelirious](#): > > Dropping in to thank \*\*Meatros \*\*and others who have maintained a level head in argument against **Cesario**. He has, one hopes, been shown that his arguments are not getting any traction (or any traction of consequence anyway) among sensible people but that it’s because they see defects with his premises and conclusions and not just because it drives them into blind fits. > > This is because the visceral \*“aaarrrghhh spITsnORt pedophile grrraaahhh kiLLbuRN’im!!!” \*reaction many people affect is not useful, and only allows the subject to to reinforce the self-view as victim, or assume that the opposition is merely an unthinking instinctual reflex. (Which is not to say that a hard grabbing by the lapels and calling out is not useful to drive home the point at times. Just not blind rages.) > > OF COURSE adults seeking to have actual sex with actual _prepubescent children_ is wrong (mere feelings or fantasies don’t faze me as long as they remain that) and a sensible person should easily understand this is so, and that **it is different from doing it with a hot 15y/o, and getting shafted by the legalisms of the AoC**. The developmental stages of a human mind are not mere social artifices. > > As of the current time and for long into the foreseeable future any theorizing about how to “empower” prepubescent kids to agree to sex with an adult will be seen as a discourse on how to enable the pedophile to feel it may be legitimate to act on his/her urges, rather than seek out therapy/treatment to control, redirect or avoid them. What, you say, if you were to achieve some sort of way to verify consent in a child as well as you do it with an adult (and brain development issues are probably an insurmountable factor there)? As things stand, in regular adult-adult sex between nominal peers who should know better and can call one another out on it, you still have to worry about situations where one of the parties presumes intent and consent and then it turns out wrong and it all ends in tears. We don’t want to make THAT an “assumed risk” in a relation of such inequality and vulnerability as adult-preteen, so the answer is, for long into the foreseeable future, that such pairings should NOT happen, period. If adult-adult sex is as dangerous as you are claiming, we ought to just ban sex outright. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > Adults fantasizing about having sex with children \*should \* concern us as the thought is often father to the deed. At the very least an adult with such thoughts should avoid all contact with prepubescents, for his own sake as well as theirs. If in a moment of weakness he were to give his lust full rein he would be destroying two lives at once. > > But I forget. **Cesario** has a will of iron and is above such precautions. Once again, people. Not raping people isn’t something that’s particularly difficult. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I think it’s different because you can have sex with those women without it being rape. You can’t just go up to them and fuck them but you can buy them drinks, suss out interest, flirt, etc. And if they think you’re hot and are amenable, you can do the wild monkey dance. Denied access to consenting partners, how long before you would resort to rape? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But if you’re a pedophile, yeah, people are going to assume that your interactions are suspect. Because there is no flirting or lead up for a kid. You’re basing this on what? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I think a lot of pedophiles might be very eager to see stuff that isn’t there. **Caesario** talked about speaking to a woman with a “very attractive 4 year old” and saying stuff like the 4 year old girl seemed to want him all to herself and stuff. And a lot of people told him he was deluded. She did want me to herself. Doesn’t mean she wanted me. There is a difference, you know. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Apples to oranges. It’s actually quite difficult to murder someone, whereas fondling a young child who crawls into your lap is absolutely trivial. Plus, there’s the whole “fear of punishment” thing which prevents most rational people from breaking the social contract. Therefore, a person who fantasizes about murdering and torturing people is highly unlikely to encounter a situation where he/she has that opportunity, and is willing to act on it. > > **Cesario** , on the other hand, already has access to young children, as he himself has stated. He’s also stated that he has NO FEAR of being punished by the law, if he’s caught. Therefore, our concern that he is currently at high risk for molesting a child is well-founded. It takes effort to misread my posts so consistently. I said I had no fear of punishment because I assume I wouldn’t get caught. Seriously, is what I actually said not bad enough for you? ---
**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 16, 2009, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/801 "2009-10-16T08:34:58Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Denied access to consenting partners, how long before you would resort to rape? I wouldn’t rape them because they CAN consent. A lot of pedophiles tell themselves that just fondling or touching is okay because it’s not rape, though. And it’s not, even though it’s illegal and unethical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=41)