It doesn’t have anything to do with Cesario’s worth. It’s about what you can realistically expect to learn from his posts on this board. Before it sounded like you really thought you’d have a better chance at identifying a pedophile based on what he posts here; now you’re saying you might be able to gain a nugget of insight into pedophilia, which is a lower expectation and maybe more realistic.
Yes, I am. And I’m pointing out that most of what you’re likely to learn from him is stuff you could learn easily from other discussions or by thinking about the issue on your own. Neither is as magnetically creepy as talking to an actual pedophile, of course.
I haven’t seen anyone suggest that Cesario be killed for believing that children are sexually attractive.
I must admit to some curiosity. What kind of subtleties to you expect to learn related to the belief, “I would like to fuck small children, and in a just world, I could”?
Are you a psychiatrist or psycholgist? In that case, perhaps you could engage him in a manner that might lead you to some kind of insights leading to better treatment. Of course Cesario doesn’t believe that he needs treatment any more than a gay person does.
Once you go past a certain point, once the light bulb goes off and you get where he’s coming from, continuing to read his threads is kind of like viewing pornograhy about a kink that you don’t have. Disgust and revulsion and disbelief, with some fascination thrown is as you try to understand the appeal. But you don’t, and you won’t.
And you have every right to read his posts, and he has every right to write them, but please don’t pretend you’re searching for deeper insight. You’re doing it for a kind of weird emotional rush akin to watching a train wreck.
Perhaps. I cannot comment really one way or the other. I tend to go by feeling a lot of the time, something that isn’t popular around these parts. By talking to someone I get a sense of them that is beyond just what I can explain. It’s like knowing a flavor, I don’t know what that spice is but I know it when I taste it.
I think that humanizing someone is it’s own level of understanding. Your argument is mixing knowledge and understanding. I am talking about understanding you are talking about knowledge. I can read all the psychological texts that I want but it’s not the same as an empathic exchange with someone.
Of course it’s all academic, I’ve spent more time responding to you than reading his posts anyway.
And before you heard his reason you would be undecided on whether it’s right or wrong to burn out a toddler’s eye with a cigarette. You think it might possibly be ok?
What makes someone a child, then? What turns them from a child to an adult? Their 18th birthday? Their 16th birthday?
If two 15 year olds have sex with each other, then since neither is capable of consenting to sexual activity, period, then both of them are raping each other. Should both go to prison, like all the other child molesters? If not, what makes the consent of a 15 year old to have sex with another 15 year old different than their consent to have sex with a 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 year old?
Not that our legal system needs to take into account every nuance, but to declare that children can’t consent to sex, period, isn’t very helpful. Human beings don’t go through puberty the morning of their 18th birthday. It doesn’t work like that.
And sure, you’d be outraged by a 50 year old guy trying to have sex with your 17 year old child. But your outrage wouldn’t change if your child was 18 or 19 or 20, would it?
The question was whether you would need to hear his his reasoning to make a determination as to whether the act would be morally right wrong. before you heard his reasoning would you be undecided?
Doctors sometimes do all sorts of things that sound horrible–cut off limbs, saw open skulls, poke needles into eyeballs, drip toxic chemicals into the bloodstream. But that’s different, you say. Exactly.
Well if he only promised to use the cooling action of menthol, I think that might mitigate the burning sensation of the cigarette. So I could see it as a possible net even.
Can a 4 year old give consent? The kind of hedging and cheating of the line you’re talking about is lame-ass and pointless. Cesario wants to be allowed to fuck 4-year olds.
Of course there’s no objective line between childhood and adulthood. That’s neither an an original nor an interesting observation. There still has to be a legal line, and at a certain point, there is no ambiguity at all. If you agree that toddlers should not drink alcohol and drive cars, then ypu agree that there is a meaningful distinction between childhood and adulthood, and the rest is just quibbling over where to draw a legal line.
I suspect you won’t gain many “insights,” but then I also suspect that this interest of yours (and others here) is not nearly so noble as you would have us believe, based more on titillation and base attraction to the lurid than any real desire to “humanize” the subject.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that; I read tabloidy shit and watch trash like COPS. But don’t present yourself as some kind of principled anthropologist when you really just want to hear all the sordid details of kiddy-fiddling, and see yet another opportunity to exert your reflexive contrarianism on yet another topic.
Oh, no, the cigarette smoke, some of which would inevitably enter the lungs, make it a net minus. I think a natural gas blowtorch would be greenest, or a ling steel needle heated with a natural gas blowtorch.
:smack: Duh, I forgot solar. Burn out the eye with a powerful magnifying glass.
Do you think there might be a medical reason to fuck a 4 year old? “Exactly” what? What are you talking about? What’s"different?" What could possibly flip the script on the morality of toddler rape?
Doctors don’t burn out the eyes of toddlers with cigarettes, and I said when I originally posed the hypothetical that the motivation was that it would make the cigarette wielder come.
Are you undecided on the morality of toddler rape, or do you think you need to hear the pedophile out before you decide?
Dude, I’m guessing said friend was full of shit – especially about the last one. He “addmitted this” while on coke and booze. I don’t think he sounds all that reliable.
I suspect these “noble intentions” of yours are about the same as your fifty different threads about Chappaquidick.
Dude is creepy, yes – and fascinating. I don’t think anyone here is going to deny that. It’s like a five train pile-up. But it’s not about “learning what makes a pedophile tick.” I already know what makes them tick – and I’ve seen this kind of crap before (the whole crap about “youth rights.”). In his case, I suspect it’s just a convenient cause he’s latched onto, because it fits his agenda. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe in it – but I can see WHY he’s interested in it.
Just like I can see what makes NAMBLA believe what they believe. It’s not a big shock.
Well, of course. But I disagree that this is “quibbling”. It’s important, because we’re arguing over when to send people to prison over it. What makes one person competent to consent to sex, and another person incompetent? 10 year olds aren’t competent, no matter how smart they are. But what about a 30 year old man who is declared legally incompetent? Just because he’s retarded doesn’t mean he’s asexual.
The reason we don’t allow toddlers to drive cars is that we can empirically show that they’re gonna crash the car. But we allow teenagers to drive cars, under certain circumstances.
The point is, “child” is the wrong word to use in these discussions, because it can either mean someone under 18 years old, a legal minor, or it can mean someone who hasn’t gone through puberty. But of course, just because someone is pubescent and wants to have sex that doesn’t automatically make it morally unproblematic to have sex with them. No matter what their age is.
As it turns out, I have decided on the morality of toddler rape.
But if someone told me they wanted to saw open my daughter’s skull and cut into her brain, I wouldn’t automatically pull out my shotgun. Because they might have a good reason–like if my daughter had brain cancer. Other reasons I might not accept, you know?
Likewise, if someone says “It’s always wrong to have sex with children”, I can easily imagine scenarios where I’d disagree. Like, if the child is 17 years and 364 days old. And if the person they are having sex with is another teenager. And so on. So please stop pissing your pants.