Except when people want to say things like “fuck.”
That’s only because he was selling it and wanted us clean up our potty mouths for the investors.
It does work; I mail Ed several times a week to that address, and I received mail from that address just 2 days ago. If your mail bounced it was probably due to some random fuckup on the net or temporary problem with a mail server.
Rather ironic – telling a person to fuck off is not permitted, but promoting fucking infants and young children is.
I’ll try again.
Carwreck syndrome… I was reading Better a Millstone and that led me to the boards…REALLY sick…felt like I was gonna puke when I read all those threads. I guess too b/c I am fasinated by abnormal psych casestudies…Still very hard to read them without tossing my cookies.
And Gunistasisa…I hear you about NAMBLA. It is SICK…I can and do understand the argument that it’s somewhat homophobic for our society to think that older men lusting after teen girls is OK, but the same thing with an older guy and a teen guy is gross…but on the other hand generally a teen and an older person together is still pretty skeevy. Not as skeevy as a guy and a young boy…but still…ewwww. Not defending them at ALL. I mean…when I think about how much I changed in my twenties alone, I just don’t see how ANYONE could be attracted to someone simply b/c they were teens.
If you can point to a post where he actually promotes such behavior, rather than whining that he would like it to be legal to do so, the staff will have a different reaction.
I seriously doubt it. Apparently “the staff” don’t recognize that arguing for the legalization of kiddie-fucking IS the promotion of kiddie-fucking, a point that is obvious to many. But apparently around here it’s okay to EXCUSE extreme pedophilia so long as one doesn’t go so far as to PROMOTE it – a hair-splitting distinction that is as ridiculous as it is distasteful.
Apparently, I was mistaken in the belief that you were actually a lawyer.
On numerous occasions over the last ten years, the principle has been set forth that any topic was permitted for discussion as long as it did not directly promote the breaking of laws or directly cause harm to another.
To this point, cesario claims to have never acted on his desires and has only advocated that the laws be changed to permit him to do so. To date, I have not seen a single poster respond as though he had persuaded them to go out and try a bit of underage sex, so his powers of persuasion appear to be limited and there is still no evidence that he has actually encouraged anyone to break the law.
Banning him will not make his desires go away. Banning him will not change his behavior in any way.
As to excusing pedophilia, no one has done that, either. So far, we have only failed to expel him for the grave sin of talking about something that is disgusting. Certainly, no staff member that I have seen has even claimed “he can’t help himself,” so I have no idea why you are hurling that accusation.
There was once an analogy comparing this place to your friendly neighbourhood tavern. Everyone was welcome but you had to follow certain rules and in general behave yourself.
If someone came into my local pub and started going on and on about how attractive 3 yr old children were, he’d be kicked out in about 5 seconds.
I don’t understand why TPTB allow this crap here. It does nothing but stink up the place.
And the rule that he has broken is?
None. But do you think going on and on about how sexually attractive children are is behaving himself?
I wholeheartedly agree.
Well, if you want to split hairs, how about this one.
Cesario has posted that it is not the laws against child sexual abuse that deter him. In fact, he has posted that he could beat the rap – somehow.
Rather, it is concern about his victim – er, partner – that holds him back. The child will essentially be tortured and abused by attempts to treeat a trauma that never actually happens, because of course his partner will be willing and eager and the experience will not be traumatic.
So while Cesario is indeed advocating for changes in laws regardimg the restrictions placed on minors, those changes are not strictly necessary for him to do his diddling. If Cesario finds a child that he feels is trustworthy enough to keep her mouth shut – not for his sake of course, but for her own – he can fuck her. Or if he finds a child who’s parents are ‘understanding’ and won’t subject her to subsequent psychological abuse, it would seem she too would be a valid target.
So, it is not in fact the laws aginst child rape that hold him back, it is the treatment offered to the child afterward.
Can the staff find any wiggle room in this interpretation?
And apparently I was mistaken in the belief that you were not so over-sensitive as to immediately go on the offensive when anyone takes issue with you.
You have adroitly changed your position from: that it is not acceptable to “actually promote such behavior” – which is what you previously said you mods would find objectionable – to: that is not acceptable to “directly promote the breaking of laws.” I have two responses to this: First, I can only respond to what you say, and what you said initially is NOT the same as what you are apparently saying now, and, second, I find this, in this case, to be a bullshit distinction. He can advocate for the LEGALIZATION of kiddie-fucking, he just can’t DIRECTLY PROMOTE kiddie fucking. What is the former if not the latter?
NOW you have retreated to evaluating whether “he has actually encouraged anyone to break the law,” but that is NOT what you said when I took issue with your position. THEN, you said “the staff will have a different reaction . . . if you can point to a post where he actually promotes such behavior.” Hell, EVERY post from him is a post that promotes such behavior: that is the clear subtext – not so sub – of literally everything he posts: It should be okay to fuck children and the laws should be changed to allow that.
Since when do you mods make decisions about acceptable behavior around here based on whether or not the poster will be helped by your decision? Since “never” as far as I can tell. Banning him may have absolutely no effect on him, and I have never advocated for him to be banned. But disallowing him or anyone to so overtly and unashamedly advocate a position that is BOTH illegal AND immoral and frankly completely indefensible in every respect, would do the following: (1) underscore that while the SDMB may be one of the most liberal message boards in terms of acceptable POVs and discussions, there are minimal standards of universal common decency that are respected here; (2) stand for the proposition that the STMB will not indulge this or any other poster’s illegal and immoral preoccupation, nor implicitly grant it legitimacy by allowing it to be the topic of extended and bizarrely respectful discussion; and (3) not incidentally, do away with the existing incredibly ridiculous dichotomy of this being a board where you cannot tell someone to fuck off but you can discourse at great length about how you wish it was legal to fuck five-year-olds because you’d really, really like to.
“No one”? Obvious BS: HE has! Every post he posts – that’s all he does. And apparently that’s okay – he’s privleged to EXCUSE kiddie-diddling, so long as he doesn’t PROMOTE it. That was your original position, before you changed it to “directly promote breaking the law”, and that position, your original one, was and is based on a distinction so artificial as to be ridiculous because excusing the behavior, arguing that it is or should be okay and should be legalized, IS promoting it. Again, I can’t believe you really don’t see that; it’s not like it’s a particularly nuanced point. So now you’ve retreated to "the discussion is permitted so long as it doesn’t “directly promote the breaking of laws.” By that rationale, posts on how to make bombs should be a-okay.
Frankly, I question whether Ed could possibly know this discussion is even taken place. He is by all accounts a decent guy and one who exercises a higher degree of common sense than, frankly, you are exercising at the moment in your overzealousness to be tolerant of all POVs, no matter how valueless. If Ed has okayed endorsed this respectful discourse of pedophilia, I will be very shocked.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here, since I can’t find the acccusation I allegedly “hurled.”
And I would appreciate a clarification as to whether your mod hat is “on” or “off.” If it is “on” I would appreciate it if you’d dispense with snarky asides such as “apparently I was mistaken in the belief you were actually a lawyer.” If you are modding, I am constrained from responding in kind. If your mod hat is “off” and personal bitchiness is the way you want to roll, fine with me; I can return proportional fire and would be pleased to do so. I just need to know which way you want to go with this.
Obviously, you have found yourself quite capable of snide remarks, regardless whether I am posting in an official capacity, or not, so I have no idea why you suddenly decided to post one more time to make that an issue.
I find you re-interpretations of what I posted amusing, but not pertinent.
Cesario has not advocated breaking the law and you have not provided an example of him doing so, (good lawyerly effort, however). Until he breaks board rules, he will probably be permitted to post.
Ignoring him would seem to be the best way to silence him, but I suspect that too many posters are unable to refrain from voicing their indignation.
Whing about wanting the fucking of infants and young children to be legal is in reality promoting the fucking of infants and children.
Whether or not you want to split hairs is immaterial, for that poster is beyond the pale.
The fact remains that on the SDMB a person cannot tell such a person to fuck off.
Apparently, I was mistaken in the belief that you were actually a moderator.
Stop throwing shit about, tomndebb. It is not becoming of you, and significantly reduces your already failing credibility.
Please stick to rational arguments, rather than descending into personal vindictive.
Update: I’m still waiting on a reply from Ed. The second email has not bounced.