I thought the #1 board rule was “Don’t be a jerk.” Advocating for legalized kiddie-fucking and going on lengthy rambles about how great it would be if you could fuck toddlers and posting about “attractive 4-year-olds” of your acquaintance seems pretty damn jerkish to me.
True, but it is promoting doing it in a legal manner, and so falls outside of the bright line mandate. It’s fairly easy to obfuscate that rule successfully.
I don’t know why you guys seem so surprised. Lots of people love doing this sort of thing. For example, if you connect the dots in GD, you’ll see that personal insults fly around the time in there. All you have to do is figure out something that means something to the poster and then redirect all the insults you want to say to them to that subject. Extra points if it was revealed in a previous thread, so no one else will notice…
Sorry. It seems too many of my posts degrade into my hatred of GD. What’s sad is I keep reading threads, hoping it will be different.
My concern is that, if it is allowed, it becomes a very easy way to troll, as we’ve now seen how viscerally many posters will react to it.
Because I have NOT made snide remarks to you, due to an uncertainty as to whether you are posting in your personal or mod capacity, and I again request that you clarify on what footing you are acting. Is there some reason you refuse to make that explicit? Are you modding, or not?
Huh. There’s no “re-interpretation” necessary. This is what you said initially, that I took issue with (direct quote, not “re-interpretation”):
No discussion of advocating breaking the law, or promoting breaking the law, just “promot[ing] such behavior.” Arguing in favor of legalizing or de-criminalizing behavior so you yourself, personally, can engage in it, is pretty much the definition of “promoting such behavior.”
And this is what you are NOW saying, again direct quotes with no “re-interpretation”:
Thus, what you are now saying – anything short of directly advocating breaking the law or directly causing harm to another is probably okay – is NOT what you were saying before, which was, verbatim, that “promoting the behavior” would elicit a “different reaction” from the mods. Perhaps you don’t see the pertinence of “before you were saying ‘A’” and now you’re saying ‘B,’" but then, even if you can’t grasp that, at least I’m “amusing,” right?
As your posts since have abundantly shown, merely promoting the behavior would NOT elicit a different reaction from the mods, because his every single post promotes the behavior, yet mod reaction – your reaction – doesn’t change, it’s still “none.” Which, funnily enough, is what I said in the first place, in the post that you chose to take such instant offense to. But why bother with being offended, when you’ve demonstrated that I was completely right?
He has broken Board rules, the first and foremost of which is “don’t be a jerk.” And ignoring him isn’t the best way to silence him, it’s just the easiest for you because it allows you to do nothing.
Are you constrained by the rule of law ? We’ve already established that the SDMB is not a democracy. Some fucking common sense on your part would be most welcome.
And another thing:
If in fact Ed is trying to sell the SDMB, or even if there are in fact corporate masters above us all who are even remotely interested in what goes on here, someone with more perspective than you, Tom, are currently showing needs to take a fresh eye at the advisibilty of allowing this type of extremely inappropriate topic. Heck, you, Tom can’t even read the mild criticism I initially posted without immediately lashing out about how you were “mistaken in the belief I was actually a lawyer.” (WTF?) How can you be expected to take a neutral and objective look at this issue if even THAT post makes you feel personally attacked? You can’t. Someone else needs to review the thread and consider what action to take regarding it, and you should ask someone else to do so.
Yeah, FTR that lawyer crack from tomndebb seemed really inappropriate and uncalled for to me as well.
Okay, may I just post to say that Jodi is my new hero?
Let’s start a fan club. I am slack jawed at tom’s responses here. If I were a possible investor of any kind in SD or SDMB, posters like Cesario would change my mind mighty quick.
Me, I’m tired of threads like this going off the rails, a mod (any mod) weighing in without really considering just what they might be defending or *ipso facto *sanctioning by condoning. No doubt Part 2 will start soon enough when the thread is closed and mods have a group think to reconsider the actions taken and then an apology or something akin to one will be issued and we’re all supposed to get on with playing in the sandbox again.
This isn’t some “alternative lifestyle” choice between consenting adults. This is about having sex with children–about a poster not only proclaiming to all and sundry that he thinks kids are “hot”, but bragging that he could get away with having sex with them, if he so chooses. And this gets a pass by the mods here in the interest of what exactly? Fair play? “Tolerance”? Open-mindedness?
To paraphrase Jim Welch: Where is the sense of decency?
Joe Welch, dear. 
Yep, we can endorse kiddy fucking, but we can’t say fuck you, kid. Lovely.
I’m having a bit of trouble working this out in my mind, namely the part about advocating changing the law being akin to advocating breaking the current law or promoting behavior that is currently against the law.
On the one hand, you’re right in terms of that being his motivation. On the other hand, is there really no difference between expressing such an opinion and actually stating specifically that people should break the law/actively encouraging people to do so?
My question is, really, would you then say that this exchange is different? How so? Because Diogenes the Cynic never specifically said that the law should be changed? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11137720&postcount=51)
(I’m sorry to pick on you, Dio, but this was the first example I could remember.)
I’m sure there are many many examples in this board’s history in which a poster stated that they did not agree with a law and felt that it should be changed. Do you feel that all of those posters should be banned as well for advocating criminal behavior?
Is the difference being when a poster expresses a desire to have the law changed specifically so that they could engage in the currently illegal activity? I’m pretty sure I could come up with examples of that, too. Should all those posters be banned as well?
Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. I’ve been a member of your (and Muffin’s) fan clubs since long before this discussion, and I truly do value your input.
??
Right. Notning snide or sarcastic in this comment:
As to whether i am posting as a Moderator, I am presenting the current view of the staff that we have hammered out in off-board discussions, so perhaps I am. On the other hand, I am not posting directions regarding rules, so I am not posting in that sort of official capacity. If you are going to take a shot at me, I am not going to get upset over it; you’ll have to run it past Gfactor to see how he would view it.
I realize that this is an emotional topic. Cesario has posted some truly disgusting stuff. However, we have had open racists and sexists, Holocaust deniers, and any number of other posters on this board without getting calls for their banishment just because their views are disgusting. We are using a fairly bright line distinction for what can actually be posted, here. I understand that cesario’s lusts are significiantly repulsive as to get folks to wish to simply set aside the normal rules of the place, but I see making that sort of exception as merely the sort of ad hoc rules tampering for which we are lambasted (correctly or incorrectly) every time we do not make a judgment call that falls in one poster or another’s favor.
It is a matter of degree. Discussing legalizing pot is one thing, discussing fucking infants and fucking young children is quite another. Where the line lies is debatable, and will always be changing. For myself, I find people who promote infant and young child fucking are so very far beyond that line that I have no difficulty what so ever in requesting that they be banned and be reported to the authorities. I see no reason why the SDMB should be used as a platform by a monster.
When did I do that?
Ah, so this is about you ascribing to me comments that you had to go out onto the wider internet to find on some board I’ve never heard of?
Funny, I always assumed that not raping people exempted me from being a rapist. Silly me.
In what sense? Was there some specific instance of me misinterpreting body language you are reffering to?
And since what I want is for them to have their actual capabilities acknowledge and respected…
No idea. Personally, I’ve never found ignorance to be particularly attractive.
I remember quite clearly being upset at my status as human chattel and being denied my rights including suffrage.
I just love how you speak for feelings you don’t actually have.
That’s true. What’s your point?
Since the only reason you even know I want to have sex with 4 year olds is because you’re taking me at my word, I’m not sure why you’re having trouble taking me at my word about my intentions.
I do believe they exist, and that they might even be fairly common (well, at least meeting the first criteria, fully capable of informed consent). The whole point of the testing requirements is to find out for sure, and to make sure that no one, myself included, mistakes someone who can’t consent for someone who can, whether because of wishful thinking or social expectations tied to age or appearance.
Yeah, pretty much.
Sex becomes a biological imperative at puberty, but all the nerve endings and such that make sex feel good are present at birth. Even without hormones screaming at people to fuck, people are still quite capable of desiring sexual stimulation, and of desiring partners to engage in it with them.
I’m glad to see we’ve found this common ground.
Thank you for your support.
Still best that we make sure we’re both on the same page, don’t you agree?
Yes, I do that.
Ah, you get it! Great.
I think the problem with this disbelief is that you’re still assuming that age=informedness, which is so often pounded into the heads of pretty much everyone connected to our culture.
No, I was implying she wasn’t creeped out by me and made uncomfortable by my presence as some people seemed to be assuming all children would be.
I also proceeded to explain the hostage situation that prevents me from acting on that moral duty.
Well then, we’ll be on the same side when the drinking debate comes up, but opponents in the other two areas.
Your only explaination was “we have to have a line somewhere”, which doesn’t actually follow from anything about political theory. Still, it seems to me we’re better off continuing this debate in that thread.
I so loved the symbolism of that relationship.
Once again, even if no such child exists, that doesn’t change the fact that I desire it. Again, think light sabers.
On Gaiaonline, I’ve been posting lately under the user name Demon of the 14th Shadow, though I’ve gone through a series of names there for various reasons that the regulars can tell you about. The RMSC was developed there while I was using the account Iron Sole.
On NationStates, I’ve operated under the alias The Five Castes, though that was some time ago. I actually joined that one because a child-sex advocate there was being a jackass, and he was advocating clearly dangerous, illegal behaviors, and I was upset that his poor behavior was reflecting badly on the rest of us.
The last time I was on Girlchat, I used the name Magneto.
Any other silly questions?
Probably because you’re not too clear on what the comparisons are to.
No, I believe I could avoid it by avoiding investigation and suspicion, destroying evidence, fleeing jurisdictions, and all the other things criminals do to attempt to avoid capture. I have no illusions that people in law enforcement, or jurries would be willing to listen to my arguments, and when someone isn’t listening, it’s impossible to convince them of anything.
The point is, I consider myself intelligent, and it is my belief that I could protect myself from law enforcement should that become necessary. That belief does not extend to my confidence in my ability to protect someone else, however, as I hold myself to a higher standard of certainty where others’ safety is concerned than I do where my safety is concerned. Because I don’t believe I could protect a hypothetical lover, I don’t risk it. Simple as that.
Believe what you’re going to believe. Nothing I can do to stop you.
Seems to me that the rape was far from the only thing wrong with that situation. If you’ve been so conditioned to never say “no” to an adult that you’re not even willing to express any form of displeasure with their behaviors, you’d been plenty screwed up before dealing with the child molester (learn the difference between child molesters and pedophiles).
And how are we to know that this isn’t the case with adults we have sex with? After all, that adult might secretly hate you for agreeing to have sex with him/her too. Since the person might be lying when they say they want to have sex with you, no one should ever have sex with anyone under any circumstances.
While my primary age of attraction is 0-10, I have a secondary attraction to adults in the “normal” range. Basically, it just means that I’m not interested in the ones going through puberty. I preffer before but am largely okay after.
I continue to marvel at how often people try to chip away at my reasons for not molesting children.
So explain to me why the exact same act when performed by another child is normal exploration is horrific exploitation when performed by an adult. I’ll wait.
So you see no difference between raping people and not raping people?
So you see the beauty, you just think that my particular angle on that beauty is disturbed.
Who said that?
Why in the world do you assume that just because I have a non-mainstream kink that I’m sex-obsessed and incapable of showing any interest in anything else?
You have a good reason? That’s great. I’ve been looking for a good reason for the taboo for some time now.
Considering you have only my word that this girl even exists, I should think you’d be more inclined to take me at my word regarding what’s gone on with her.
Ah, accusing me of being a rapist again based on absolutely nothing. Hard not to see it as bringing enlightenment to the misguided masses when the misguided masses keep getting basic facts of the situation completely wrong. Like, for example, the fact that kids aren’t allowed to post here in the first place.
No, that’s situational child molesters, not pedophiles.
Considering attempts at reorienting people have met with abysmal failure according to all the mainstream research done on the subject, and have resulted in, at best, failure…
And that’s putting asside the more significant question of why I should try to change. You’ve so far presented me with no good reason to make such a misguided attempt.
You don’t seem to understand that the majority of pedophiles don’t rape molest children.
Where have I said that? If it’s happened so many times, surely you can find an example.
Again with the gross overestimation of my endowment. Flattering, yes, but still strange to see.
It’s far from obvious, I’m afraid.
I still have no idea where you’re getting any of this. Are you just a misandrist?
What do teenagers have to do with this, exactly?
I’m still not seeing where you’re getting this “it’s all about me” stuff from my posts.
If that’s the only thing that’s “wrong” with someone, it’s circular to use that as evidence that they’re fucked up.
You are aware that the definition of “rape” is mutually exclusive with the definition of “consensual” and that the definition of “a relationship” is utterly irrelevant to either term, yes?
Very few pedophiles and every child molester, actually. And since there are far more pedophiles than child molesters…
Please, explain sex (and relationships) to the rest of the class. Share your incredible knowledge. Then explain why no human being under whatever magic-age-line-based-on-nothing you prefer would be utterly incapable of understanding what you just wrote.
Thank you for that.
Like I mentioned in the PM exchange we had, I’m not going to give up that resentment. Nothing has changed about that.
Also, I’m really not that into you in the first place. I mean you seem nice and all, but I barely know you, and I suspect that we probably aren’t compatible on a number of other dimensions.
I have no interest in attempting to reorient myself. Whether it could succeed or not, I’ve no interest in the attempt. While I accept that you genuinely believe this to be in my best interest, I do not intend to change who I am for the sake of a group of violent bigots.
This assumes I believe that parents to be the sole source of this psychological abuse, and that I assume that it would be absent entirely if she weren’t found out. I do not believe this to be the case, and a moment’s reflection should provide you with several good reasons why it isn’t the case.
I’m right here. It takes a while to slog through the stuff that’s been posted.
I wouldn’t trust Cesario around a four year old couch, never mind a 4 year old child.
I don’t see any reason why we have to tolerate this douchetruck here; and find myself agrreeing with eleanorrigby.
I don’t see anything wrong with a 30 year old person having a fantasy about a 21 year old. I think marijuana should be legal, and while i don’t always read the MMPs they can be amusing.
Hmmmmm…you know I just thought of something…With the rhetorical " screening tool" how will it differentate between what the child wants and what the adult wants? Child molesters/pedophiles are MANIPULATORS!!!
A kid will pretty much be pressured into doing something like that any and every time. Especially if they think that the adult is a friend. Sorry…but I’ve seen FAR too many bad outcomes from that sort of thing.
I know we’ve had some people on the board going " maybe it’s not the molestation that’s so bad, but the reaction to it"
Sorry…but if a kid doesn’t get treated they start REALLY acting out …like drugs and alkyhol and fucked up ideas about sex and relationships.
Picky, picky. :rolleyes:
Considering your performance here, I shudder to think what you consider “poor behavior” to be.
Wait, seriously? You don’t know whether you’re posting in your capacity as a moderator or not? “Perhaps you are?” Why don’t you figure it out, and then get back to us? As for Jodi’s comment that you quoted, to me it reads as strongly-worded, but not snide. It certainly didn’t include any personal potshots along the lines of your “I thought you were a lawyer” comment.
I thought you guys were always very clear about when you were posting as mods and when you weren’t. This “Perhaps I am, perhaps I’m not, why don’t you try getting in trouble and see if it works?” stuff is really, really not cool.
Unfortunately, refusing to identify whether an admonishment was made as a mod or a poster is not unique to tomndebb. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11619888&postcount=67
In response to Muffin’s whining about not being able to tell people to fuck off while permitting a poster to promote pederasty, I noted that if someone would provide evidence that he was promoting the action rather than just whining that he couldn’t engage in that behavior the staff position would change.
I mistakenly thought that, in conrtext, the distinction I made in that post distinguished between what was permitted and what was forbidden.
Rather than asking for a specific clarification regardinmg my use of “promoting,” Jodi snidely, (whatever you think), made the claim, counter to fact, that we chose to EXCUSE (her caps) his predilictions.
On the point of whether I am posting as a Mod, I explained my position and I made it clear that I was not going to take any retribution if she decided she needed to insult me and noted that that decision was up to Gfactor. I did not suggest that she post an insult and see what happened. She is quite capable of e-mailing Gfactor with her intended post and getting his decision before it hits the board. Posters in GD do that all the time.