If his date doesn’t like anything that’s on the kid’s menu, can he share his dinner without having to pay extra? Or order something that’s not on the menu at all?
Horse-fucking-shit. (or, since you’re doing the “Am I posting as a mod? Or am I a poster? YOU get to guess!” game you’re famous for, if the above was posted as a mod, change my response to “I respectfully disagree and think your memory might be faulty on this issue sir.”).
The principle has always been “If it’s illegal in Chicago, you don’t post about it.”
If it’s not, I’ll take your post above as permission to start a “What was your favorite drug experience?” thread. And a “If you took illegal drugs, what kind (hypothetically) would you enjoy most?” one. Oh! And a “Marijuana is illegal, but hypothetically, how do you grow it hydroponically?” question. None of those “promote the breaking of laws or directly cause harm to another.”
OOh! And all the absinthe threads! Remember a few years back when there were about a half-dozen threads that were closed about absinthe 'cause it was illegal in Chicago? Let’s start those up again under your new ruling.
Oh! And the guy who wanted to know if it was possible to set cops on fire by pointing mirrors at them? Since it’s not possible, he shouldn’t really have been warned, should he? He was just asking a hypothetical.
And hey! File sharing…let’s open a bunch of “What’s the most efficient file-sharing protcol?” or “What do I need to do to start getting files with bittorrent?” type threads. No file-sharing protocol is illegal. It’s only what’s done with it. It’s hardly advocacy to talk about the nuts-and-bolts of file-sharing. It certainly doesn’t “promote the breaking of laws or directly cause harm to another.”
But wait. All of these types of threads have been opened and they were promptly shut. So either you’ve created a brand new rule, or all the other mods have been wrong all this time.
I’m kind of nauseated that threads about this continue. Child-rape is illegal in Chicago-the pervert should have been warned and/or banned if he continues. Why is this an issue for Ed? Why are mods having such trouble with it? You wouldn’t if he was popping into threads saying “Hey! You could get that book/music/file through file sharing. It would be a lot quicker than buying it, but of course it’s illegal and I think the law should be changed!” he’d have been warned/banned so fast our heads would spin. But let him post about wanting to change the law so he can fuck a “hot” 3 year old and it’s a complicated moral dilemma? :smack:
I am fairly convinced Cesario is a troll. For your sanity please consider it a possibility.
Exactly. Makes me want to go start a thread about bomb-making, another subject that is not directly illegal, doesn’t advocate the breaking of any laws, and doesn’t directly harm anyone. Why on earth TPTB have their collective head up their collective ass on this topic, is beyond me. I can only hope that some of our otherwise inscrutable mods are trying to do the right thing but are being stymied in that attempt. But hell, what do I know – it’s equally possible no one is discussing it at all, having decided, as tom has, that inertia is the better part of valor.
For whatever reason, I think it’s safe to assume based on what TPTB have done thus far – exactly nothing – that they intend to do exactly nothing. I find that deeply disappointing, but it’s not my Board and therefore not my call.
Still waiting on a reply from Ed.
While flying?
On the other hand, you could probably steal a few kisses in the ball-pit.
adds Fenris to her heroes list
Good luck with that.
Ghost ship!
So I indeed got that right.
No one is arguing that you don’t desire it (well, actually I am, as I don’t quite buy your act - but that’s not relevant to your response here).
Your desire of something doesn’t justify that something. In short, desire doesn’t change into defensibility.
It’s unclear whether or not this will suffice, since you say ‘lately’ (and I haven’t checked out the board). I’m specifically looking for evidence of past defenses of your desires; not weeks ago, but months ago. I’m also not looking to get to know a whole bunch of people just to ascertain whether or not you are being upfront with us here.
Do you have any direct links? As to ‘silly questions’, I’m merely trying to establish that you are legit.
Do tell then.
Fair enough.
And this is why you’ve never presumably acted upon your desires - because the child who would not be damaged by them doesn’t exist.
Correct?
If this is correct, then why attempt to change people’s minds, the laws, etc?
Convincing evidence would stop me.
You were not responding to me here, but it has provoked a question: What exactly is your familiarity with children? That is, have you ever raised one? Or is your knowledge of children ‘from afar’, so-to-speak?
To be clear, I’m not asking about ‘sexual relationships’ or anything of that nature.
Again, this is not directed to me, but it provokes a question: Do you think that adults and children under 10 are mentally equivalent? If not, then how is your rebuttal relevant?
Since you have stated that you care about your hypothetical lover’s well being more then your own I am curious how - in a hypothetical world - you would actually determine whether or not you would do damage to a child. Do you believe their word is sufficient?
Further, to clear things up: You say that your age range is from 0-10. Does this mean that you believe a 0-10 year old can give consent? If not, how do you determine consent?
I think that this is a persona of Cesario, so I agree with you.
Kind of makes me want to start a poll in IMHO “Could you be a better advocate for youth emancipation, including sexual emancipation, than Cesario?” The reality is that if given youth emancipation as a debate topic, there are any number of people on the boards who would do a great job advocating for it. And as a plus side you would know they were acting in good faith, not just wanting to get laws changed so they could satisfy their desires without legal ramifications.
Hundreds of thousands of people are capable of putting themselves in someone else’s shoes and working to enact laws which are more fair than the ones some minority is currently wearing. Women’s suffrage was granted by non-women. Jim Crow was overturned by both blacks and non-blacks. Virtually every major civil rights victory has come because the majority, without ulterior motives, was able to empathize with the person oppressed and re-work the system to be more equitable. We don’t need someone who wants to have sex with children to advocate for more fair treatment under blanket laws like the Age of Consent.
Mr2001 was a proponent of youth rights. I’m generally a proponent of youth rights, although my support comes from my general philosophy that one size never fits all, as opposed to any particular affinity with youth issues. I’ve seen youth emancipation threads on this boards for years, and there is widespread support for the proposition that age of consent laws are unfair. Neither of these topics requires the presence of either a pedophile or a troll to happen, and both are better for their lack.
Enjoy,
Steven
Just as long as you understand the usual meaning of the word ‘troll’ in the context of a message board…
“Person pretending to be someone he isn’t for the purpose of getting attention/notoriety on a message board”
Yes - I’m only 1/2 way convinced his intention is to get attention/notoriety. Hm…Maybe I should say that I’m not convinced that’s his sole objective (I’m not saying you are saying that either, btw).
There have been plenty of threads about drug laws - in fact I think the board is almost unanimously against them, at least when it comes to marijuana and similar drugs. There have also been threads about posters’ drug use, and threads where drug use came up in the course of a conversation. It’s not against the rules to talk about those things. Advice on how to break the law (like ‘how do you grow marijuana?’) would get shut down. And people have discussed the workings of file sharing without being banned either. A discussion of where to go to download something illegally would get shut down.
Cesario hasn’t asked for advice on how to molest a child or promoted molesting children. He has said it should be legal for him to molest children. It’s repugnant, but different from your examples.
This is clearly a false statement.
There have been dozens of threads regarding legalizing drugs, legalizing Same Sex or polygamous marriage, changing the laws regarding voter eligibility, and any number of other actions currently not legal in Chicago. There have been proposals for summary executions, deportations of the “wrong sort” of people, invasions of other countries, and all sorts of illegal actions.
As to your drug experience threads, my memory is that we have already had them and they were not closed as long as no one suggested ways to score drugs illegally.
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to drag up a link, we can see whether they were closed for simply discussing something or for encouraging the breaking of the law.
If you are correct and nothing has changed in the intervening period, I suppose that it might cast a different light on the current discussion.
Beyond that, all I see are posters who want to expel a poster for discussing things they find icky, even though that poster has failed to persuade anyone to agree with him with his misstated facts, poor logic, and snotty attitude–often posters who would scream bloody murder if anyone wanted to shut down some favored topic of theirs if someone else was offended.
If you want to silence cesario, persuade everyone to ignore him.
Banned, no. Had the thread closed and/or yelled at? Yes. Ditto with “What is your favorite drug?” type threads.
I’ll concede the other distinctions you’re making, grudgingly, but the difference between Caseario saying “I want to fuck a 3 year old, hypothetically” and “I want it legal for me to fuck a 3 year old” is so damned small as to be non-existent to me.
In any case, your post still fits with the old “Is it legal in Chicago?” rule and not Tom’s “any topic was permitted for discussion as long as it did not directly promote the breaking of laws or directly cause harm to another.”
Asking if “Are hydroponic gardens with gro-lites the best way to (hypothetically) grow pot?” neither “directly promotes” lawbreaking and certainly causes no harm.
Keep in mind, I prefer Tom’s rules–a lot more topics are available for discussion with them in place. No snark: I think they should be adopted and if someone makes an ATMB thread about adopting them, I’ll be happy to cast my vote to “yes”. They’re also a hell of a lot clearer than what’s in place. It’s just that those aren’t rules I’ve ever seen before.
I think even in the old days, though, someone wouldn’t get in trouble on the board for saying, “I want it legal for me to smoke pot”, though. Obviously, having sex with a 3 year old is morally worse than smoking pot, but we’ve always had people arguing that laws be changed. There seems to be a big difference between saying “I want it to be legal to have sex with 3 year olds” and “Help me get a job at the preschool so I can have sex with 3 year olds.”
“Discussing things they find icky”? How easily you dismiss what are obviously to some of us serious concerns. It’s not like I’ve ever – and I mean EVER – taken issue with your moderation before. But let’s just address your blythe dismissal: It begs the obvious question of whether there anyone, really, who is not a sick twisted pervert, who finds the subject NOT icky? I have already set forth my rationale for dis-allowing the discussion, none of which boil does not “Just because I personally find the subject ‘icky’.” Those reasons are:
(1) To 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. A very very few subjects are simply beyond the pale, or ought to be – and fucking children is among them.
(2) To 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. Even talking about the subject, even giving this person any respectful attention about it, tends to legitimize it. The very act of discussing it respectfully conveys that it is worthy of respectful discussion. It is NOT.
(3) Not incidentally, to 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. That one speaks for itself, doesn’t it? Well, it does to most people but probably not to you, since you will happily sit on your hands through page after page of pedophila discussion, implicitly approving it all as a subject fit for discussion, while simultaneously suggesting I might want to pass my posts past Gfactor for appropriateness – and seeing no irony there at all.
But what if instead of silencing this one particular poster, we actually are seeking to have the subject ended because it is beneath civilized discussion on a Board dedicated to reasoned discourse and fighting ignorance?
You only advocate for “persuading everyone to ignore him” because it allows you to continue to abdicate even a minimal level of judgment on an issue of basic human decency – allows you, IOW, to do exactly nothing.
I find fart jokes and threads about bowel movements “icky.” This thread I find dangerous, disgusting, and obscene, and your continued ratification of it as a topic is a disgrace both to you personally and to the Board.
The file sharing one probably comes with the overzeal for copyright infringement, rather than from the general no-illegal stuff policy.
Incidentally, I haven’t heard from Caesario since we started this thread. Maybe we don’t have to do anything?
No, there are not. There is no such thing as a “factually willing child” because children must trust the adults in their world due to the child’s lack of perspective and ability to make choices regarding their sexuality. Sentences are “overly harsh” for child molesters? Truly? Will wonders never cease.
It’s late (for me) and I’m tired, but I think this says that you’re against legalizing the sexual abuse of children. You get a gold star. :rolleyes:
I honestly don’t see the difference between this thread and one that advocates rape or extortion or arson. Oh, all hypothetical, my little Dopers, but let us all mire ourselves in the sewer of humankind. No doubt we shall all become enlightened and better human beings for it. For this we have a nonsensical interpretation of the rules by the mods. Thank you all.
Let me be clear: I am not asking for Cesario to be banned. I am asking for him to be warned and told to STFU about his “needs”. He is welcome to relay the experience to us when he actually does indeed cross that line, so that we may report him to the authorities and get his ass in prison where it belongs.