True. But, equally, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are a shoe salesman. I know you know that, and that you were using it to make a point. The fact that you made it up weakens your point: to me it comes across as snark.
Fair enough. But a middle-aged man working in retail does not really shout success to me, snark or not.
I appreciate that we going way off topic, but, for example, I have a friend, who, quite often to people he doesn’t know very well will say he works in retail. He is actually the manager of a large supermarket branch. His wage is not inconsiderable and he has about eighty staff under him. I know he is very proud of his job, and I admire his achievement.
I think that retail is one of those jobs that is not valued enough by many people.
Well, I guess we’re just speculating here. Perhaps **tomndebb **will come back and tell us what he does for a living these days.
Frankly I doubt it. He has so much free time to mod these boards that I wouldn’t be surprised if he was unemployed and on some sort of “disability”.
So what say you tomndebb?
Would you think less of him if he was? Having plenty of time to mod is a definite advantage, I would say.
You know, I must say your last few posts have finally made me agree with the Management decision to remove moderation etc discussion from the Pit.
Indulging in overheated rhetoric about our probable troll is one thing. Nastily attacking Tom with really childish and fundamentally jerkish insituations that he’s a failure or whatever, for simple reason he’s not indulging the “Off With the Head” crowd has made me see the light on at least one item.
Bloody hell what a precious lot you are. Tom may well be wrong, hardly a rational reason to engage in petty personal attacks on the man. And over a bloody fucking troll. Jaysus.
Who the fuck cares? God leander, this is weak, even for you. (Not to be taken as approval for Tom’s dickishness in this whole thread…just that his occupation/mode of income is entirely irrelevant to how big of a dick he might be.)
I haven’t really read any of the other threads you’ve been in. I don’t get around to the SD all that much and the reason this thread interested me was because Dio made it and he’s generally a poster (albeit usually on another board) that I respect his opinion.
As to your question - I just did some research; I’m not familiar with either the Shakespeare play or the Kiddy Grade show.
Here’s the problem with your position - which I assume is the following (if it’s not, then it’s not a problem):
- You desire these sorts of sexual relationships (0-10).
- You think they should be legal with the provision that the 0-10 year old:
A. Is not harmed either physically or mentally
B. Knowingly gives their consent (by knowingly I mean, understands it).
Thus enter the hypothetical child.
Now, the problem that I see is that it’s really not possible for such a child to exist. I think you would go so far as to say this probable (but not impossible) - am I right?
If I am right, then I don’t see any reason why the laws should be changed since it’s highly improbable (I would say impossible) for such a hypothetical child to exist.
No, you are correct, they are not relevant. I will check out your links when I get home and am able to.
Okay, go on…
By undermine, you mean effect people’s opinions - correct? If so, do you think you’ve been successful at all?
To take this further, you think that the harm is primarily due to the laws and attitudes the culture has towards these actions. Do you deny any actual harm to the child outside of the stigma of society?
Your charming words are certainly not motivating me.
What are your views on incest?
Have you ever had interactions with children who have been abused, sexually or physically? That is, have you ever seen the end results of the relationship that you hypothetically would like to have?
Actually I think it does since in one situation one of the partners actually has an awareness of what will take place, whereas in the other situation the partner does not.
Now you could hypothetically posit the ‘Nell’ adult, but that’s not going to help your case, since the entire point is about knowledge and the ability to make an informed decision about sexual relationships.
How would you assess this knowledge?
So none of the children in your age range can give consent, this is what you are saying, correct?
This is problematic since, presumably, children under 10 would necessarily lack the physical knowledge since they have not gone through puberty. Also, how would they acquire such knowledge? I mean, in order to fully understand you would have to educate them - but then wouldn’t you run the risk of ‘grooming’ them to be partners?
In short, it seems like a vicious circle.
Another thing that has come to mind, you have been accused of trolling and of having a persona (by myself and others) and you are attempting to clear this up (ie, you’ve provided links for me to assess your claims) - but, and try to be as clear as possible, what do you believe the end results will be to your avocation of your hypothetical behavior? You have said that you wish to change the laws and society, but I’m not entirely clear why since it seems that even according to you, 0-10 year olds can’t give consent. So why should the laws/society change to be more accommodating?
The more I read what Cesario’s saying, the more I think we’d all be better off if the interesting parts of what he has to say (People currently considered “children” may actually be better able to make “adult” decisions than we think they are, here’s a proposed test for one such thing, what do you think?) were disjoint from his admitting that he’s a pedophile who is mostly attracted to pre-pubescents. Arguing for youth emancipation is a lot less “squicky” when we don’t have to question the motives of the people doing it.
Frankly, I see a lot of knee-jerking and hysteria, and I don’t think it’s warranted when the guy in question has A) stated he’s not planning on acting on his attractions unless they’re found to be legal (regardless of his amazingly idiotic statements of how he’d never get caught) and B) is willing to live with it if a discussion of possible tests for determining adult-level competency in youth shows that in the absence of a bright-line age law, youth in “his age range” are STILL not capable of giving meaningful consent.
This to me tells me that if we take him at face value, he’s attempting to cope with his disorder without completely subsuming it. Fair enough, says I.
This doesn’t address the fact he was putting it out there in a lot of unrelated or semi-related threads, but at least some of that is the fault of posters baiting him by mentioning him now that he’s our celebrity of the whatever. I think an Evil Captor/Handy approach is the right one–officially encourage him to post about other topics, because while censorship of ideas is a iffy area, warning someone for being a one-trick poster who’s getting on many people’s nerves is not.
Frankly, I don’t believe for a second someone who says he wants to have sex with children, but, golly-gee, would never actually do it. Call it knee-jerk if you like. I prefer to call it bullshit rationalization and petulant ass-covering.
I’d bet **Cesario **is up to his tiny dick in kiddy-porn and candid pics of girls in his neighborhood he’s keen on grooming.
It’s beyond ridiculous at this point. It’s particularly stupid because he is obviously relishing the attention, and yet people keep giving it to him even though they can’t be sure he’s telling the truth about himself in the first place. I thought this board was more skeptical than that.
People keep complaining that Cesario is a one-trick pony, which is mostly true, but they won’t stop talking about his favorite topic, which gives him a legitimate reason to post about it ad nauseam. If he started talking about his predilections in unrelated or barely-related subjects, he’d be told to tone it down or stop it, like Evil Captor was. But it sounds like people expect us to warn Cesario for talking about pedophilia in threads that are bashing him, or in other topics related to pedophilia that were started in response to his posts on the board. (I think the posts in the poll were out of line, but he’s generally stayed within the rules.) Even a one-trick pony usually wouldn’t get a warning for answering direct questions. Cesario would not be that hard to ignore.
So? It seems to me that forcibly and vigroously ejecting blatant evil is an appropriate and reasonable thing to do - No need for us to wait for natural selection; a little pruning seems in order.
All points of view are NOT equal. There are subjects which are, or should be, taboo, for reasons legal or social (and properly so). To name a few:
Advocating treason.
Advocating genocide.
Advocating child molestation.
The evidence thus far strongly indicates that you are incorrect.
I am asking that the topic not be brought up because allowing it to be respectfully discussed implicitly states that it is worthy of respectful discussion – as I’ve only said about a billion times. I think I’ve been pretty clear as to my rationales – I even linked to them above – and they don’t boil down to “It makes me uncomfortable and I don’t like it.” You may wish that were all there was to it, but in fact it’s not.
How’s it any different from wanting to have sex with women who are not my wife, and not actually doing it? It’s not like it’s his only possible interpersonal sexual outlet.
Not that that’s what Cesario is doing.
“Discussing it” and “discussing it respectfully” are two different things. I’ve seen precious little of the latter here. And this is the Pit, it’s OK to be disrespectful to Cesario here. Isn’t that enough for you?
Then you have a reading problem, because I’ve set forth my points repeatedly and at some length – twice in a numbered list – and you have never bothered to respond to any of them. If in fact you “genuinely don’t see my point” – not just mine, but many others’ as well, and not agree with it, don’t even SEE it – then I frankly cannot help you.
As I said, it’s either cowardice or a complete lack of moral clarity on what is, at the end of the day, a very easy and obvious decision for the vast majority of people possessing even a modicum of common sense. If you want me to assume the latter I can sure do so.
Then we’re reading different threads. And even allowing the discussion legitimizes it as a topic fit for discussion by reasonable people, when it just isn’t.
No, it absolutely is not.
QFT.
Which of course contradicts the assertion that,gee, the problem would be solved if only people ignored him. People don’t ignore him. And if between themselves they want to have a nice stimulating discussion about the merits of pedophilia legalization, that’s their perogative – but I’ll be damned if I can understand why on earth this Board would provide them with the forum to do so.
This evades the main issue, which is whether advocating extreme pedophilia should be allowed on the Board in the first place. Your response of “Well, he only talks about pedophilia in the right threads,” completing ignores the question of whether there should be ANY threads where that sort of respectful and legitimizing discussion is allowed.
So you’re not reading the one where Cesario has been called a molester even though he says he’s done no such thing?
Your saying so doesn’t make it so. I’m a reasonable person, and I have no problem discussing it. As I indicated upthread, it’s a topic close to my heart, in fact. I’ll be quite dissapointed if discussion gets shut down by the likes of you.
Figures.