Well, off the top of my head I can think of three problems with your analogy
You’re not reading the one where several people have engaged him respectfully and at length on whether or not pedophilia should be legalized? (As if, really, there’s any question as to that.)
No, my saying so doesn’t make it so. It is “made so” because it is a self-evident fact: When you allow or engage in respectful discussion of a topic, you indicate that the topic is worthy of respectful discussion. When you treat a subject legitimately, you legitimize it. This isn’t just my opinion, it’s basic logic and, for this limited point at least, the actual topic under discussion doesn’t matter. So “sez you” is not much of a rejoinder to that point.
And I, and many others, will be quite disappointed if it remains open due to “the likes of you.” Somehow I think we’ll both survive.
“Worthy” - it exists in the world and discussing it merely engages existence. I initially disagreed with Dibble’s post earlier about ‘everything’ being open to discussion, but now I think I do.
Shutting down the troll (or criminal, whichever) simply because so posters find his loathsome views … loathsome doesn’t do a damned thing. Other than achieving what you would achieve with the ignore function.
I fail to see, other than from the lashing out factor, how Tom’s position is remotely “cowardly” - perhaps it is wrong, but cowardly? The easy thing to do for him (easy being the only internet equivalence of cowardice) is to simply ban, rather than expose himself to the outrage.
Moral clarity…
Right now…it used to be.
Neither is having pictures of kids. If you mean kiddy porn, porn also used to be illegal…can you see where I’m going with this yet?
Not everyone does. I want to have sex with lots of women I see, both IRL and in media, but I’m not going to act on those urges because I’m aware of all the downsides.
Oh rubbish, your logic is nothing but emotion. Discussion of the subject - pedophilia exists, not going away by not talking about - does not in and of itself legitimise anything. I can talk about genocide, analyse dispassionately or otherwise. Maybe someone comes along and argues, “why those Hutu, they deserved it.” Demonstrating otherwise does nothing to “legitimise” genocide, quite the contrary.
Your logic is lacking at the very basics.
I’ve a question: He posted his criteria for what he feels should determine age of consent. (BTW has it been posted anywhere else and if so does that violate copyright?) Anyway, the question is this: He is allowed to post the finished criteria, but would be unable to post trying to figure out how to create the criteria? IOW posting finished product saying how he wishes current law could be circumvented, vs. debating how to circumvent the law.
Just say TPTB bans Cesario because some posters dislike what he’s talking about, what limits would be put on that? Every time some posters don’t like a topic, or some views that are expressed, would they be silenced too? Should there be a list of prohibited topics? What number of outraged posters would be needed to trigger a ban?
I can’t see how this would work.
Nope, I’m reading the one where most posters have called him names, asked for his and the topic’s banning, and threatened him with violence. Very few posters have been respectful - say 10 or so, AFAICT
I wasn’t remarking on whether discussing it respectfully made it respectful. The “says you” was to this:
If the topic isn’t closed, it seems there are already people on your side (MikeG, for instance) who won’t - at least, as Dopers. Door, ass, you know the drill…
Oh rubbish. It certainly does imply the subject is one upon which reasonable minds could differ, to which a possible counter-argument could be made, when you give a person a forum to make those assertions and then “debate” them with him. The very act of engaging him implies there are two sides to the argument, and there AREN’T. There’s only ONE: Extreme pedophilia is in all cases indefensible, full stop.
As I have already said, I don’t give a rat’s ass if the pedophile and others want to meet for drinks and lovingly discuss every nuance of his perversion. I fail to see why these Boards, dedicated to fighting ignorance and reasoned discussion, would think it right to provide the forum.
And I’m out of here, since at this point I must actually pause to have a life. This is just as well, since I believe the position I am arguing – which is hardly just my own, it is held by many – has been set out clearly and at this point I’m just repeating myself.
I’ll be interested to hear when (if ever) Muffin hears back from Ed and what the results of that conversation are.
It doesn’t contradict that assertion at all. But you can’t expect us to warn Cesario for posting to thread where people criticize him or ask him questions. If he starts interrupting other threads to blather on about pedophilia, he’ll get warned for it. But as it is, people keep asking him questions, and even if the topic is not directly related to pedophilia, someone else will bring it up. If people stop making excuses for him to talk about it so much, he won’t talk about it so much - and if he breaks the rules by hijacking threads it’ll be dealt with.
Pedophilia is legal. Molesting children is not.
There are not a lot of restrictions on what you can discuss on the SDMB if the discussion is in the abstract. We’ve discussed this at length and most of the staff is uncomfortable with the idea of saying “you can’t even discuss this, it’s immoral.”
I’d like to point out here that Cesario has 160 posts on the board, and there are more than three times that number in this thread.
“10 or so” being pretty much the definition of “several,” correct.
I do in fact know the drill, which is why, as I’ve said, I am very interested in how this turns out. This isn’t an instance of, as Groucho Marx said, not wanting to be part of a club that would have me for a member, but it is potentially an instance of having the club suddenly become one I would not want to be in. So yeah, I’m very interested in how this turns out. As for the implication of how much you’ll personally miss me: Right back atcha, Peaches.
I’m going to work.
Why yes. It appears you’re saying that laws change all the time. And that if we argued long enough, debated long enough, society became evolved enough, the laws could potentially be changed where fucking a three year old toddler was no longer illegal.
It won’t.
I’m not willing to make that blank assertion at this point. See for instance my question (so far unadressed) as to the harmfulness of virtual paedophilia. Also, what about the societally-entrenched paedophilia of certain tribesmen, where it could be argued that not engaging in the practice is harmful to the youth’s staus in that society. And so on…
Also this:
is just an outright fallacious argument.
I was referring to MikeG.
Now, I may believe it is defensible (despite not being absolutely certain how you’d personally define ‘extreme paedophilia’). Are you saying that any words I write in defence of it immediately do not exist and neither do my thoughts and persuasions, simply because you say so?
True. But I wouldn’t call a ratio of 10 respectful out of 110+ total posters “a respectful discussion”, would you?
OK, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt trollwise.
Can’t get it up with adults, Cesario? I guess the bonus is that a child won’t laugh at the size of your cock or sneer at your performance between the sheets. Sweeter yet, with such tiny orifices you might actually get to hear the words, “Oh you’re so big, Cesario!” (That’s if the kid is old enough to speak, but I guess you could also interpret gurgles as favorable comments.)
0-10, huh? Next time you get a woody when a baby is in the room have the grace to feel just a little ashamed of yourself, you miserable piece of shit.
No, I’m saying discarding the analogy because of current illegality is silly, because if you include the past, then the situations are analogous. Which was where I was going with it. I have no wish for 3 year olds to suddenly become legal, but then I don’t see Cesario’s checklist passing them, either. Maybe a particularly-precocious 10yo, though…
Cesario’s indicated he can get it up for adult women just fine.
Well, since you said basic logic:
No more so than genocide. I rather find that demolishing and mocking work quite well, and I haven’t the slightest lack of confidence in societies in general in terms of enabling or “justifying” paedophilia. You seem to fear otherwise, leading to a position (that the mere argument justifies) that is not in fact logical.
Of course perhaps you feel Genocide is sometimes justifiable, which would change the equation I suppose.
As in the case of genocide, there are two sides. One side is grotesque but pretending it’s not there does nothing really except play Monkey No See games.
Well, in fact, as with a Hutu genocidaire conversation, such a Board rather works well for showing the self-justifying idiocy for what it is.
argumentum ad populum, ergo…?
Yes many people are rightfully offended and dislike the mere mention of paedophilia.
Indeed in profound emotional manner.
Wait…are you going to say that kiddy porn will eventually become legal, or should? Or what?