What legal genius. William Jennings Bryant must be eating his heart out.
The point is, the first phrase states what he wants. And so does the second. He wants to fuck toddlers - end of statement; it’s just that pesky law that’s in the way.
Woah. I completely missed him posting that. Sorry, miamouse. That is definitely on the creepy side and kind of crossing the line a bit regarding the whole not allowed to advocate breaking the law issue, in my humble opinion. Thank you for digging that up, Marley23.
But saying there is ‘no difference’ is clearly wrong. It’s just because the subject matter is so emotionally charged that you can’t see that. It’s exactly the same concept as if being gay was illegal. You want to fuck guys either way, but there’s a difference if it’s illegal or not.
I’m not making a moral equivalence there by the way. Law is not our guide for morality. The age of consent being lower in Victoria, Australia than it is in the US has no bearing on whether those pesky Aussies are more or less morally astute than Americans. In fact, in Victoria it is a defence in a court of law if the younger person is 10 years old and the older 12 years old. Is that morally wrong or morally right? That’s up for debate, but it has little bearing on it being legal or not.
Here’s the thing.
“I want to fuck gay guys,”
“I want to change the law so I can fuck gay guys.”
Both the same thinking. Both the same end result. The question is NOT a question of legality here, the question is whether you consider gay sex to be right or wrong.
“I want to fuck a three year old.”
“I want to change the law and then fuck a three year old.”
This is not a difficult concept to wrap your head around. Again, this has nothing to do with the law. This has to do with whether you consider child fucking to be acceptable or not.
And if you do not, it makes no god damned difference whether there’s a law in place or not. It’s still wrong and the person who fucks the child is still wrong.
I mean, what the hell? If tonight the laws against child molestation were wiped off the books and tomorrow someone came up to you asking where the nearest Babies R’ Us is because he has some anal lube and is looking for action you’d give him directions because the only consideration to you is whether there’s a law behind it?
How much longer do we possibly need to debate this?
Me thinks you doth protesth too much?
No. I was referring to his speaking for victims of sexual abuse. He seemed to know exactly how they were feeling, and he didn’t seem to offer up any studies or proof of this. I simply asked, “are you speaking from experience?”
Look, I’m not necessarily calling for Cesario’s banning – so far he’s following the rulings. He’s a creep, yes, but sadly, being a creep isn’t against the rules. I do say, he should be asked to branch out and quit with the obsession with “youth rights”, and barging into topics with his ass on fire, “It doesn’t matter that she was thirteen when he raped her – rape should be the only charge!”
Basically, no “threadshitting.”
You’re the one who brought up “bravery”, kiddo. Kind of like how Mark Antony came “to bury Caesar not to praise him”. 
I do find it amusing that you won’t address the rules that you choose to ignore. Very brave!
See, here’s the thing. You’re not Bill Clinton. This board is not run by popular opinion. If you can’t see that, you shouldn’t be a mod.
Marley found the post I was talking about. (But as I was writing this I notice you answered, nevermind)
These others are the rest of what I was posting about:
I still call bullshit. Just like I don’t believe that he has any attraction to adults, I don’t believe that he hasn’t acted on his impulses. Have you asked yourself why he’s so confident he won’t be caught? My fear is that he’s already gotten away with it.
mswas, it’s been about 5 days since you contacted Ed Zotti, any response?
Sure it is. Popular opinion lets TPTB know if there’s a potential problem; TPTB then use their own popular opinion to determine if there is a problem and what to do about it. Popular opinion has also occasionally resulted in a decision being reversed or at least toned down.
I apologize for all the hurt that everyone has experienced as a result of enthusiastically encouraging sexual contact with an adult when they were a child. I must have missed all of those posts.
It would still be child molestation whether it was legal or not. Children would still be traumatized by unwanted sexual contact from adults, and they would require the same therapy to undue the psychological damage – the only change would that it would become impossible to exact any restitution since their abusers are no longer breaking the law.
I wonder how long Cesario’s argument would stand – how he doesn’t fuck kids because it would traumatize them, not because he fears any legal repercussions – if it suddenly became legal for him to fuck children? Would he remain celibate, steadfast in his claim that society is “holding a gun to his lover’s head,” due to the way psychiatry treats victims of sexual abuse? No, I think you’d find a sudden change in Cesario’s behavior, where he’s no longer concerned with society’s disdain for sex with children, and instead would be writing in his blog where he brags about his recent sexual conquests. Think about it – the guy has no moral integrity whatsoever. :mad:
Oh, he’s already gotten away with a lot, that’s for sure.
He hasn’t shown himself to be lacking in the confidence department. He could also be confident he won’t be caught because he’s never tried to evade capture. (Everything’s easier in your mind, until real life intrudes and things start going randomly wrong.)
If that’s the case then someone who’s a mandatory reporter should say something.
From here:
You can’t possibly mean someone here on this board should do so, do you? Or does **fuzzypickles **have any solid evidence to back up his assertion that **Cesario **has “gotten away with a lot, that’s for sure”?
I mean to say that if someone has “reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect” they should call. If he’s telling the truth then he should not be worried at all then should he?
ETA: That’s my opinion. If he has a right to say the things he has because that’s his opinion, then I have the right to mine.
And that’s a good thing? (Not that it would ever happen.)
At the same time, in theory, let’s say in society, you now have to take a test every time you meet a new lover – how arrousing is that?
If you can find the ten year old that can pass it, they’re probably more ready for sex than I was when I lost my virginity at 20. Really, that’s the thing–his standard for “able to consent” isn’t bad, which is why I asked him what he’d do if it proved no one he was primarily attracted to would ever be able to consent.
You were never a male trying to date/have sex on a college campus in the last ten years, I take it–you practically had to carry around legal consent forms and documents to avoid false rape charges. (I exaggerate, but not by much, considering I was the victim of one such charge–in that it was yes yes yes and when she said no I stopped.)
No, but someone reporting suspected abuse or neglect based on internet postings that don’t even contain a vague admission of guilt made by an anonymous poster should be prepared to not be taken very seriously by the person receiving their calls.
Yes, you do, as do I.
Well then , answer me this. Why is he posting his ugly desires on this message board?
No insult was intended. Just a comeback on Jodi’s behalf.
Not that she needs any help. Her arguments are very persuasive for me. Unlike yours.
That is an intended insult.
Am I being silly for the umpteenth time ?
I’ve been trying to imagine that conversation all thread, since a couple of people have said the mods should contact the authorities. It’d probably go like this:
“Police department of [town Cesario is in].”
“Hi there, I’d like to report a pedophile I found on the internet.”
“Do you have reason to believe this person plans to abuse a child?”
“No. Mostly he’s saying he should be allowed to have sex with children if they consented.”
“Has he confessed to a crime?”
“He says he wouldn’t break the law.”
“Do you believe he’s harmed a child in the past?”
“He says he hasn’t. I don’t know.”
“Do you have reason to believe this person is in possession of child pornography?”
“No.”
“Has he been grooming a child or discussed doing so?”
“No. He says he’s into kids younger than 10, and there aren’t any on the site.”
“Is this person a registered sex offender?”
“Not as far as I know.”
“So what would you like us to do?”
“I felt like I should say something, in case it helps.”
“Thank you.”
No?
So why bother calling?
Consent doers not wipe out abuse.
Have you heard about the recidivism rate for child abusers ? Does that have no bearing on the likelyhood of a pedophile to offend ?
We know how well abstinence only programs work.