True to form if nothing else. Actually, I have to credit you’re the child of a hack academic, the traits of petty and misplaced snobbery show rather clearly.
Oh, the so special message board isn’t being run by… what, editors with a proper education in English? Message Board ‘professionals’ perhaps?
You’re pretty precious eh.
Foster and promote? Taking the little git at face value, he’s really been piss-poor at fostering and promoting. Provoking and leading some around by the nose, now that he’s been good at.
If this is the crux of your complaint, then there is a precedent for the contrary. Illegal behaviour is promoted on these boards. For example, desire to legalise marijuana. What I think you’re asking is for TPTB to draw an arbitrary line between illegal things you deem taboo. I doubt anybody is ever going to be happy with wherever the line lands, there’s always going to be a sizeable chunk who would oppose it.
This is funny! If you’re trying to get a rise out of me, you fail. Sadly, this place *is *being run by amateurs and shoe salesmen, but hopefully the new owners will see that and turn things around.
Though I must admit, you’re cute when you’re angry.
You’re right. The line is blurry and it always has been. But in this case I see no justifiable reason for allowing this discourse. As many others have pointed out, there is nothing of any value whatsoever that can possibly be gained from allowing this type of discussion to take place. **tomndebb **has argued that people are free to point and laugh; but what purpose does that serve? TPTB are allowing a pedo to freely argue the case that he should be allowed to molest children. Is there anyone who can give any credence to that argument in any way, shape or form??
No, not with those premises if they are possible - I just don’t think it’s realistic, which is why I don’t think it’s a reasonable position to hold, ultimately. I think the child would be damaged.
Impossible is probably too strong - however I base the idea on the fact that most children have not even gone through puberty at that point, are still gripped by the dogmatic worldview of authority figures, and all that.
I fail to see how they could not be relevant. Can you explain? I see them as relevant because most laws are meant to protect people. The pertinent laws in these sorts of cases are meant to protect children.
What exactly are you proposing?
Fair enough - however the parallels end with the idea behind the reasoning for guardianship; ie, the inability for children to be properly responsible for their actions - due to a wide array of reasons, one of which being the inadequate knowledge. That is one reason why children are not tried as adults (usually) in murder cases. They do not possess the mental facilities to fully understand their actions.
It would seem that a logical follow up to your position would be to charge children as adults in murder trials - is this something you are also in support of? BTW - the definition of ‘children’ right now depends on your response to the prior question (what are you proposing) and I will keep that in mind.
So you see children as mentally equal to adults? If not, then isn’t it necessary to treat them differently? Would you support them voting?
Again, these questions depend on the definition of children…
Well, before I would provide proof, I’d need to know the differentiation you are making, since harm does occur.
Unfortunately for a person of your unique position you should expect some disbelief. Is that right or fair? Perhaps not, but this is the real world.
Remember the burden of proof is on you here, since you are clearly the outlier and you want something about society changed.
It came to my mind. Also, please familiarize yourself with what constitutes an ad-hominim logical fallacy, since I most certainly did not commit one.
An ad-hom fallacy is where one person attacks the person in order to discredit the argument; ie, don’t believe Cesario because he has committed incest.
This is not what I did here, obviously, as I only asked what your views were.
And you think that all the damage they appeared to have was societal?
You are probably correct - what would you like (please don’t be graphic, I understand that you want a sexual relationship - that’s not what I’m asking about).
I’m still curious, have you ever seen the end results of the relationship that you hypothetically would like to have?
Because you seem to be attempting to get around a sorties paradox by saying there is no such thing as heaps. In short, while their are certainly elements of gray in regards to sexual development and knowledge, there do seem to be definite boundries. For example, I do not think you could convince anyone that a child between 0 and 4 has any awareness of sex, any knowledge about it, etc. I would argue that ages 5-10 would be only slightly more aware - but still well within the ‘heap’ of ignorance.
A title of a movie where a woman is basically raised outside of society and is ignorant of societal norms and what constitute adult behaviors. I’m not sure if she had sex in the movie or not, my point was to put forth the ‘adult’ who was not cognizant of sex and so on.
No.
Yes, I realize your attraction has nothing to do with their ability to give consent. I am asking you the specific question of whether you think that a child 0-10 can give consent or not. Do you think they can?
Do you think that any children in that age range can give consent, or do you think there are definite age limits - do you think that it is possible for a 5 month old to give consent?
Puberty is more then ‘breasts and pubic hair’ there are also hormones involved. In any event, I’m more referring to a lack of sexual education here.
You are making assumptions about what I ‘assume’.
So how would you go about educating these children. Would you have all children 0-10 educated in whatever manner you are thinking of?
So do you think 5 year olds should be able to vote? Drive cars? Drink?
Have you met any that can? How would a two year old be able to give consent?
I’m not clear on this since you want to end age lines. That seems to indicate that your age of attraction is relevant here.
Funny how a lot of us are managing just fine to have an interesting discussion with him, including the part where he said that he DOESN’T want to have sex with anyone who can’t consent (as defined by a psych exam, and not a legal bright line) and he’ll live with it if it turns out that there are no people he’s attracted to who can pass a test proving their ability to consent.
And he’s not arguing that “he should be allowed to molest children”, he’s arguing that the state should redefine the law to potentially allow younger people to prove they’re in possession of adult decision-making and reasoning skills. There’s nothing wrong with what he’s actually advocating in this regard, unless you believe that 100% of people are unable to make said decisions until 18 AND you believe that some portion of people could fraudulently pass the test anyway.
Having actually read his proposal, it’s probably a pipe dream for him as I doubt anyone under 14ish could pass it, and I probably couldn’t have passed it at 20.
Regardless, I don’t understand how you COULDN’T find it fascinating. It’s something like having a real-life Hannibal Lecter to talk to (obviously the crimes are not comparable)–this is a person who can have a discussion and follow a train of logic, etc, but their base desires, taboos, and thought processes are very different from what’s the norm.
You fucking idiot. I’m not the one looking to “get away” with anything; that’s you Chester. I said that if I had the chance to have sex with a person that I’m attracted to I would – as I know you would too, you pasty little shit.
I think it’s telling that you jump from “have a chance to have sex with” to “rape if you can get away with it.”
You need to take a big giant bath in a pool of go fuck yourself. Why don’t you do the board a favor … go turn on the Disney channel, rub one out, and let us normal people talk for a while.
Ah right, those ‘professional’ message board people eh?
Angry? Contemptous of you, but hardly angry. Really weak response mate. You’re the one with your knickers all in a bunch and playing playground insult games.
I’m not participating in your IMHO thread based on that fake police conservation, The Flying Dutchman, but you used my words out of context. A coworker is not the same thing as an anonymous person on the internet.
In any case I congratulate you on giving Cesario yet another opportunity to talk about himself.
I’m sorry. I had no intention to misrepresent your view. Your post got me thinking about all of us who have to endure a a particular co worker because his presence is sanctioned by the employer as similar to us posters who have to endure a particular co poster whose name I will not mention.
In the case of this thread, we can only appeal to the management of this board to do the right thing as we have no means to report the potential danger to the authorities of the co workers jurisdiction.
The question is really what makes something wrong, and what makes something wrong is if it hurts other people, especially those who are the most defenseless and vulnerable.
The hurt comes when mistaking a non-consensual relationship for a consensual one.
I mean, the hypothetical of a three-year-old being able to give informed, meaningful consent to sexual intercourse is so far into fantasy-land that we may as well start debating the merits of fucking super-intelligent space hamsters.
The danger occurs when the deluded project their own wants and desires onto a child, mistaking these for objective facts. Non-messed up people recognise children as children; paedophiles seem to mistake children for adult midgets, and I would not trust anyone with such a skewed perception to be able to judge true consent from the “other” in the relationship.
Scarification, bloodletting, and other painful rituals are common the world 'round, but I don’t hear a lot of outcry against, say, the Amazon’s Satere Mawé tribe forcing their young men to wear gloves filled with stinging ants – frankly, drinking semen doesn’t sound so bad by comparison! :eek:
That said, I fail to see how Cesario’s proposals create any cultural benefit; it’s clear that his sole motivation (aside from blatant trolling) is only so he can get his rocks off.
