I think it’s really wonderful when people think stupid shit like this is intimidating. :rolleyes:
Congrats. Enjoy your time Mr Kiddy Dibbler. It must make you feel really good to advocate child rapists.
If that’s what I was doing, I’d feel pretty bad. But since it isn’t, yes, I’m feeling pretty darn good, yes. 
Curse that adult respect for freedom of expression that compels us not to get all huffy when someone says something we don’t like! Curse it!
Anyway, if the SDMB administrators bounce Cesario, that’s their right, but in the meantime I’m unclear why his describing his personal tastes (so long as he doesn’t try to work them into random conversations) is something we need to be shielded from. Granted, there are going to be very few threads where such descriptions are not viewed as wildly inappropriate and I recognize that for many people here, it will never be appropriate under any conditions, but in the meantime, I don’t feel hurt or cheapened (or even particularly affected) by his mere presence.
Springboarding off this comment…imagine the irony if one of strongest defenders of the pervert’s right to advocate child rape was the one who got huffy when his ox was gored and started several multi-paged threads over the word “Hottentot” used in an historical context.
So it’s ok to not have freedom of expression if a word that offends you is used, but it’s a huge crime against that freedom of expression if someone says “Hey, letting a pervert brainstorm way to try to make it easier to commit toddler rape is a glorious expression of the free exchange of ideas.”
Bzzzzt. Fail:
A username is not a historical context.
It was one thread (that I started, anyway).
The Powers That Be agreed with me. So far, no joy for the Precrime Unit here.
Using racist language is an actual action, not a thoughtcrime. Call me when Cesario actually does something.
And I’m not here defending Cesario’s freedom of expression. I’m here because some people are shitty at debate and even worse at being human beings.
But nice attempt at the tu quoque fallacy, anyway. Even if you had the facts right, it still wouldn’t make it relevant.
Sez you, hypocrite.
The poster in question knew the historicity of the name and chose to use it to “take it back” so to speak. You got butthurt and threw a tantrum of epic proportions across like 8 threads and stalked her for months.
To quote someone from that thread though “I don’t think the user’s motives have anything to do with the offensiveness,”
No, sez Logic101. Tu quoque is a fallacy that merely shows the one using it to be an idiot when it comes to actually debating anything.
You can, of course, back this slew of lies up with cites, since you already bothered to search for the first occurence, yes?
This is true. What’s the relevance?
And BTW, as I explained to the then Venus Hottentot, she wasn’t in any position to “take back” a name that had no connection to her own heritage whatsoever.
No it’s not - not if you wish to have a rational position. An argument must be valid AND sound in order to be rational. Consider this:
All men can fly through walls
Socrates is a man
.: Socrates can fly through walls.
The syllogism above is valid, but not sound.
Of course not - but you should be aware that adults ARE authority figures to children.
Also, I don’t think my kid is in danger.
The onus is not on me, as I’ve explained. As to an argument - the argument that is on the table is yours, not mine. I haven’t really presented one, so your dismissal above is…well, odd to say the least.
We’ve established that your argument is valid, but the soundness is suspect. You seem to refuse to support your argument, which tells me that you can’t.
I’ve already presented things you cannot/have not adequately responded to - your chest beating here doesn’t help your case.
Are you suggesting that children fake birth certificates or that people get suckered into believing that a 10 year old is actually 18?
I’ll have to ask you to clarify the second half of your post here.
You don’t believe that there is such a thing as physical knowledge? When someone learns to ride a bike, what type of knowledge is that?
I’d call it physical. There is a difference between knowing the mechanics of an act and actually knowing the physicality of the act. This isn’t knew, by any means, btw.
When someone learns how to deal with heartbreak, what type of knowledge is that?
I’d call it emotional.
Yes, your proposal actually comes with an age line, even though you adamantly deny it. You’ve admitted it yourself - there are certain ages that cannot even take the tests.
As to good intentions - it’s to prevent harm. As to good results - children are not psychologically or physically abused (without punishment).
Really, the case is open and shut. You wish to challenge the case, but so far all you’ve presented is hypotheticals and nay saying. You have no test cases, you have no solid refutations of the current knowledge.
Yet you have the audacity to say that you’ve covered everything?
Then there is no reason for the test. So yes, it is a win-win.
You keep saying this, but you need to actually defend it. As to your point about slaves, unless you are admitting that they were not on par mentally with their slave holders then you have no case. Remember, you’ve admitted that children are not on par mentally with adults. In short, unless your argument is that adult blacks are the mental equivalent of children, your analogy fails.
Not in the way you are taking it, no, I’m not. I’m familiar with diminished capacity cases where the person is subject to juvenile detention or mental wards.
I think they should be held liable - sent to a mental ward - yes. They are not safe to be on the streets.
I’ll ask you again:
So you see no difference in a murder committed by a fully reasoned adult killing someone by hitting them in the head with a shovel and a murder committed by someone who was not mentally able to comprehend that hitting someone in the head with a shovel would end their life?
I think that’s for your own reasons and that’s why you use rhetoric such as ‘oppress’.
They are irrelevant to you because you don’t want to admit that they exist - yet it is clear that they do (which you also grudgingly admitted). Again, no 5 month old can give reasoned consent in any fashion. Ergo, the ‘heap’ or ‘age line’ exists. Your entire argument is flawed.
An appeal to ignorance is not convincing. Again, the burden of proof is with you, since you are attempting to change people’s minds.
Well that is convincing. Outside of your own emotional opinion, do you have anything to back that opinion up?
So the question of rights comes down to if someone ‘wants to’. I don’t think you can get very far with this, but since it appears to be the subject of another thread I’ll let it go.
Nonsense, age is tied in with physical/mental development. We age at specific rates, which is why no 5 month old attends Harvard, despite the education you try to give the 5 month old.
You do need to prove it if you want any one to actually take it seriously. As to putting words in your mouth - I was telling you want you should do in order to argue your case effectively, I was not putting words in your mouth and I don’t see how you can construe what I said as doing so - but since you seem to be unfamiliar with certain things (such as what constitutes an ad-hom), I’ll let this further transgression slide.
So an act that occurs from the physical act. How do you determine the harm done based on societies reaction (since it is ‘demonstrable’)?
What argument do you think I’m making, Cesario? This is bizarre, since all we have been discussing is your argument. You are deflecting here. Also, I’m not asking you to prove a negative, unless you are suggesting there are no studies. Do all the studies point to harm?
I’ll ask again:
*Also, can you point me towards any studies with ‘fully consensual sexual encounters’ where there was no harm? *
If there are no such studies either way, then from where can we get a basis for whether such encounters would do no harm or not?
Are you actually arguing that fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm because there are no studies to show that they don’t???
Remember, the onus is on you because you want to change people’s minds. The burden is on you to demonstrate your claim that these sorts of encounters do no harm.
Okay, then I won’t take your position seriously and nor will society.
Maybe according to you, however as have been demonstrated through this thread, damage does occur. You are the one suggesting that there is a qualitative difference between the scenario you are proposing and the ones that the studies have suggested.
Ergo, the onus is on you - again - to support this qualitative difference.
What argument am I presenting, Cesario? I am suggesting that society should stay as it is. You are suggesting it should change, ergo you need to support your case.
You cannot and therefore you depend on an appeal to ignorance, yet you claim it’s pathetic.
Here’s something you need to grasp, we are not merely arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin. We are not arguing about what clothes you should wear. We are discussing the behavior of society and you, in particular, have been advocating for it’s change.
Instead of advocating for it’s change, you chicken out and declare victory because you cannot reasonably argue for the abolition of age lines.
No, you clearly aren’t. If you were willing to provide evidence then you would have presented a 2 year old who was able to take your test. Shoot, you would have presented positive evidence that your test works, that there are “fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm” (your major contention), and so on.
You cannot because there aren’t any.
I’ve reduced you to ridicule and false victory.
Cesario, you are asking for an actual change, are you not? This isn’t just an intellectual exercise - my initial assumption about your reason for being here isn’t correct, is it?
Seriously, because if it is - that this was all just an elaborate game - then tell me.
Otherwise I’m not the one who needs to ‘win’ here. You do, and you need to win by more then just mere assertion. You need to actually be convincing, which you aren’t.
What studies are those? Are they in this thread?
If there is a reason to believe that this might be probable, yes, actually.
This is what your case boils down to, an appeal to ignorance. You are begging the question.
I think this may be because you are defining ‘harm’ out of existence and disqualifying what is presented as harm.
So you haven’t actually done in due diligence to prove your belief then?
Then prove that a 9 month old could give consent. Provide some positive evidence that a 1 year old is able to give consent by passing your test. You can start by giving a hypothetical if you like. Or are you just going to bluster about and declare victory?
You ‘realize’ this, do you? Interesting.
My point is that while you seem focused on the grain, any rational individual will recognize that there are heaps in which you are putting those grains - despite how much you wish to deny them.
You can attempt to say that people who hold to heaps are ‘incompetent’ and that there position shouldn’t be taken seriously (an ad-hom), but if you wish to be rational, you need to demonstrate that there are no heaps. You need to demonstrate that a 5 month old can ‘bust out of his heap’, for instance.
I’m sorry, but do you believe that a teenager constitutes someone under the age of 10?
I see the advantage to your test, I believe I’ve already said this - but I do not see an advantage to it for people under 10. I think there are ‘age lines’, as I’ve pointed out. I think that your test is fine and that it should be administered at a somewhat arbitrary point - say puberty. Yes, you might miss an amazing prodigy, but you will cover far more. My focus on your age of attraction is that it’s a convenient point to attack your argument from since it contains ‘age lines’ that could not give consent. I would think this was clear, but you seem to be misconstruing my position.
If no nine month old could pass the test, then what is the reason for administering the test?? What’s your support for arguing that they should take the test?
Why give them the test if no 5 month old could?
As to discounting the possibility entirely - with the knowledge we have of physiology and development, it’s currently impossible for such a developed child to exist.
I see no reason to administer the test wantonly - please provide a reason. As to this hypothetical person who passes it - I see no reason to believe that such a person could exist.
How will the test determine this for a 5 month old?
Also, again, I don’t see any reason to subject them to the test. Just because none will pass doesn’t mean they should take the test.
Okay, strip all context away from all situations, see if that helps your case.
Relevance? My point is that the changes foster an interest. Yes, other things can foster it as well. Lying adults do not change this.
I forget that not everyone is familiar with certain concepts in philosophy. When we talk about knowledge there are several things we can mean.
We can talk about factual knowledge - ie, Washington is the Capital of the US. We can talk about physical knowledge - what it is to know how to ride a bike. Physical knowledge involves more then factual knowledge because it includes things like qualia and muscle memory and such.
Yes, now please answer the question:
Would these classes be available for those children that wanted to learn the material, or would they be mandatory?
‘infancy’ is an age range. No need to try again.
I guess it’s not fairly standard as you previously said then.
Fair enough - I hope the idea of conceding when you rationally should (such as the age line points I’ve made) rubs off on you.
If no one under 5 months can pass the test, then isn’t that an age line? Shoot, can anyone under 5 months TAKE the test?
I can’t think of a reason why a 5 month old SHOULD take the test and you have consistently failed to give one!
If they are interested in sex, especially with adults, then why would there be a lack of exposure to STDs?
I think this could be a result of an equivocation (by me, unfortunately). You stated “there would be no juvinile punishment at all”, which I took to mean you were suggesting that the juvenile would simply be let go - but that’s not necessarily the case.
Your entire point is that you don’t need ‘age lines’, but the fact seems to be that they are there. The test you suggest is useful, but I do not think it does away with age lines that are present. Yes, there is some gray areas in terms of the heaps (the age range) - so one could argue that the boundary is fuzzy and exceptional individuals should be recognized - but the majority of the heap should be also recognized.
Fine, I don’t see why we need be shielded from Cesario or Dibble, nor do I feel obliged to take seriously what they individually find offensive or when others find them offensive.
Personally, I think “hottentot” is a nifty-sounding word, but the only place I’d ever seen it used was the occasional Bloom County cartoon, including one in which a shellshocked mailman who’d been overrun by a bunch of rabid fans of something likened the mob to a bunch of hottentots.
This all seems kind of hypothetical. What’s the point of speculating on a sex test for kids so young? No parent is going to allow their kid to have sex with an adult, much less take a test for that purpose.
Because it gives Cesario something to jerk off to besides the latest Target back-to-school flyer.
I see the vivid imaginations are still at work - did that posting give you wood, Jack?
Kudos to you, Meatros, BTW, for not losing your shit like some others.
I’m not the one advocating sex with children. That’s you and your little buddy Cesario.
I haven’t lost my shit at all. I’m thinking very clearly and rationally. And I feel no guilt at all hurling insults at wannabe child molesters. You can whip out all the debate techniques and bullshit rationalizations you please. I am confident that I am on the right moral side of this argument.
I point to Cesario’s contention that this is all about those rare children that *want *to have sex with adults. He, and you apparently, are fucking delusional. Those children don’t exist. Little Jenny playing jacks out on the sidewalk is most probably thinking, “I wish Hannah Montana was my BFF,” not “I wish the sweating, drooling stranger who stares at me all the time would teach me how to give a blow job.”
When you start with the premise that sex with children should be ok, you fucking lose. End of argument.
I’ll fling shit at Cesario as much as I please.
You know, he probably would “shut the fuck up and go away” if people would stop engaging him. Every one of his posts is a line-by-line response to other people’s posts (which is also very annoying, especially because it’s been pointed out to him several times how annoying it is but he continues doing it). I can’t be bothered to check, but I don’t think he’s contributed to the board in any other way; at least some of our other one-trick ponies have posted on other topics once in a while.
I did check some time ago, and, then, he had posted in twenty four threads, twenty two of which were about children and/or sex.
People here defending the scum (pedophile), would you let the scum babysit yout children?
ETA : I mean Cesario, not MrDribble.
I’ve never advocated sex with children, you idiot.
“Fapping very clearly” more like it.
Again with the vivid imagery. Getting you hot, is it?
Yeah, this is the “not losing my shit” I’ve heard so much about, is it?
…and there’s some more of it.