Yes, I would, assuming everything he’s posted so far is true.
You’re missing the pervert’s point:
He can groom kids and teach them to memorize the correct answers since he doesn’t require any parental consent at all. Look at the rules.
He also loopholes in children who are currently being raped as exempt from having to take the test.
He also loopholes the idea that it’s ok for people who fail the test to rape children who haven’t taken the test.
Fenris, Jack Batty, Mr Happy, leander:
If you had the opportunity, would you kill Cesario?
Fenris, Jack Batty, Mr Happy, leander:
If you had the opportunity, would you kill Cesario?
I dunno; as SDMB hypotheticals go, it’s not even the most ridiculous one this week. Any social worker can tell horror stories of parents pimping out their own children, to whom this “test” would represent a mere formality. PETA’s views eventually taking hold and leading to the end of abortion (as is currently being seriously proposed in GD) is way goofier.
Here’s the problem I see:
Cesario’s argument, while problematic, also makes some sense. It seems to make sense for those who wish to engage in sexual acts to be aware of what that entails - a test could be used to determine this. The problem - as I see it - is that he wishes to extend this “right” to people of all ages, as though people of all ages are equal (or even could be). I do not feel this should be the case, since children do not have the same mental facilities as adults, they are not fully developed, etc.
To compound this, Cesario has a person investment in this argument; ie, he could theoretically get what he wants if enough people find his argument compelling. He could have sex with a hypothetical child. This is an utterly revolting idea for many reasons that I won’t get into here.
Now, Cesario’s desires have nothing to do with the soundness of his argument. You can want pigs to fly until the cows come home, but your wishes do not bend reality to make it so.
To step further back, the question seems to revolve around the idea that adults have different privileges/rights then children and should this be the case? Cesario would, undoubtedly, argue that, no, children and adults should not have different privileges/rights due to the mere fact of their age.
I don’t think anyone would object to this position on the face of it - a person’s age is merely a number - what people object to (and rightly so) is that children of particular ages have varying mental abilities. That age connotates a specific level of development. The reason why we don’t treat a 5 year old child the same as we treat an adult is not because the child is 5 - it is because at the age of 5 the child has not developed the cognitive skills an adult is expected to have. They are not aware of responsibility, of needs, of a whole host of different things.
Are there outliers; are there children who are more mature then what their age would connotate? Yes, within certain boundaries. For instance, some 16 year olds are perfectly mature enough to live on their own, to be held responsible for their actions, etc, etc. I would argue that no 5 year olds are in the 16 year old’s position though. With what we know of biology, it’s simply not possible (logical possibility aside) for a 5 year old to be the mental equivalent of a fully functional and reasoning adult. So it does make sense to have some age lines recognized, since they are there to begin with.
Well, there are horrible parents, I’m aware. But okay, a good, normal parent–I’d like to say most parents, even. Wouldn’t they freak out if some pedobear came up to them with this test? The only people you’re going to get for this test are people whose parents probably don’t care if they’re abused. Kids who in fact need the most protection from people like that–pedophiles often tend to target victims who feel unloved or unwanted. There’s just no possible scenario where testing a kid to have sex with them isn’t disgusting and skeevy.
And this whole, “I’m doing it because I’d feel personally insulted if someone thought that I, as a kid, wasn’t ready for sex” or “Society’s attitudes towards kids screws them up more than the poor rapists” is horrifying. At least be clear you’re not doing it for the children–you’re doing it for you.
Nine, are you trying to get this thread closed
Oh dear. I didn’t think that through. My apologies to all concerned.
The idea as I understand it isn’t for the test to be an ad hoc kind of thing, but I could be wrong.
I also wanted to say that Cesario’s goal is to convince us - to sway opinion and undermine society. The way he is going about this is utterly unconvincing, seeing as, at best, he is basically asking us to prove him wrong. I think he’s entirely missing the point - if his goal is to convince us.
Early on in our discussion I asked the following:
*"And this is why you’ve never presumably acted upon your desires - because the child who would not be damaged by them doesn’t exist.
Correct?
If this is correct, then why attempt to change people’s minds, the laws, etc? "*
I wanted to basically know what his purpose was here. His response:
I followed up with:
*"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?"*
He responded:
I also asked:
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?
His response:
Of course not. I’m not psychotic.
Horseshit. You’ve been doing nothing but being an apologist for Cesario. He wants to fuck kids, and you apparently want to let him as long as his grooming … oops, I mean his test … holds water.
You are the idiot, mon frere. Either an idiot, or the most gullible dope on the planet. You want to delve into this ethereal world of sex with kids that doesn’t involve actual kids. Fine, geek away on your little academic exercises. Meanwhile, people like Cesario are ruining actual kids’ lives every fucking day. Congratulations on legitimizing that.
By the way, good luck with that whole hiring admitted pedophiles as babysitters thing too, you fucking dolt.
Hey, Cesario, why not go fuck midgets and give us all a break?
I don’t know, Meatros, ff his his methodology is that unconvincing. Surely he’d have more success by hiding his paedophilia and just arguing for youth suffrage that way? If we take him at face value, then he really does think the harm is entirely from societal reaction, and eliminating the AoC laws is a logical step. So I don’t see any inconsistency in his stance.
Stoopid question that’s against the rules to answer here. If I say “yes”, I’m threatening a poster. If I say “no”, I’m letting you score points.
Since I don’t know if he’s trolling, if he’s actually raped children (if he’s not trolling, I don’t take his denials at face value), so…pass. And I’m not gonna comment whether I’ve stopped beating my wife or not yet either.
That said, it’s fun to note that under the current wishy-washy rules, the SDMB should be perfectly fine with me starting a series of threads coyly stating that I’ve never killed a child-rapist and under the current laws, I never would, but o gosh! wouldn’t it be nice if we could change the laws to allow us to execute child-rapists, vigilante-style. I could even pop into death-penalty threads and propose that child-rapists be shot.
You can, of course, point out where I said I’m A-OK with people sexing up under-10s, yes?
No, I’m just of the opinion that the test is no worse than the current AoC system. I do not think any under-10 would pass it, so no child-fucking would ensue. I do not want him to fuck kids, you stupid creature.
Pardon me if I don’t particularly give your opinion of my gullibility much weight.
Well, it doesn’t. It’s strictly a hypothetical argument about a proposed test.
No actual kids were harmed in the making of this thread.
“People like Cesario”? Who might that be? How many celibate-by-choice paedophiles are ruining kids’ lives, now?
If I’m prepared to take him at his word that he’s a paedophile, I think I’ll do him the courtesy of taking him at his word that he wouldn’t act on his impulses. Plus let’s not get carried away here, I only let actual family and close friends of mine babysit my daughter. Cesario would have to be the latter in order to get a foot in. And I have no problem being friends with a celibate paedophile. Wasn’t celibate paedophiles who raped me,for instance. 'twas sexual opportunists.
People start threads and make posts like that all the time.
Hm… I was commenting on his overall discussion behavior, in terms of methodology. As to the specifics, with regard to AoC and societal reaction - I see those as two different things. I think it’s possible to change the societal harm without eliminating AoC laws. It seems to me that there are legitimate age lines and as such, the AoC laws make sense. We could argue whether they should be adjusted, of course.
Yes. I have apologised, and I’m happy to repeat that apology, for inviting you to break the rules.
I am not trying to score points: you are entitled to your thoughts and feelings, and the point of this board is hear others’ views. The reason I asked was because several people (in this thread and others) have said that they would kill him, and as you have expressed your feelings about Cesario in a very forthright manner, I was interested in how far those feelings go. And, no, this is not another incitement to break the rules. I’m not expecting an answer - just explaining why I posted that question.