You’re right, it isn’t. But adults are capable of informed consent, children aren’t. You have zero chance of indulging your sexual fantasies under the conditions you have specified. See the difference? Rape is the only way you will ever achieve your goal. For all your protestations I wouldn’t trust you alone with a child for 5 minutes
And his attempts to change the legal definition of kiddie-rape to “Groovy mature toddlers just havin’ consensual fun with 50 year old deviants” doesn’t change the fact that it’s still kiddie-rape, regardless of what the law calls it.
I know I said I’d give him the last word, but it just occurred to me that I think Cesario is under the mistaken idea that we have to convince him of X, Y, or Z.
He’s not going to have much success with this until he gets that out of his head.
That just occurred to you? It didn’t strike you before that the guy who claims that there are multitudes of toddlers out there who *want *to have sex with pedophiles that his thinking wasn’t quite right?
It doesn’t bother me that we can have a debate about disturbing concepts; it bothers me when people give a purveyor of that disturbing concept the time of day, as though there is anything rational to get out of him.
?
This seems a non sequitur - I have never said that I believed his thinking was what the average person would think.
No, I was referring to the how he has been communicating with us. Prior to this, I had thought he was attempting to support his contention and rebut the rest. I had told him several times though out the discussion that he wasn’t arguing effectively since he was supposedly trying to convince us. I realized that although he said that was his intent, it really doesn’t appear to be.
This seems confused. If it doesn’t bother you that we can have debates about disturbing concepts, but it does bother you when the person bringing up the concepts are debated - who exactly do you expect to have the debates about the disturbing concepts with?
I guess my first statement wasn’t clear, but my point is … I’m a little surprised that it took you this long to realize that this guy is only trying to legitimize his own particular brand of deviancy. His only aim in this debate is to parade his urges before us so we can see what brave soul he is. Funk that, I say.
As to my other point … we can talk about whether canibalism should be legalized, but I’m not going to discuss it with a guy gnawing on a human femur.
Discussion of pedophilia, adult-child sex, age of consent, … nothing about that makes me squeamish. I just don’t get how we have guy here who says he wants to have sex with children, that some of them want to have sex with him, that he could get away with it if he wanted, etc. … why the fuck do we want to give him a forum.
He should be a case-study, not a debate participant.
I realized that from the get-go though, what I was referring to as occurring to me was in regard to his method, not his intentions.
On the presumption that having such a conversation would be allowed on this board - I would feel that there might be something to be learned from having a conversation with a cannibal. As with the conversation here, I am under no allusions that such a person would succeed in convincing others that his views are correct/legitimate/etc.
[In fairness, I think I should point out that the conversation with a cannibal would first require legal investigation since in the scenario he is actively breaking the law]
I’ll be frank - discussion on those topics do make me squeamish.
I do not think that any of the children have a desire to have sex with him - I do not think he stands a shot of convincing anyone that a 5 year old could conceivably give consent. Even he admits that such a scenario is unlikely even if it were hypothetically possible.
As to the forum - he has a compelling argument for an AoC test, regardless if I feel that he’s made his case that AoC laws should be abolished.
What constitutes a ‘debate participant’? I think that someone who can rationally discuss topics should be a debate participant.
It’s easy to demonize a position and to give no credence to it - but which topics should we apply this reasoning to? It seems to me that the majority of people feel this way about pedophilia, it should be just accepted as wrong and not talked about. This is not rational behavior - if pedophilia is wrong then it needs to be rationally justified as such. I think it can be done and has been, but Cesario disagrees and he comes to the market place of ideas to plead his case. Should we just assume that everyone has an innate idea that pedophilia is wrong?
Suppose this wasn’t something that most of us take to be inherently disgusting (ie, pedophilia), suppose that Cesario was trying to argue that Afrocentricism is true. Should he be banned from discussing that if he has a personal stake in it (say his father wrote the book on Afrocentricism)? Should we just make an emotional appeal that Afrocentricism is wrong and therefore the discussion is over?
I don’t think so. I don’t think that pedophilia is ‘right’. I don’t feel that it should be legal. My personal feeling is that it is a psychological disorder - but in all fairness, I really haven’t read up on it and I don’t know much about it.
I see benefit in discussing the issue with Cesario, so I discuss the issue. I have no idea why this offends people. It’s not like - at any point - I’m encouraging him to act on his wishes. It’s not like - at any point - am I saying that a sexual relationship with a child is acceptable behavior.
If you don’t think he’s eating this shit up with a spoon, you’re as delusional as he is. You are encouraging him just by engaging him. It’s what he wants. You’re giving it to him.
And I’m not talking about people in general. I’m talking about Cesario. He’s just mentally whacking off here. I guarantee you he doesn’t give a shit about your opinion. He just wants to talk about all those poor kids out there who are being denied his penis.
Encouraging him to do what, exactly? Engage in discussion? So what?
Or are you saying I’m encouraging him to act on his pedophilia by dissenting from his opinion?
If that’s what he wants to talk about, then he’s certainly being indirect about it, since the majority of our conversation has not been about any particular children or their attraction to him. You seem to be suggesting that he’s being a lot more personal then I think he’s actually being. When he’s brought up personal facts, it’s usually been as a response to a direct question. At least that’s my experience with him in this thread. In fact, the entire issue with AoC being under 10 years old is primarily because I kept injecting it into the discussion as a reminder that there are groups of people who cannot conceivably give consent (which he then disagrees with).
His interaction is fairly inflammatory in the sense that he’s sanctimonious and he grandstands a lot and attempts to talk down to people (while amusingly making a litany of spelling errors), but that said, if you take the subject matter out of it he’s no different then any other one trick doper pony.
I get that you feel his position is indefensible. I would go so far as to agree with you on that - but I don’t feel that it should be verboten for him to try to defend it.
Who are you, the masturbation police?
As far as I can tell[sup][/sup], Cesario doesn’t write his mega-posts in reply to people who are (vaguely[sup]**[/sup]) on his side. He’s writing in response to people who want him kicked out. If anyone’s stimulating him, they are.
[sup][/sup] Truth be told, I only get four or five lines in before eye-glazing forces my attention elsewhere.
[sup]**[/sup] Not in the sense of being pro-pedophilia, but rather in opposition to the nanny-whiners who think we need to be protected from the scary badman.
Yes. It’s tattooed right on the back of my neck.
That’s pretty much my point.
And yes, I know I have my fingers in that stew too. But once I got past my outrage, I discovered it wasn’t fun or productive anymore.
It’s a dirty job but somebody’s gotta do it. 
Question. Have you ever had the thought in your head of strangling someone who simply annoyed or pissed you off? I know I’ve thought of (daydream?) doing that many times during my life. And yet, to this day I haven’t murdered a single one.
Just playing “devil’s advocate” here. People have all sorts of really weird random thoughts. The difference is when you actually DO those things.
I don’t think that’s in the same ballpark. Leave pedophiles out of it … sexual fantasies in general are rarely random thoughts. I don’t know about you, but when I have sexual fantasies, there are production elements in place. You’d need fucking Fellini to film my fantasies.
Wanting to “kill” the guy who cut you off in traffic is fleeting, not a thought process that’s been cultivated.
Go look at the seedy underbelly of the internet. There are tons of sites catering to deviant sexual interests. How many “Strangle Strangers For Minor Traffic Violations” sites are there?
Coincidentally, fucking Fellini is one of the more widespread fantasies.
But what’s your point? Heck, if one wants to read about fantasies of killing irritating motorists, one need not look any further than that seediest of internet underbellies; the SDMB. Don’t we get a thread along these lines every week or so?
What the hell does this have to do with the thread?
The fact is that in the past, we’ve had a lot of people banned for expressing much ideas than this one. Now, I personally don’t feel Cesario should be banned, however, I can definitely see WHY people feel that way.
And I can see WHY people accuse him of getting off on this topic. I don’t think it’s just an abstract for him. No, I’m not simply dismissing the idea simply because of who is advocating it – I’m against the idea of “youth rights” no matter WHO is proposing it. However, he definitely has a biased agenda.
Well, I can see WHY people feel that way, too. They are, however, a bunch of misguided nannystate dickless suckass braindead pencil-neck Nader-voting Full House-watching chumps.
And I mean that in the nicest possible sense.
Yes, and that’s why we don’t need to surf around to find that stuff 
Wait, the ones arguing against the pedophiles are the Full House watchers?
I feel compelled to make a distinction regarding child rape and child molestation.
To those of you saying that you give Cesario the benefit of the doubt that he’s not raped and is not going to rape any children because it’s easy to not do it, like it’s easy to not kill someone. Yes of course it’s easy to not grab a little girl off her bike, not chuck her into your van, not drive to some secluded area and not rape her. I would say that I too believe Cesario when he say’s he’s not done that.
But that’s the extreme severe end of the spectrum. I had a teacher in grade six who used to get the little girls to sit on his lap and put his arms around their waist. Then one hand would get just a little too low, or just a little too high. I personally watched him do this. That’s all it takes, just move one hand down a couple inches and you’ve fondled children. That’s what a child molester is. This teacher, and two others from the school, ended up in jail for fondling children at school.
Do you think if someone like Cesario had a little girl on his lap and no adults around, that he would never ever ever, just let one hand go a little too low?
People like Cesario can even convince themselves that it was just an accident, his hand just slipped.
Saying he’d never hurt a child because all he has to do is not rape them is disingenuous because sexual abuse is way more than just raping babies.
Anyway, I hope I’m able to make the point I’m trying to.
And Cesario, I don’t read your coma inducing posts so don’t bother responding to me because I won’t even see it.