And wasn’t his point that the crime generally was rape, irrespective of her age?
I love you too darling. I know you prefer the shallow end, but you should always remember to wear your water wings.
No, any point of view is worth expressing for the sake of argument, that doesn’t make it equally valid. That’s a fallacy that cuts both ways there.
You’re right you have every right to be outraged.
Tubadiva I am curious about the ethical standards of the SDMB regarding something like this. What kind of privacy rights do people have to not have their IP reported by Creative Loafing when expressing some disturbing ideas like this?
That’s one of the things that really pisses me off about it. Now, maybe because I’m straight, it’s kind of patronizing, but the fact that he keeps comparing his “persecution” to that suffered by homosexuals; that he considers NAMBLA simply another gay rights group, tortured simply by homophobic bigots…it really, REALLY angers me.
Dude, NAMBLA is NOT protecting itself from “homophobic bigots.”
It just angers me, because I see so many people complaining about how gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because they’re “perverts.” People like him don’t help, when they use that kind of justification.
(Please, PLEASE tell me he has no plans to become a parent!)
So if we’re agreed that the crime was rape no matter what, and she wasn’t pre pubescent, where is the pedophilia coming in? I mean, yes, it was statutory rape, but statutory rape doesn’t always involve pedophilia.
I’m still kind of amazed that so many people fell for that story hook, line and sinker. Re-reading those threads, it’s so obviously a fiction. The wise, zen-like principal, the wife who accepts his transgenderism without a peep, and happily becomes a lesbian, the completely incurious school kids, the picture of the obviously biological woman he posted as himself. How did anybody fall for that?
He was saying there should be no age of consent at all. His intent was to use the Polanski case as an excuse to advocate for making it open season on children of all ages.
(Checking my sole post, and noting that I was amazed that such a tale could be true in Texas. Whew! 
)
I remember thinking it was bullshit but not posting anything because I had no proof and would have been crucified. It was the super-supportive wife that rang the most false to me. It just doesn’t happen that way IRL.
ETA: It was in MPSIMS, and in that forum Dopers are supposed to be more supportive and less confrontational than in other fora. I gave up on MPSIMS because of that.
How do you get to “any POV is worth expressing for the sake of argument”? Where’s the argument in “It’s okay to diddle four-year-olds”? To consider the assertion even if only “for the sake of argument” necessarily implies that the answer might be “yes it is.” But the answer is always, in every case, NO, it’s not. If there aren’t two sides – and there aren’t on this – then there’s no argument to be had.
Pregnant chicks are the best fuck cause you can get some pussy and a little head at the same time.
My apologies. It was aldiboronti. No idea why I thought it was you.
You’re not looking at the bigger picture: we’re still protected from panhandling Marxist malcontents and people who say “cunt”, aren’t we?
So I was watching Deathstalker the other day…
I wish you folks would stop muddying the water with discussion of 13 and 16 year olds who might conceivably have the cognitive ability, and the physical development, to understand what sex is. I’m even pretty certain there are places where the age of consent is lower than either of those.
In the Youth Suffrage thread, Cesario responded to a series of questions I asked another poster, and he made it explicitly clear that he believes there are 5 year olds out there mature enough to give consent for sex.
Oh, and just as an aside, mentioned that he might be willing to give a gun to a five year old as a gift, if it were legal to do so.
This guy is really, seriously dangerous.
I wouldn’t say this if his only issue was sexual attraction to children, even infants. The danger is that he has convinced himself that children feel sexual attraction to him, and that they are mentally mature enough to act on those desires. And finally, that the laws to prevent such activity are like sexual Jim Crow laws to discriminate against a particular class of people who would otherwise be law abiding citizens. And in a kind of perverted way, he’s technically correct. If murder became legal, murderers would indeed be law abiding citizens.
He has no moral barriers to fucking a five year old. Even worse, be may see the act as a political as well as sexual one, a statement against the injustice of society.
This is yet another one of thousands if times in my life I am glad not to have children.
Yep, it was the thread in which straights were asked for their feelings if they woke up to find a guy giving them a blow job. I replied that my feelings would be exactly the same as if I awoke to find a six-year old giving me head: repulsion and horror.
Cesario, incredibly, said he’d let the child finish.
I think he’s got a ways to go before what he is and what he implies he is overlap with a sufficiently high degree of confidence, i.e. he’d have to post quite a bit more, and consistently on this subject, before he goes from “quite possibly a troll” to something akin to lekatt or kanicbird, who clearly do indeed believe what they say (or if they don’t, their trollery ran for so long that it’s clearly a single-minded compulsion in itself).
Anyhoo, it’s conceivable to me that this is an attempted leg-pull and will continue until he gets banned or bored.
Right on. Not to mention that back then you thought that you were all that and knew everything…and you look back and think " What a DORK I was!!!"
And yes…I think that’s another reason why pedos are attracted to kids…Kids in general are very easily manipulated. I wonder if the pedos who were themselves molested, want to reinact the abuse they suffered b/c they think it will “heal them” somehow.
Oh, and I do think that he may be real and not just a troll. As I stated in the other thread, I do think that part of pedophillia is being VERY clueless about social cues.
That could be related to Asperger’s Syndrome…One symptom of Asperger’s is being fixtated on one particular subject. Not saying that pedos have Asperger’'s…just saying that they could have a related thing (being emotionally stunted and clueless about social cues)
What I find interesting is that this is the first thread (that I’m aware of) about sex and/or children and/or himself that he hasn’t posted in.
I wonder why?