Getting us to think about pedophilia? What the fuck is there to think about? You actually had to ponder it to figure out what’s wrong with it? What the fuck?
^^This, this exactly.
Let him talk, lets see exactly what he says, let him demystify pedophiles for us that we stand a better chance at spotting them.
Judging people isn’t the end all be all of cognition.
I’m not judging people, I’m judging pedophilia. It’s not a subject that requires any thought.
All mental disorders and anti-social behaviours require a huge amount of thought. To understand them, to learn how to tackle them, to learn how to control them, and, hopefully, to cure them.
But it is, if you’re too stupid to give it any thought, that’s another matter.
Your argument is sentimental squishyhead bullshit. No merit in it at all. You are arguing that plugging your ears and saying, ‘lalalalalalala’, is a valid intellectual stance. It’s not.
There is plenty to understand about pedophilia, more for you than for most of the people posting in this thread clearly.
nonce is British slang for paedo piece of dog turd 
You of all people should know that you should always think long and hard about whether something is wrong, regardless of how many people tell you so.
In this case, of course, you’d come to the same conclusion, but that doesn’t negate the value of the process in this or any other case.
I knew there was some disagreement somewhere! 
My position is that, while it’s on about the same probability of the moon landings being faked, it’s not entirely impossible that kiddy diddlers are in the right. And if they came up with a convincing argument rather than pathetic excuses, I wouldn’t want them to be automatically dismissed. Obviously they should be subject to increased scrutiny, and as far as I know they haven’t come close to that… I’m just very uncomfortable with dismissing any view as invalid.
See where I’m coming from now?
Or, indeed, what he said. But with the extra point it is iterative…
If there is any value in having Cesario around, this is NOT it. You can talk to him all day and all night and it will not teach you the first thing about identifying pedophiles. If you believe that, you’re deluding yourself, plain and simple. You might learn something about how some pedophiles think, assuming he is what he represents himself to be, but you won’t learn how they behave around groups that are more hostile and less anonymous than a message board.
Children are usually molested by relatives and people who know their families and have gained their trust, not by anonymous creeps. Cesario has raised some valid topics, but the same topics have been raised in the past by non-pedophiles and by people who don’t have obvious ulterior motives. And that’s overlooking the fact that he seems to love the attention he gets when he proclaims he is a pedophile and the fact that he’s not much of a debater.
Oh good grief. How can a pedophile possibly justify their position??? Do you know anything about child growth and development??? Child psychology??? Immerse yourself in that literature and then tell me that there’s any fucking way on this earth that the possiblity exists that a pedophile could have a valid argument.
I’m saying it doesn’t require any thought to understand that fucking 5 year olds is WRONG. AHunter said he had to think about why it’s wrong. To suggest that this question requires even of a fraction of a second of contemplation is ridiculous.
That was directed at Angry Lurker, btw. Do those few of you who support **Cesario’s **right to enlighten us in the ways a society persecutes the pedo or their victims even have children?
I would be amazed if he could justify it. As you say to do so he would have to, as part of it, overthrow all our theories about child development. And I can add a few other things he would have to show currently accepted theories are wrong about as well.
All I am saying is that it is not 100% - or perhaps more precisely, 100.000000% certain he cannot.
Yes.
If somebody tells you they want to burn a toddler’s eye out with a cigarette, do any of you feel that it would be unfair not to hear him out and explain his reasoning (his reasoning being that it will make him come), or would you feel comfortable with just going ahead and deciding that it’s wrong to burn a toddler’s eye out with a cigarette?
Why does a person trying to argue for the right to rape toddlers deserve a second of floor time?
By the way, I think there’s a false implication in this that those of us who have no interest in hearing a word someone like Cesario has to say have never, ever encountered or thought about the issue of adults having sex with children until this very day, and are therefore somehow being closed-minded or knee-jerk. Obviously, that’s fallacious.
People like Cesario exist in this world and I am actually pretty interested to hear it from the horse’s mouth assuming he isn’t a troll.
Basically what you are saying is that the only people I should listen to on pedophilia are non-pedos.
I’m only talking about what’s needed to know to judge the morality of it. Have you heard enough to decide whether you think it’s morally acceptable or not, or do you think you still need to hear a little more?
He doesn’t *deserve *a second of *our *time. He needs to communicate his thought processes to people who can use that information to find solutions to those problems. So, the right people need to have lines of communication open.
What is wrong is for the right people to say ‘I know he’s wrong, so I’m not going to listen.’ For you, for me, we can say what we like: nothing we say will make any difference to the problem. This is just a message board: all we do is exchange views.