# Excuse me Czarcasm, a sec please **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 26, 2001, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989 "2001-09-26T21:02:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/81 "2001-09-27T19:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Well this is ridiculous. What’s the point of any of us being here, then? I’m not gay, Eve isn’t an historian, and you’re not a lawyer. Never mind that we have interesting discussions - everybody go home now **Esprix** , now you’re being silly. **Jodi** makes an excellent point that you can’t believe that this guy hasn’t hurt any children just on his say-so, especially because it would be admitting to illegal activity. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/82 "2001-09-27T19:14:52Z")
One other thing - I saw no other Doper in any way justifying or condoning this man’s potential actions (which, again, he claimed he’d never done in the first place). Questions about his feelings, sure. Inquiries as to his point of view, yes. Telling him he was an ok upstanding guy because of it, not at all. Several people expressed outright revulsion (as I felt with the 6-year-old line), and, in the end, after all the questions had been asked and answered, the SDMB community would have, IMHO, made it known their own feelings on the matter, smacked him silly with any kind of specious or erroneous talk about age of consent laws, sexual development, or anything of the sort, that his _feelings_ might be valid but that any _actions_ would be heinous and criminal, and advised him often and soundly to get to a therapist and get help. This would not have been condoning, justifying, or allowing ignorance; if anything, we might have been able to help this man. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Blacksheepsmith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@Blacksheepsmith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blacksheepsmith)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/83 "2001-09-27T19:15:59Z")
Jarbabyj: Accomplice to a pedophile? Now you’re just trying to piss me off by being an asshole for its own sake. Congratulations. You must be so proud. What a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![tiny\_ham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@tiny\_ham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiny_ham)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/84 "2001-09-27T19:25:44Z")
Christ on a clydesdale Blacksheep, first of all I apologized. I have no desire to piss you off. You said that YOU felt by READING HIS POST that you were giving his position credibility, no? I did not mean accomplice to pedophilia, I meant a sort of ‘literary accomplice’ in that I perceived you felt a feeling of ‘in cahoots’ by looking into his mind. And if I’m wrong again in my perception I apologize. I apologize for everything I’ve ever done in my life. OK? jarbaby ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/85 "2001-09-27T19:34:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by \*_bordelond_ > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Badtz Maru \* > > > > I missed the thread before it was deleted - was this a true pedophile, one who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, or just someone who admitted to being attracted to pubescent minors? > > **Badtz Maru** , the guy squirmed a lot when directly asked about ages. Right before the thread closed, **Qagdop MD** asked the pedophile straight up the same question you just posited. Earlier in the thread, the pedophile did say (as some will remember) something to the effect of “he would be comfortable in a society that set a legal age of sexual consent at **six years** of age.” Wrong. I distinctly recall him saying that although he would be comfortable with a society that allowed it, he himself was **not** attracted to prebuescent girls. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/86 "2001-09-27T19:47:30Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **gobear** _ > > **Esprix** , now you’re being silly. **Jodi** makes an excellent point that you can’t believe that this guy hasn’t hurt any children just on his say-so, especially because it would be admitting to illegal activity. Of course not, but saying we have no basis for believing him at all because he’s some guy on a message board is ridiculous. As I said, if he was lying and had actually done so, there is no way any person on this board would have validated that action, and maybe, just maybe we could have convinced him to get the help he would, in that case, so desperately need. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/87 "2001-09-27T20:15:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\*Wrong. I distinctly recall him saying that although he would be comfortable with a society that allowed it, he himself was **not** attracted to prebuescent girls. \*\* I was wondering about that. Other than the six-year-old-consent comment, he seemed to really want to avoid putting forth a minimum age, though. I remember him specificallly refusing to do so several times. What might that have meant? Perhaps he was OK with an 12-year-old pubescent girl? Did he mean he had hebephilic or pedophilic fantasies? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/88 "2001-09-27T20:21:05Z")
ESPRIX, I apologize that my point blew past you; allow me to try again to restate it: The reason the guy’s word is inherently untrustworthy is not that this is a message board, but rather becasue he has admitted to having desires that are both (a) highly illegal if acted upon and (b) societally repugnant in the extreme if acted upon. In light of both (a) and (b), it is reasonable to assume that he would deny having acted upon these tendencies – that he would post “of course, I’ve never _done_ this, I’ve only thought about it,” regardless of whether he has really done it or not. Only a fool cops to illegal and immoral activity on a public message board. This to me seems obvious. And in light of that, I think people who say “well, he’s never _done_ it; he says so!” are naive at best or morons at worse, not to put too fine a point on it. If you can show me another poster who risks both arrest and public censure if he admits to having actually done something he conceded he does, in fact, really want to do, I will be suspicious of his denial as well. I trust you can see why this is not the same as taking someone at his or her word regarding things that are neither illegal nor loathed by society. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/89 "2001-09-27T20:41:47Z")
**Waverly** by treatment, I was NOT saying castration. If you go to the first thread linked, search for my posts I spell out what you’ll find there. I’ve also seen the ‘most reoffend’ statements, generally, they’re made like this: “Studies show \*up to \*80% recidivism”. And when you check out the source data you find that out of say 5 studies, the results are 10%, 8% 15% 12% and one has 80% because it studied 5 people and 4 re offended. You also have to be cautious as to how you’re using the term ‘offend again’. what most people assume you mean is that a molester will always molest again. And the data isn’t there to support it (or at least from the wide range of studies that I"ve seen) So, for example, if you find that out of the 80% figure cited for reoffending, only one molested again, the others were sent back for non related parole violations, drunk driving etc., that’s a different thing than ‘molesters can’t be treated’. I’m not saying those numbers are accurate, just to demonstrate that ‘reoffending’ is different from ‘molesting again’ and an important qualification. I’m also NOT saying that we shouldn’t care that the molester drove drunk or whatever, just that it shouldn’t be used as evidence that molesters will always molest again. (can you tell I’ve been around a while?) In any event, here’s [one study](http://www.ncianet.org/ncia/comnot.html) that supports that 87% **don’t** go on to molest again. (damn, I can’t get it to link, I know it did when I posted it in that thread, but in the meantime, [heres](http://www.recidivism.com/links/sex_offenders.php) a whole bunch more including [this one](http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page1.htm) which includes this statement: > [@](#): > > In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction). Note again, this is a very long term study (15 - 30 years) and counts **all** possible offenses (ie, one should not conclude that 61% molested again). ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/90 "2001-09-27T21:06:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > > The reason the guy’s word is inherently untrustworthy is not that this is a message board, but rather becasue he has admitted to having desires that are both (a) highly illegal if acted upon and (b) societally repugnant in the extreme if acted upon… > > If you can show me another poster who risks both arrest and public censure if he admits to having actually done something he conceded he does, in fact, really want to do, I will be suspicious of his denial as well. Suspicious? Absolutely, but you seem to be _assuming_ he’s lying just because it would be in his best interests to. Occam’s razor much? > [@](#): > > And in light of that, I think people who say “well, he’s never _done_ it; he says so!” are naive at best or morons at worse, not to put too fine a point on it. I disagree. _For the purposes of the discussion he initiated_, there was no reason to assume he was lying; and, as I said, if he _was_ lying, perhaps while discussing it we might have convinced him that having done it was wrong, even if he never admitted to having done it at all. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/91 "2001-09-27T21:08:54Z")
And another thing – I think that giving a pedophile a forum by which he can attempt to justify his predelictions is wrong, and I don’t care how the rest of the Board might have reacted to it. He can find himself a soapbox for his “kids can consent; it doesn’t hurt them; they like it” crappola elsewhere. I’m hard pressed to think of a greater waste of time than for a bunch of laypeople to earnestly beseech a pedophile to “get help.” He either knows he needs help or he’s rationalized his actions, and nothing anyone says in a piddly little forum like this would make him slap his forehead and go “My God, you’re _right_! I’m just a big ol’ sicko!” And that his feelings might be “valid” if not acted on – what utter bullshit. God forbid we stand up and be counted as being against how anyone _feels_. Well, I do and I am. If you feel like sleeping with children, I’m not going to validate those feelings, I’m going to avoid you if possible and treat you with utter contempt if not. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/92 "2001-09-27T21:15:40Z")
ESPRIX > [@](#): > > Suspicious? Absolutely, but you seem to be assuming he’s lying just because it would be in his best interests to. Occam’s razor much? I did not assume he was lying; I was clearly responding to those who would assume he was not. Read much? > [@](#): > > I disagree. For the purposes of the discussion he initiated, there was no reason to assume he was lying; and, as I said, if he was lying, perhaps while discussing it we might have convinced him that having done it was wrong, even if he never admitted to having done it at all. There was no reason to assume he was telling the truth, and at least two good reasons (listed above) to suspect that he was not. In the end, it doesn’t matter if he was or wasn’t; it remains my opinion that the decision to close the thread was a good one, if for no other reason than to deny _him_ a forum by which he might attempt to justify his feelings or behavior. And I lack your touching faith in the ability of a bunch of lay-people strangers on a message board to convince a pedophile that his desires are wrong. But then I seem to lack your touching faith in pedophiles, period. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/93 "2001-09-27T21:17:04Z")
Really, **Jodi**? Wow, I never knew you were Vulcan, as you’re the first person I’ve ever met who has complete control over their emotions and feelings. I’m impressed. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/94 "2001-09-27T21:21:05Z")
I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, but then that’s about par for the course. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/95 "2001-09-27T21:23:58Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Jodi** _ > > There was no reason to assume he was telling the truth, and at least two good reasons (listed above) to suspect that he was not. _For the purposes of the discussion he initiated_, IMHO, it didn’t matter - any one of us could be lying in our expertise, so _for the purposes of the discussion_ it seemed relevant to believe him. YMMV. > [@](#): > > In the end, it doesn’t matter if he was or wasn’t; it remains my opinion that the decision to close the thread was a good one, if for no other reason than to deny _him_ a forum by which he might attempt to justify his feelings or behavior. I agree that a forum for justifying his behavior is inappropriate, but I still think some good might have come of it. > [@](#): > > And I lack your touching faith in the ability of a bunch of lay-people strangers on a message board to convince a pedophile that his desires are wrong. IANATherapist, but desires and feelings are not inherently wrong; acting inappropriately on those feelings is. > [@](#): > > But then I seem to lack your touching faith in pedophiles, period. **Jodi** , that is the lowest thing anyone has ever said to me. If you think for a moment I would ever, **ever** justify a pedophile’s behavior, then I will gladly put you on my same list as Falwell, Robertson and Phelps. That was way over the line and way beyond the pale of this discussion. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/96 "2001-09-27T21:28:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\* > > IANATherapist, but desires and feelings are not inherently wrong; acting inappropriately on those feelings is. > \*\* Bingo. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/97 "2001-09-27T21:40:49Z")
ESPRIX – > [@](#): > > For the purposes of the discussion he initiated, IMHO, it didn’t matter - any one of us could be lying in our expertise, so for the purposes of the discussion it seemed relevant to believe him. YMMV. Actually my M doesn’t V all that much. As I have already said, I was responding to those who attempted to defend the discussion by saying “Besides, he didn’t _do_ it, he’s only _thinking_ about it! He said so!” To which my response was and remains “Yeah, right, as if he’d tell us if he _had_.” Look, I was not the one raising the guys credibility as a selling point. _My_ point is that, AFAIAC, he has none, for reasons I would have thought would be obvious (ie, he has ample cause to lie). > [@](#): > > I agree that a forum for justifying his behavior is inappropriate, but I still think some good might have come of it. So we obviously disagree. _Any_ opportunity for a pedophile to attempt to rationalize or justify his feelings or his behaviors is IMO an enabling tool for him. I want no part of it. I am not surprised this Board would want no part of it. I would be very surprised if they did. > [@](#): > > IANATherapist, but desires and feelings are not inherently wrong; acting inappropriately on those feelings is. And again we disagree. I believe that wishing to have sex with a child is _wrong_. Inherently wrong. Call me a judgmental meanie, but I want no part of any person who would admit in public to having such feelings – would admit to them in any context except in a private meeting with a therapist in order to best determine how to control them. The very idea of it sickens me, and I am not required to give house room to any such discussion, or to condemn others who – rightfully, IMO – also refuse to give such discussion house room. > [@](#): > > Jodi, that is the lowest thing anyone has ever said to me. If you think for a moment I would ever, ever justify a pedophile’s behavior, then I will gladly put you on my same list as Falwell, Robertson and Phelps. That was way over the line and way beyond the pale of this discussion. I have never said you would justify the behavior of pedophiles, but you certainly appear more than willing to take a person with pedophilic tendencies at his word regarding his behavior and to condemn the Board for reasonably deciding that such a conversation is not within its mandate. I feel no obligation to empathize with pedophiles, or persons with pedophilic tendencies, and I find the very idea that such feelings would be deserving of “validation” to be itself contemptible. These are child molesters. To the extent that you interpreted my comment to mean that you would excuse pedophilic behavior, I do in fact apologize. I would never say such a thing about anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/98 "2001-09-27T21:41:35Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Jodi** _ > > I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, but then that’s about par for the course. I was referring to this comment: > [@](#): > > And that his feelings might be “valid” if not acted on – what utter bullshit. God forbid we stand up and be counted as being against how anyone _feels_. Well, I do and I am. If you feel like sleeping with children, I’m not going to validate those feelings, I’m going to avoid you if possible and treat you with utter contempt if not. The implication here is that he has control over his desires. I put it to you that no one does - control over consciously suppressing those desires, and control over acting on them, yes, but controlling the wellspring from whence they come? No. Only prolonged therapy (again, IANATherapist) can profoundly change that wellspring enough that those desires no longer come forth (psyche? soul? inherent psychological traits? chemical imbalance? any and all of the above?) If you have control over the deepest part of your psyche from where your basic emotions, feelings and desires come from, you’d be the first person I’d ever met who does. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/99 "2001-09-27T21:42:33Z")
Thank God I missed the original thread, but I’m getting a feel for it now… Thank you Mods/Admins! I applaud your decision to annihilate that thread. During this discussion, someone compared the erased thread to threads about cannibalism, or bong-making. Is cannibalism illegal if you don’t kill the person before you eat them? Can’t you smoke tobacco in a water pipe? My point? While the above two topics may be repugnant or disagreeable to some, they could be legal and considered a “kink.” There is nothing legally or morally defensible about pedophilia. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989/100 "2001-09-27T21:49:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EJsGirl \* > \*\*During this discussion, someone compared the erased thread to threads about cannibalism, or bong-making. Is cannibalism illegal if you don’t kill the person before you eat them? (snip)While the above two topics may be repugnant or disagreeable to some, they could be legal and considered a “kink.” . \*\* cannibalism on a \*\*live \*\* person??? :eek: :eek: :eek: (d&R) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excuse-me-czarcasm-a-sec-please/83989.md?page=6)