# On an "Ask the Pedophile" thread **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 6, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906 "2010-02-06T04:34:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/301 "2010-02-07T23:29:30Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > All of these threads about this issue are stupid. > > That’s right, they are stupid. > > We have a poster with an extremely unpopular view, who admits he holds that view. > > The issue, then, is should the SDMB kick someone off simply for having an opinion that the majority finds morally repellent? > > All of the posts about “legal issues” or those hunting through the user agreement, are irrelevant. There’s not going to be an “investigation”; even if there was, it would be some cop creating an account and reading some posts. The posters making the argument that SDMB has a legal responsibility, etc are either in ignorance of the law or they are just too cowardly to say what they really think. The SDMB can ban anyone at any time. > > Likewise, the arguments that it violates the rules are silly. If he wants to post threads about his predilections, I say fine. If he wants to bring it up in completely unrelated threads, then warn and ban him the same as you would anyone else. > > I also just don’t understand why people think the board has a duty to babysit the rageaholics who see a thread and _just can’t help_ but to click on it and spew out insults, even if it’s in GQ or IMHO. We have an ignore function, a meme about not feeding the trolls (ironically invoked most often by the same set of folks who seem to spend a good deal of their time telling people they are trolls), and a system for dealing with people who can’t observe the niceties of posting in the appropriate forum and staying on topic(ish) in a thread. Making the claim that “These threads will have too much drama, so we must ban poster X” is pandering to the least capable set of posters, and is a specious argument. > > So the question, then, is simply: should we ban a poster because we don’t like his beliefs? I guarantee that if a Christian board banned all Jews or Mulsims or atheists, there would be pit threads aplenty. It’s easy to take the high ground and talk about tolerance and how 53% of Americans are dumb for supporting Republicans and such. But here we are, having 6 pages of discussion about “What rules technicality can we use to get rid of someone we don’t like”. > > No one is forced to read his threads; we have an ignore function, and if he threadshits in violation of the rules, the mods should handle it as they would with anyone else. The fear of being tainted by association is one that I would expect out of the same type of people who think that suspected terrorists should not get trials, or who get upset that the ACLU defends the free speech rights of the KKK. It’s not an attitude that should be common on a board whose purpose is nominally to fight ignorance and have reasoned discussion of serious issues. > > Our society has spent hundreds of years defending the rights of people to have unpopular, disturbing, or utterly disgusting views. It’s easy to talk about supporting free speech and fighting censorship, but it appears to be much more difficult to actually do so. Saying you believe in a principle but leaving it to others to uphold that principle is cowardly and disingenuous. > > All of the other arguments here are just red herrings. Either come out and say you want ban people with unpopular opinions, or accept that there are people with repugnant views who have a right to talk about those views. > > I, for one, hope the board’s ownership and moderators don’t bow to the demands for censorship of posters. It would be a surrender to the whims of the offenderati, and even worse, an abrogation of one of our societies most cherished beliefs – though apparently one more honor’d in the breach than the observance. Best summary I have seen so far. A+. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/302 "2010-02-07T23:34:47Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I understand what you’re saying - I really do - and I think there’s truth to it, but I’m not sure that’s grounds to curtail certain topics of discussion. There are Vietnam veterans here on this board - I would venture to guess that some of them probably saw things during their time there which were as traumatic as being molested as a child. Any thread about the Vietnam War could potentially “dig into open wounds” and bring all sorts of horrific memories flooding back to them - but this wouldn’t be a good reason to prohibit discussion of the Vietnam War. > > And there is at least one poster here who has admitted to being sexually abused as a child, and he doesn’t appear to have a problem with the idea of this proposed thread which has outraged so many posters. > > I realize how incredibly unpopular this is and I’m not about to make a persona non grata by agitating in its favor. But I do have to oppose some of the arguments against it that I’m seeing, simply in the name of intellectual integrity. This is not a valid comparison. A pedophile thread wouldn’t just involve discussing the victimization of children, but _advocating_ for it. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/303 "2010-02-07T23:42:50Z")
I think some people are upset because this issue has brought **Cesario** ’s overall posting pattern into view, and the sum of the parts is far worse than any individual post (some of which are pretty awful in their own right). From my end, I hadn’t realized how single-minded he was until I did the search that prompted the Pit thread. For me, it’s really the pattern that’s the problem. If he’d been posting about normal stuff all along and then admitted to being a pedophile and offered to host a Q&A, I’d have no problem with it, or him. But now that I see how single-minded his posting is, I think something needs to be done. If not by him exercising self-restraint, then by the mods. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/304 "2010-02-07T23:48:35Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I think some people are upset because this issue has brought **Cesario** ’s overall posting pattern into view, and the sum of the parts is far worse than any individual post (some of which are pretty awful in their own right). From my end, I hadn’t realized how single-minded he was until I did the search that prompted the Pit thread. > > For me, it’s really the pattern that’s the problem. If he’d been posting about normal stuff all along and then admitted to being a pedophile and offered to host a Q&A, I’d have no problem with it, or him. But now that I see how single-minded his posting is, I think something needs to be done. If not by him exercising self-restraint, then by the mods. Yeah, he’s a one-trick pony. Folks have definitely been banned for less. ---
**Author:** ![Sparky\_the\_Wonder\_Spirit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Sparky\_the\_Wonder\_Spirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky_the_Wonder_Spirit)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/305 "2010-02-07T23:55:34Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Yeah, he’s a one-trick pony. Folks have definitely been banned for less. Yes, but if he’s banned, the mods will no longer be able to post condescending admonitions highlighting their superior understanding of Freedom! Of! Speech! Right before issuing warnings to other posters because they’re using the wrong sort of swear-words. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/306 "2010-02-07T23:56:15Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I think some people are upset because this issue has brought **Cesario** ’s overall posting pattern into view, and the sum of the parts is far worse than any individual post (some of which are pretty awful in their own right). From my end, I hadn’t realized how single-minded he was until I did the search that prompted the Pit thread. > > For me, it’s really the pattern that’s the problem. If he’d been posting about normal stuff all along and then admitted to being a pedophile and offered to host a Q&A, I’d have no problem with it, or him. But now that I see how single-minded his posting is, I think something needs to be done. If not by him exercising self-restraint, then by the mods. And, y’know, as somebody who’s been getting involved heavily in arguing the other side, your perspective is the one that makes a lot of sense to me. You’re basically saying he’s being disgusting and being a jerk. You’ve got an actual rational objection and you’re leaning on that rather than bigotry, so all right. What I don’t get is why so many people who (it seems to me) obviously have the same objection as you, at its roots, are pretending that there are legal issues or board-rules-about-whatever issues. Pages and pages of increasingly hysterical and provably false silliness and either willful or just purely stupid misinterpretation of the situation gets frustrating after a while. And the next step of course is that the “defenders” who bother to point out that the absurd legalities and technicalities getting cited are, in fact, absurd, start getting insulted and ridiculously threatened. It’s a fucking witch hunt mentality when a perfectly rational one was available. ---
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/307 "2010-02-07T23:56:23Z")
> [@CircleofWillis](#): > > It was recently made crystal clear to me that a poster need not break any specific rule to be moderated on this board. They simply have to “be a jerk”. If “being a jerk” isn’t covering relishing and expounding upon the diddling of children, then I am very very very confused as to what “being a jerk” really is. Well let me clear up your confusion. According to the super wise powers that be “being a jerk” means claiming to vandalize Wikipedia, a website that has nothing to do with this one. Of course there are those who say that **CurtisLemay** wasn’t suspend just because of that, but because he refused to do what he was told to do. Uber faboo mode **Marley** pointed out for me earlier that the pedophile has been told over and over again to stop and it’s pretty obvious that he hasn’t stopped so I’m sure his suspension is just in the paperwork stages. I’m just sure of it! > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Pages and pages of increasingly hysterical and provably false silliness and either willful or just purely stupid misinterpretation of the situation gets frustrating after a while. It’s also frustrating to see them ignore the questions they can’t explain away like why THIS person isn’t being given the **EvilCaptor** or **Reeder** treatment. They have all the time in the world to address the situations they believe they can prove wrong, but haven’t presented a reason why the pedophile hasn’t gotten a PM telling him to STFU about his sickness in threads that aren’t specifically about pedo garbage. Rules for some but not for others, awesome ---
**Author:** ![lorene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/65b543/32.png) [@lorene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lorene)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/308 "2010-02-08T00:01:17Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > I, for one, hope the board’s ownership and moderators don’t bow to the demands for censorship of posters. It would be a surrender to the whims of the offenderati, and even worse, an abrogation of one of our societies most cherished beliefs – though apparently one more honor’d in the breach than the observance. OK, this I understand, certainly. I mean, what if I told Ed Zotti that the word “cunt” offends me and…oh, never mind. That would be censorship and it would be bad. I continue to think that the issue of the incredible hypocrisy here is worth exploring, but yes, I am one of the offenderati in this instance, I suppose. > [@Giraffe](#): > > I think some people are upset because this issue has brought **Cesario** ’s overall posting pattern into view, and the sum of the parts is far worse than any individual post (some of which are pretty awful in their own right). From my end, I hadn’t realized how single-minded he was until I did the search that prompted the Pit thread. > > For me, it’s really the pattern that’s the problem. If he’d been posting about normal stuff all along and then admitted to being a pedophile and offered to host a Q&A, I’d have no problem with it, or him. But now that I see how single-minded his posting is, I think something needs to be done. If not by him exercising self-restraint, then by the mods. This, plus if he showed any inkling of that mayyyyyybe, maybe, his attraction to children is wrong. I worked in a Psychiatric hospital many years ago, and we had a patient who was a self-admitted pedophile. He was torn up about it and wanted help. He was actually seeking chemical castration. I—who at the time was going through some of the worst years I had in dealing with my own sexual abuse, some of it by people who, you guessed it, used the “she wanted it” defense about a 6-year-old—had no problem at all fulfilling my work duties to support him and keep him safe. None. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/309 "2010-02-08T00:11:10Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > And, y’know, as somebody who’s been getting involved heavily in arguing the other side, your perspective is the one that makes a lot of sense to me. You’re basically saying he’s being disgusting and being a jerk. You’ve got an actual rational objection and you’re leaning on that rather than bigotry, so all right. > > What I don’t get is why so many people who (it seems to me) obviously have the same objection as you, at its roots, are pretending that there are legal issues or board-rules-about-whatever issues. Pages and pages of increasingly hysterical and provably false silliness and either willful or just purely stupid misinterpretation of the situation gets frustrating after a while. And the next step of course is that the “defenders” who bother to point out that the absurd legalities and technicalities getting cited are, in fact, absurd, start getting insulted and ridiculously threatened. It’s a fucking witch hunt mentality when a perfectly rational one was available. I actually don’t agree with any of the arguments that legal action should be taken. People are upset, though, which I suspect is where some of the more emotional appeals are coming from. I have the luxury of being grossed out by **Cesario** only based on my moral compass and social taboos – it’s not _personal_ for me. I’ve never been molested and I don’t have kids. If I was in either of those situations, I can’t say I could sit back and dispassionately discuss the logic of whether he should be allowed to espouse his views here or not. It’s a pretty visceral issue. The mods here have always been very good about not allowing mob rule, and I don’t think that should change in this case. If any mod action is taken against **Cesario** , it should be (and almost certainly will be) because of what he has posted (or goes onto to post in the future), not because of the calls for action by others. I do think he’s been given too much leeway until now, but I doubt it’s intentional – it’s easy for people to slip under the radar. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/310 "2010-02-08T00:11:44Z")
> [@lorene](#): > > This, plus if he showed any inkling of that mayyyyyybe, maybe, his attraction to children is wrong. He can’t do this. He is cursed with a sexual orientation which is locked into an attraction to young girls. He might _say_ that it’s wrong, but deep in his heart I don’t think he would believe it. _Maybe_ he would admit that him _acting_ on his desires - engaging in sexual activity - would be harmful and injurious to the children. But how could he bring himself to say that the desire, itself, is wrong? ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/311 "2010-02-08T00:19:30Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > The issue, then, is should the SDMB kick someone off simply for having an opinion that the majority finds morally repellent? No, shit for brains. Way to miss the point. > [@](#): > > The SDMB can ban anyone at any time. Yes, and obviously.\*\* Carol Stream\*\* was banned for being a chronic whiner, and generally annoying, yet baby-fucker here is kosher crab cakes for… constantly speaking of his desire to fuck little kids, entirely regardless of the topic at hand?\*\* Curis LeMay\*\* was suspended for writing too many insipid OPs and daring to admit he knowingly wrote false information on WikiPedia (which I suppose is an encyclopedia for jackasses), a website that has precisely dick to do with the SDMB. > [@](#): > > Likewise, the arguments that it violates the rules are silly. If he wants to post threads about his predilections, I say fine. If he wants to bring it up in completely unrelated threads, then warn and ban him the same as you would anyone else. Right. This is what people are _saying_. This MFer strutted into a flirting thread, into an intrusive _DUI checkpoint thread_, to mention his love of fucking babies. Why, for the love of mid-shelf Scotch, do you have to bring up how wrong you feel child pornography laws are in a thread about DUIs? > [@](#): > > No one is forced to read his threads; we have an ignore function, and if he threadshits in violation of the rules, the mods should handle it as they would with anyone else. He threadshits all the time. I fancied myself pretty good at ignoring the sick fuck, until he deemed it mandatory to bring up his desire to schlong newborns into every goddamn discussion on the board. > [@](#): > > Our society has spent hundreds of years defending the rights of people to have unpopular, disturbing, or utterly disgusting views. It’s easy to talk about supporting free speech and fighting censorship, but it appears to be much more difficult to actually do so. Saying you believe in a principle but leaving it to others to uphold that principle is cowardly and disingenuous. Oh please, take this Freedom Fighter bullshit elsewhere. 1) There is no such thing as free speech on this board. 2) I don’t even think users should be stopped from initiating a discussion about their pedophilia. I think _ **Cesario** _ should be stopped for being trollimus maximus, and injecting his desire to inject his manmeat into babies fresh out of the incubator into every conversation he has. Some have suggested he is a troll, and is not a real pedophile. That’s a lovely theory, but let us agree that he \*is \*a pedophile, and isn’t making this up to get a rise out of people; is he no less trollish for bringing up his perversion into every unrelated topic? Surely pedophile =/= completely oblivious to reality. He’s acknowledged that society [del]has victimized him[/del] does not condone his stance on toddler boning, yet he cannot resist inserting this into every conversation? Purposely incendiary? Nah. > [@](#): > > Either come out and say you want ban people with unpopular opinions, or accept that there are people with repugnant views who have a right to talk about those views. To hell with this noise. There’s a bandwagon every 8 days about what poster we need to chase out because he’s a meaniepants and no one likes him, and I’m never on that bandwagon, but this sonofabitch can eat a bag of dicks, grilled, seasoned in seven herbs and spices. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/312 "2010-02-08T00:23:32Z")
And since we’re all being clear, as I said WAY up in this thread, I am not an advocate for outright banning nor am I against the discussion of pedophilia as a topic. I am however against the idea of allowing an _alleged_ pedophile having a specific thread. I’d feel the same about holocaust deniers, stormfront fucks and a few other things that have no place being -given- a venue. Oh and Jimmy, it has nothing to do with bigotry. You saying so doesn’t make it so. It’s too bad you and a few others can’t look past your own narrow points of view to see that. ETA: Mean Old Lady, you’ll never get through to the stalwart defenders of free speech since heels have been dug in and they suffer from an absolute lack of perspective. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/313 "2010-02-08T00:27:41Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Right. This is what people are _saying_. This MFer strutted into a flirting thread, into an intrusive _DUI checkpoint thread_, to mention his love of fucking babies. Why, for the love of mid-shelf Scotch, do you have to bring up how wrong you feel child pornography laws are in a thread about DUIs? Like I said, ban him for that, **just like any other user**. Should be easy if he’s had multiple warnings. Unfortunately for your, er, point, a lot of other folks just want him gone cause he’s skeezy. Those people are wrong. I’d quote the rest of your post, but honestly, it just repeated what you said above, albeit in a more amusingly descriptive way. eta: **Just like any other user** should be tempered with the usual caveats that it depends upon the alignment of the planets, what the mods had for dinner last night, the level of sunspot activity, and the vowel:consonant ratio of the names of the 378th to the 455th most valuable stocks in the same hour on the preceding Wednesday. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/314 "2010-02-08T00:28:29Z")
I don’t think there is anything in the “mods are being hypocritical” argument as people are triumphantly assuming. I have no difficulty at all in drawing an intellectual line between the mods saying that they won’t accept unnecessarily offensive rhetoric here but will accept people expressing views that (no matter how politely put) are inherently offensive. This line is rationally defensible: posters don’t have to use terms like “cunt” or “motherfucker” to get their point across so offence can be avoided without substantive disruption to the ability to converse. But if the OP has certain views on a topic that offend everyone, then to avoid offence there is no alternative but to prevent him from posting on the topic, which generally goes against the culture of the boards. Personally, I don’t agree with TPTB’s decision to ban certain magic swear words at all. But those suggesting the mods’ present position on the poster at hand involves any inherent hypocrisy are incorrect, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/315 "2010-02-08T00:33:04Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Likewise, the arguments that it violates the rules are silly. If he wants to post threads about his predilections, I say fine. If he wants to bring it up in completely unrelated threads, then warn and ban him the same as you would anyone else. > > Right. This is what people are _saying_. This MFer strutted into a flirting thread, into an intrusive _DUI checkpoint thread_, to mention his love of fucking babies. Why, for the love of mid-shelf Scotch, do you have to bring up how wrong you feel child pornography laws are in a thread about DUIs? No, it isn’t what people are saying, which is how we got here. Look at the title of this thread again. He wanted to start a thread and keep all the awful stuff in it, and people are really upset by the idea. That’s what started all of this. So how can it be the case that what all those people are saying is that he should just post his own threads and keep his biological inclination out of other threads? I can not for the life of me figure out why people just keep saying things that are so clearly not true. ---
**Author:** ![lorene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/65b543/32.png) [@lorene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lorene)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/316 "2010-02-08T00:33:20Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > He can’t do this. He is cursed with a sexual orientation which is locked into an attraction to young girls. He might _say_ that it’s wrong, but deep in his heart I don’t think he would believe it. > > _Maybe_ he would admit that him _acting_ on his desires - engaging in sexual activity - would be harmful and injurious to the children. But how could he bring himself to say that the desire, itself, is wrong? Fine, yes, then. The latter is more what I meant. An acknowledgment that acting on it is wrong, and perhaps laying off the idea that a child in his preferred range could ask for sex\* with full understanding of what they were asking/consenting to\* without it being harmful. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/317 "2010-02-08T00:35:17Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > No, it isn’t what people are saying, which is how we got here. Look at the title of this thread again. He wanted to start a thread and **keep all the awful stuff in it** , and people are really upset by the idea. That’s what started all of this. So how can it be the case that what all those people are saying is that he should just post his own threads and keep his biological inclination out of other threads? > > I can not for the life of me figure out why people just keep saying things that are so clearly not true. (bolding mine) Where did he say he planned to confine his remarks on pedophilia to the one thread? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/318 "2010-02-08T00:43:40Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Quoted for truth. > > I don’t want to see the board all disrupted but the intellectual purist in me does not like the way this whole thing has gone so far. Intellectual purist? _Intellectual purist?_ This is getting _surreal._ ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/319 "2010-02-08T00:49:09Z")
He didn’t say so, **Giraffe** , as far as I know, so I should have phrased that differently. My apologies. I was assuming that, given that **Marley** said a few times that he has already been warned several times for posting in unrelated threads, this was his response and a way of avoiding that, and that he would have been held to such a restriction once he had a proper forum, so to speak (since **Marley** said he was going to be held to the restriction either way). But no, you’re right that he didn’t actually say that was his purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/320 "2010-02-08T00:49:48Z")
Well, babies do have intellects, so I guess pursuing babies is intellectual pursuit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906.md?page=17)