# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/101 "2010-02-07T00:14:42Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > We should understand _why_ and _how_ they try to normalize their deviance; we should also be able to ask all kinds of questions that it takes another person to answer. I could come up with 10 of them in a few minutes. You can read all kinds of scientific studies or whatever to do your research on it, but there is nothing like actually communicating with someone first hand. (Remember, those researchers and scientists who compiled the data about pedophilia did so by _talking to pedophiles_ - right?) …and all folks are going to get is a **survey size of one** about why someone who **alleges** to be a pedo (remember, we really have no idea who they are - they could be some troll trying to pull a **Wally** ) wants to buttslam little boys or play “where’s Mr. Snakey going _this_ time?” with little girls. Further, anyone who believes that “fighting ignorance” means allowing all twisted viewpoints, sicknesses, and mental illnesses to cavort and caper and strut upon the boards of the, well, Board does not really understand what Cecil means by “fighting ignorance” in the first place. IMO there is no useful purpose having an “ask the pedo” thread on this message board, although there may be use in a **factual** debate about pedophilia. Further, I’ll note that I just checked and LiveJournal, MySpace, FaceBook, and BlogSpot are still all up and running, as are all of the SDMB-related message boards, and unless the OP’s arms and legs are broken and his helper monkey drunk in a monkey whorehouse for the night, nothing stops them from registering and starting a thread on almost any of those places and linking to it here. So I’ll put the challenge to them to put their money where their mouth is and do just that. Since, after all, the thread is so important and everything. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/102 "2010-02-07T00:28:22Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > See, I said those things, and I don’t think I’m going to get banned for it. And you can tell me whether you think it’s wrong for me to have those impulses, and why. We don’t ban discussion of illegal activity here, and people are allowed to discuss changing any law. _Promotion_ of illegal activity gets moderated: ‘go here and you can download these movies,’ for example. **Cesario** has been modded for bringing up his interests in unrelated threads. (Here are some examples: [one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11568458#post11568458), [two](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12085364#post12085364), [three](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11567581#post11567581).) As I said months ago he obviously relishes the attention people give him when he presents or hints at his purported views. I also said (and I wasn’t the only one, or the only mod) that he is not a good source for getting information about the subject, and that if people are offended by him they should ignore him. Rubbernecking does not help, and hounding him only feeds into his persecution act. And the bottom line is that when he brings up his views in a tangential way, posters often inadvertently help him further the hijack. This makes it more difficult to moderate him for that. Pedophilia has been debated on this site before, I point out. And I am pretty sure we’ve had self-described pedophiles here in the past. It’s true that I sent **Cesario** a pre-emptive PM on the topic after he suggested he might open a thread about it. We debated it some and then the discussion kind of faded out. ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/103 "2010-02-07T01:06:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Cesario** has been modded for bringing up his interests in unrelated threads. (Here are some examples: [one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11568458#post11568458), [two](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12085364#post12085364), [three](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11567581#post11567581).) As I said months ago he obviously relishes the attention people give him when he presents or hints at his purported views. I also said (and I wasn’t the only one, or the only mod) that he is not a good source for getting information about the subject, and that if people are offended by him they should ignore him. Rubbernecking does not help, and hounding him only feeds into his persecution act. And the bottom line is that when he brings up his views in a tangential way, posters often inadvertently help him further the hijack. This makes it more difficult to moderate him for that. Have the mods considered a similar rule to the one imposed on **Evil Captor**? ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/104 "2010-02-07T01:06:50Z")
> [@Kaio](#): > > Plus, I think it opens up all kinds of legal/liability issues for the Reader and the message board. Like what? > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > …and all folks are going to get is a **survey size of one** … > > IMO there is no useful purpose having an “ask the pedo” thread on this message board, although there may be use in a **factual** debate about pedophilia. By that logic, there is no useful purpose of having any “Ask The …” threads whatsoever. Yet, people still manage to find interest in them. As to the soapbox… his message will only reach those who read the thread, which will be clearly titled as to its content. If someone doesn’t like the topic, they can ignore it. I fail to see how asking someone to ignore a thread is “dismissive and condescending.” How hard is it to just butt out of something you don’t like? Nobody is going to force you to read it. If you don’t like what your neighbor is doing in his own back yard, it’s not dismissive or condescending to ask you to stop peering over the fence if your neighbor is not committing a crime or actually harming anyone. Any thread on any controversial topic can be deemed a potential soapbox for unpopular views. Same sex marriage is unpopular in the US, yet we have many civil discussions about it at SDMB. Polygamy is unpopular and illegal. Should the “community” preemptively quash the debate? Some want to preempt the thread because they can’t see what anyone could possibly get out of that kind of thread. Why not let the thread play itself out? If nobody has any interest in it, the thread will die on its own from a lack of replies. Just because YOU cannot see what might come out of it doesn’t mean others should be denied the opportunity to discuss it. I would not want to preemptively quash a thread on “Ask the Guy Who Longs to Lynch and Makes His Own Homemade Ropes.” As repulsive as the topic may be to the community and me, if the sentiment of the OP is genuine, allow the thread. If I didn’t want to have a discussion about that, I would ignore the thread. If I felt like expressing my distaste, I would go to the Pit. ---
**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 7, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/105 "2010-02-07T01:13:14Z")
The SDMB: where 13 year olds can learn about pedophilia from a pedophile. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/106 "2010-02-07T01:16:12Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > Have the mods considered a similar rule to the one imposed on **Evil Captor**? There’s a boardwide rule about excessive posting on any one topic. It’s not one we feel the need to invoke very often, but we do use it. ( **Sapo** started a separate thread to ask about this.) ---
**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 7, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/107 "2010-02-07T01:16:53Z")
I’d like to think that if wonder boy over there were allowed to create his pedophile thread, he’d finally shut the fuck up about his desire to schlong babies everywhere else, but we all know that’s not true. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/108 "2010-02-07T01:47:01Z")
Hasn’t **Cesario** already HAD how many threads about pedophilia already? Why does he need yet another one? ---
**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 7, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/109 "2010-02-07T01:48:38Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Further, anyone who believes that “fighting ignorance” means allowing all twisted viewpoints, sicknesses, and mental illnesses to cavort and caper and strut upon the boards of the, well, Board does not really understand what Cecil means by “fighting ignorance” in the first place. Unfortunately, Ed Zotti (a.k.a. Cecil) has demonstrated that he does not share your position as applied to Cesario. The sad fact of the matter is that he will not toss Cesario unless Cesario is shown to explicitly promote the fucking of infants and children, and he does not consider the repeated posts on pedophilia by Cesario to be promotion of the fucking of infants and children. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/110 "2010-02-07T02:10:33Z")
I’d like to point out here, idly, that **Cesario** is asking about starting one thread and there are now _SIX_ threads tangentially related to him or his idea. This is the same thing that happened when he showed up last fall: he made relatively few posts and was able to inspire a large reaction across multiple forums. It’s pretty much indisputable that he wants this to happen. To people who think he should not be allowed to post here, I point out that ignoring him will bring about that goal more quickly than advocating his banning can. Doing so would also bring his presence on the board into proper proportion and make it easier for those who are offended by his presence or his posts, or simply don’t care, to also use the board without having to deal with **Cesario** -related discussion. It’s a win-win for everyone as far as I can see. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/111 "2010-02-07T02:12:17Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Unfortunately, Ed Zotti (a.k.a. Cecil) has demonstrated that he does not share your position as applied to Cesario. The sad fact of the matter is that he will not toss Cesario unless Cesario is shown to explicitly promote the fucking of infants and children, and he does not consider the repeated posts on pedophilia by Cesario to be promotion of the fucking of infants and children. Did Ed say exactly that on this message board? I’m not being snarky; can you post me a link please? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/112 "2010-02-07T02:23:22Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > We are still formulating how we want to structure this, so it’s not permission to open a thread yet. Know that any such thread will be closely and carefully monitored and can and will be shut down the first time it goes bad. > > More to come. How does the board benefit in any way from allowing such a thread? “The SDMB–Enabling and/or Not Judging Kiddy Diddlers Since 2010” prolly ain’t gonna sell many ads. Put another way, what redeeming value would such a thread have, and does that value outweigh any additional burdens it may impose? ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/113 "2010-02-07T02:25:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’d like to point out here, idly, that **Cesario** is asking about starting one thread and there are now _SIX_ threads tangentially related to him or his idea. This is the same thing that happened when he showed up last fall: he made relatively few posts and was able to inspire a large reaction across multiple forums. It’s pretty much indisputable that he wants this to happen. > > To people who think he should not be allowed to post here, I point out that ignoring him will bring about that goal more quickly than advocating his banning can. Doing so would also bring his presence on the board into proper proportion and make it easier for those who are offended by his presence or his posts, or simply don’t care, to also use the board without having to deal with **Cesario** -related discussion. It’s a win-win for everyone as far as I can see. I have warned you long ere this about using logic in your arguments, Marley. Logic is not permitted here. Please do not force me to do that thing with the items coated with you-know-what. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/114 "2010-02-07T02:27:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’d like to point out here, idly, that **Cesario** is asking about starting one thread and there are now _SIX_ threads tangentially related to him or his idea. This is the same thing that happened when he showed up last fall: he made relatively few posts and was able to inspire a large reaction across multiple forums. \*\*It’s pretty much indisputable that he wants this to happen. > \*\* Bolding mine. Isn’t that a form of trolling? He’s intentionally provoking a shitstorm, while violating no rules himself, at least in part because he enjoys the show? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/115 "2010-02-07T02:30:09Z")
Arguably it is. But you could also just say it’s attention whoring and we don’t have a rule against that. ---
**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 7, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/116 "2010-02-07T02:32:44Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Did Ed say exactly that on this message board? I’m not being snarky; can you post me a link please? From Ed Zotti’s reply email on 08/10/2009: > [@](#): > > So far as I’m aware, he’s not breaking any rules - it’s not against our rules to be a creep. However, it’s possible I’ve overlooked something. Do you have a cite to support the contention in your last sentence? Thanks. -Ed > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Culpeper \ > To: [edzotti@aol.com](mailto:edzotti@aol.com) > Sent: Sat, Oct 3, 2009 11:36 pm > Subject: SDMB: Ed, cleanup in isle 6 (Cesario) > Ed, please remove Cesario from the SDMB, and report him to the authorities. > > He is wandering around the SDMB promoting sex with infants and young children. And TubaDiva’s email two day’s previously on 06/10/2009 > [@](#): > > Your request has been forwarded to me for handling. > > ===== > Yesterday, 09:53 AM > Muffin > Guest Join Date: Nov 2000 > > Gfactor, I opened a thread in ATMB asking Ed to remove Cesario from the SDMB and report him to the authorities. That thread was closed immediately for reason of ATMB not being the place to demand the banning of a poster. > > Would opening up a second thread in ATMB taking the PTB to task for your collective decision to permit Cesario to continue here be permitted, in light of the first thread’s closure? > > ===== > > You have already asked Ed Zotti to take action for you. We are aware of your wishes in this matter. This subject is still being discussed in the open thread in the Pit. The reasons for administrative action are detailed in that Pit thread; opening another thread in ATMB on the subject would be redundant. > > There are discussions at the Straight Dope that are difficult for some people to take. There are Straight Dope columns that handle indelicate, outrageous, even salacious situations. There’s opinions expressed that are unpopular. This is an adult site and mature subject matter and adult topics are often on the table. The idea is that we should be able to reasonably talk about damn near anything; that’s what the Straight Dope is all about. > > If you dislike what Cesario has to say, don’t read it. Put him on your Ignore list. Don’t participate in threads where he is active. Don’t read his postings. Don’t play along. > > We must turn down this request from you. > > Jenny > Administrator Thus my conclusion that Ed Zotti does not consider the repeated posts on pedophilia by Cesario to be promotion of the fucking of infants and children, and that Ed Zotti will not toss Cesario unless Cesario is shown to explicityly promote the fucking of infants and children. ---
**Author:** ![Omegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e480ec/32.png) [@Omegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omegaman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/117 "2010-02-07T02:36:14Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > How does the board benefit in any way from allowing such a thread? Word. I guess it’s all good to fight ignorance, but hey, what the hell, the most deviant shit you can come up with, well, that’s all good. There ain’t enough roll eyes in the world to cover that bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![ajb867](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@ajb867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ajb867)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/118 "2010-02-07T02:48:44Z")
If you guys can ban mswas and Carol Stream, surely you can ban Cesario. Just get it over with already and move the SDMB forward not backwards. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/119 "2010-02-07T03:07:17Z")
I hope that I can remember that if the pedophile posts in the Pit, I must not tell him to “fuck off” because that would be uncivil. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/120 "2010-02-07T03:09:37Z")
I don’t really give a damn if this thread goes ahead or not, but seeing the limits upon people’s belief in free discussion (you don’t support it till you support people saying things you disagree with, etc) is interesting. One knows that such beliefs are generally only paper thin when put to the test, but seeing it in action is always an eye opener. It’s also all a casebook study of taboo and the hold it has on people. Otherwise logical people put forward arguments they’d normally laugh at others for making, in a desperate attempt to come up with something to support their visceral reaction. The only intellectually honest posts here against this potential thread are, IMHO, those that say the whole idea of seeing, or being in any way associated with, such a thread squicks them out. Even if “associated with” merely means being a poster on a message board where someone else starts such a thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906.md?page=7)