Also, you can look at Cesario’s profile to see his prior posts. There’s a thread that’s a few months old (re: have you ever/attraction to underage persons) in which he extensively describes his views advocating legalization of pedophilia. He offers this viewpoint in other threads, too.
What gives you the impression that I want to know about these things? I was merely pointing out that an internet message board would be an excellent place to do so.
It’s also a great place to find peer to peer kiddie porn, find a hit man or how to learn how to blow up buildings.
So, what’s your point?
I find it bitterly ironic that Cesario asked for this thread when his true intention was to become the center of attention and stroke his ego. After several days of name-calling, pittings, multiple warnings for using the word “cunt”, etc. – he’s gotten exactly what he wanted, irrespective of the board’s official decision.
And so the world rolls on, as it is and always shall be. :rolleyes:
You have no evidence that he really is a pedophile, which makes anything he says quite worthless.
Fun fact: if you Google search for pedophile message board, this board is the last result on the first page.
And by ‘fun’, I mean ‘this is much more damaging for our ‘image’ than any number of uses of ‘f*** you’’.
Unfortunately this is exactly right. It is hard to the point of almost impossible to get people to not discuss something they feel strongly about, though.
Firstly anything that resembles kiddy porn is going to be taken down pronto. Secondly, kiddy porn inserted into a quiet random thread somewhere has a much greater chance of surviving for ten minutes than in a thread that, if it had happened, would have been watched closely and reported on instantly. Your “absolutely sure” requirement is one that can never be met, ever.
It’s been demonstrated pretty clearly that nobody actually believes any of the justifications they’re offering. They don’t like him and they want him gone. The fact that a lot of posters seem uncomfortable with just seizing the courage of their convictions and saying so is confusing, but it’s no good pretending it isn’t obviously the case. He’s gross and they want him taken care of, end of story.
It is kind of interesting that this angry hysterical lynch mob has managed to cede the moral high ground in the debate to the professed pedophile, but what are you going to do.
If I was sitting on a dime in the gutter swinging my legs I’d be on high ground compared to this miscreant.
Back off whatever you’re on. It’s hurting you.
Thanks for your concern.
Anytime.
I don’t want to call for an intervention, but I will if you need it.
I’m there for you, man.
But there are children here – officially 13 and over.
There are children here who may have been sexually abused or may be sexually abused in the future. There are adults here who have been sexually abused when they were children. There are adults here whose children have been sexually abused by others. In short, there is a community here that includes people who have been or who will be tremendously hurt by pedophiles. Cesario is digging into open wounds. He should not be permitted to do this. That the PTB of the SDMB permit this is truly disappointing.
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.
Not only is it disappointing, it’s truly bizarre.
I sure hope the mods here don’t think they’re taking one for the sake of free speech considering Silverstreak Wonder was just banned for being annoying.
For all the times people have complained that the mods are too heavy handed around here, this is the time where many people are asking them to please do something.
I actually found Claude Remains to be way less offensive than Cesario. I’ve never called for him to be banned, I’ve always said just tell him to not talk about molesting children. But I’ve changed my mind. I think Cesario should be banned.
That would depend on one’s definition of child pornography.
Criminal Code of Canada:
Are Cesario’s posts written material that advocates sexual activity with a person under the age of 18?
Just sayin’ . . .
You know I have respect for you Mr. D.
You know how you feel about apartheid?
That’s how I feel about child abuse.
You’ve made it apparent before. And I’m pretty sure you’ve said you were abused as a child.
You know I started this post to tell you off but I suspect you’re the bigger man because you’re willing to put aside your own feelings for the feelings of the masses.
I’m not like you. I can only protect what is in my direct line of sight but be sure I would die trying to save only one child from what you and I have seen.
I don’t care to know the opinion of a pedophile because I’ve seen it firsthand.
OM
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.
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.
And if IIRC, that was one of the reasons Stage Manager was banned…for harassing some of younger posters via e-mail.