They didn’t belong in that thread in the first place. It is yet another example of you taking over a thread with inflammatory posts.
The difference in this case is that you posted that you would do something unambiguously illegal.
Personally I don’t think it is okay for you to bring this topic into so many threads where it doesn’t belong, but for those who think it is okay as long as you don’t support anything actually illegal, this is an example of where you did.
Yep, just as I support the unambigously illegal act of shooting Hitler before he starts World War II in the extremely unlikely event of time travel, and I support the unambiguously illegal act of stealing vital components from a government sponsored doomsday device that, when activated, will anihalate all life on earth.
And I consider those situations just as unlikely as the one described in that post.
Well yes but whether that is good or bad depends on whether or not I am the demonic dictator.
I like you. When I rule the world, you will be part of the secret cabal that is allowed pinot noir and expensive chocolate.
On preview, I like you too Prinnie. Unfortunately the slot of demonic dictator will be mine as soon as I take care of that troublesome Skald but if you make nice, maybe I won’t have your entire county razed.
As I said, I think spamming the forum with inflammatory posts in unrelated threads is already bad enough.
But others have argued that since you haven’t explicitly supported doing something illegal, it is okay. This is an example where you did explicitly support doing something illegal. You said you would rape a child if they started it.
And I don’t buy the “unlikely” defense for posting inflammatory material about an illegal act.
That would allow you to say you would rape a child “but only if you roll a die and get a 6 1000 times in a row.” Nice try.
It’s not as though I’ve ever been coy about the fact that I don’t obey the law just because it’s the law, but rather my decision not to fuck kids has a lot more to do with my interest in not hurting them.
Lot going on here. Some clarifications:
Some have asked why we suspended Claude Remains but haven’t done anything about Cesario, who also posts about pedophilia. The suspension was an instance of the ick rule, under which mods and admins are permitted to halt a discussion they feel has gone off the rails pending further discussion by staff. After review, we’ve decided to reinstate Claude because we’ve had no specific rule about discussions of pedophilia up till now. However, see below.
The SDMB’s longstanding policy is that, in principle, we’ll permit discussion of almost any topic, provided it doesn’t promote illegal activity. The implication, where criminal or otherwise abhorrent behavior is concerned, is that the discussion should be mature. We’re now making this rule explicit. The board is not meant to be a forum for the gratuitous expression of criminal fantasies, such as the one that led to the suspension of Claude Remains. Such posts may result in revocation of your posting privileges. We’ll be the judge of what’s gratuitous.
Regarding Cesario’s request to start an “ask the pedophile” thread, we refused permission because C. seems to think there’s nothing inherently wrong with having sex with children, and we don’t wish to do anything that would encourage such people. That said, pedophilia is not a verboten subject, and it’s not out of the question that we would allow such a thread with a different OP.
Having reviewed Cesario’s postings and compared notes, we now realize how frequently he posts about his sexual inclinations. Our rules state, “The board is not intended to furnish you with a forum for promoting your personal agenda. We reserve the right to ask you to limit postings on a particular topic, or to refrain from posting on such topics altogether.” We’re now invoking this rule: We don’t want to see any further discussion from Cesario about pedophilia. Attempts by other users to provoke Cesario into breaking this rule, or to make comments about him to which he cannot respond, will also not be tolerated. Thank you for your cooperation.
[Redundant post removed]
Ed, I think this just unnecessarily compounds the current problem. Could you please explain your reasoning for just not out right removing Cesario from the SDMB?
I know. I am one. Are you?
Says you. How about you let us decide for ourselves? Not *everyone *who was abused as a kid is “broken” or needs your protection (or the mods’) - *some *of us are big boys and girls who can look after ourselves, and don’t particularly appreciate being co-opted in your oh-so-righteous Crusade, TYVM.
I don’t think he’s a troll (posting to get a rise out of people) as much as he’s an activist (posting to get people to argue with him about his interest). I’m not saying that’s better, mind you, just that I don’t think he gets off on the irrate responses.
I am satisfied with this.
Seeking further clarification, Cesario’s proposed thread is essentially this:
Ask the pedo who…
Opposes sex between adults and non-consenting minors (with the assumption that some minors are indeed capable of consent);
Opposes a bright-line age of consent law;
Advocates testing minors to determine the legal capacity of each minor to give informed consent; and
Has not violated and does not intend to violate current consent laws despite personal opposition to them.
If some other pedo came along with the same thread request but without the posting baggage accumulated by Cesario, would that thread be permitted or does that fall into the realm of someone who “seems to think there’s nothing inherently wrong with having sex with children?”
I gather from what you wrote that another pedo who came along but instead was grappling with the attraction to minors as “personal demons” and an illness would have little trouble staring an Ask The… thread.
I’m just wondering. The decision seems pretty fair at first blush.
Numbers 2 and 3 on that list are completely inflammatory and unacceptable premises for discussion. Number 3, especially, is utterly insane.
I assume you mean Ed’s list.
What is your reason for doing so? This ruling means now **Cesario **will either just post in programming & gaming threads, I guess - or, if he’s the troll people think he is, he’ll break the rule and be banned for it. Same outcome - people won’t have to put up with paedophilia advocacy in their threads, which is what people were objecting to.
Except those who want **Cesario **to jump in front of a train, of course, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time…
Ed Zotti, does this rule apply to paedophilia posts only? Because Cesario’s other schtick is minor emancipation, and while it is linked to his paedophilia, it would still be possible for him to argue the one without invoking the other.
What, these?
I disagree.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=551058&page=6
This is exactly why. How long before the next Cesario shows up?
I dunno. For now, I’m just happy to see SDMB didn’t just quash discussion of unpopular matters with a really broad brush.
Several months ago he expressed an interest in having sex with babies beginning at “age 0.”
Would the Jews, Muslims, or atheists be threatening physical or psychological damage? If not, I see no reason why they should not be included. But in this case, it’s not just a matter of getting rid of someone we don’t like. In fact, I’ve heard very little call for his banning. But sometimes tolerance is appropriate and other times it’s not. We shouldn’t tolerate necrophilia, should we? How about serial murder? Genocide?
Pedophilia isn’t just gross or icky. Those are fourth grade words that kids use to describe nose boogers or normal sex. Pedophilia is vile.
I disagree for this reason. A word is a symbol. It is not the thing itself. It cannot be good or bad. So banning a word makes no sense. Let’s say that TPTB had banned “kiddiefxxker” which is a symbol, but had allowed the thing that the symbol represents to remain a poster. That wouldn’t make much sense. It would be hypocritical.
But it looks like The Powers have made a reasonable decision – a good compromise.