This just doesn’t make any sense. Very little of this whole kerfuffle makes much sense to me in terms of the objective compared to the means employed to reach that objective, but I’m just talking on a basic logical level here.
“Sanctioned place to spew,” so far as I can tell, means letting him start a thread where he can be subjected to examination by people who detest him. Or does it mean just failing to ban him?
Obviously everybody thinks Cesario is either mentally ill or a troll. If he’s a troll, that’s one thing, but this debate assumes that he isn’t, for the most part. Why exactly is it such an especially irrational notion to you that I might say the guy should be able to talk about the way he’s screwed up, as an entirely separate question from whether I think he is screwed up? How does it make any sense that the only two choices are 1. pedophilia is bad or 2. Cesario can start a thread? Why are those the options? How is this a special case that goes against like thousands of years of general philosophical musings about the difference between thinking horribly unpopular things and doing horribly unpopular things?
You people understand that him being allowed to start a thread isn’t going to actually rape any children, right? And that, for one thing, he’s already said that he doesn’t actually do that? And that banning him outright, or preventing him from posting anything other than computer programming talk won’t actually cure the world of any pedophilia. Right?
Again, can somebody tell me what the precise harm is here, and how exactly it differs from a different form of social leprosy, many of which are frequent grist for the mill around here? It’s just the theoretical kiddies, and that’s all there is to it? Because from where I’m sitting, kicking the guy out does much to allow you to ignore the problem, but doesn’t do a damn thing one way or the other about the problem itself. Are you afraid he’s going to like convince people, or what?
Good on you. God forbid you fall victim to, well, let’s just say a decent human beings reaction, to something as completely disgusting and completley wrong, and well, what the hell, human being damaging, piece of garbages point of view.
My intent isn’t to discourage them from speaking out. I’m pointing out the moderating issue here: we can’t moderate someone for bringing up an unwelcome topic if people are constantly inviting him to bring up the subject - which has been the case here. Once Cesario established his favorite topic here, his habit was to enter a thread on a related subject, state his opinion, and wait for someone else to say something like “you would say that, you’re a pedophile.” At which point someone else has raised the subject and he gets a platform. And then we can then tell everyone to drop it (and have done so at times), but I’d rather get people to stop giving him the opening. Because it’s not usually “molesting children it’s wrong” or a moral statement, it’s “you have ulterior motives for your political views.”
Cesario opens a thread to ask whether he can open another thread called “Ask the Pedophile,” but it’s other posters who are inviting him to bring up the subject? :dubious: I’ve deliberately avoided Cesario for the most part, but I have certainly seen him introduce the topic of pedophilia into multiple threads that started out on other topics (and I typically stop reading when that happens). But I can’t really blame other posters for responding when he brings up the topic.
“Otherwise rational” is allowed in ATMB. Good to know.
That aside, in post #52 of this very thread, you pointed out that
For what it’s worth, I agree with your first opinion on the issue, not your second, contradictory one. “Do not feed the trolls” has never, ever, ever worked in the entire history of the internet.
But he has no problem with members being “subjected to” a would-be kiddy diddler telling everyone how the world persecutes him?
Most members have told him that they don’t give a shit about being called “motherfucking cuntragging cumlicking dickbarns” or whatever. However, we HAVE said we don’t want some pedophile talking about how the law should change so that he can be permitted to indulge in child rape.
I notice Cesario has not been back to this thread in about 24 hours. While I generally defend his position that free speech should rule the day, I have to wonder about his motives here in light of his lack of participation. Accordingly, I am done with this thread, at least until the OP returns to defend his own position.
Although I agree with you that there is nothing that can be done, I can’t tell you how delicious this post is coming from y-o-u. Seriously, I feel like it’s my birthday and Christmas all rolled into one as far as message board posts.
I’m not sure who you believe the proposed thread would be “sanctioned” by. Is it your view that every OP here is “sanctioned” by this person/entity? I’ve never heard this view expressed before and I find it curious.
Talking about “kiddy diddling” is not fine. This would be discussion of the commission of an illegal activity and so would definitely be a violation of the rules, no question.
People are acting as if a crime has already been committed.