"Percent of online pedophile board participants who think there should be much lower age of consent or none at all: 75

Percent of everyone else in society who thinks that: 1"

Argumentum ad populum. So?

Surely the truth of a proposition isn't subject to a popularity contest in either context?

"If some pedophiles believe that because of their own selfish desires, that surely is a non-starter."

Ah, baseless speculation. Good.

Perhaps we might try the reversal, that those seeking acceptance for one unpopular assertion from the general public might reject all others ( no matter how true ) to court favor. This then would be "selfish desires" and "ulterior motive."

Its been seen before when suffragettes largely rejected women of colour. And when gay men of colour were largely rejected by the civil rights movements.

However we've already discussed your claims about desire magically clouding the judgement in regard to Male Suffragettes and Whites who advocated against miscegenation law. We know that its a non-starter and spurious when applied to every previous Civil Rights struggle.

Further we have already established that Westermarck creates a revulsion to the thought of the sexual expression of consenting adults who are family members. Adult children are uncomfortable with proofs of their parents sexual relationships and vice-versa. They might tolerate in the abstract, but they avoid direct knowledge and would be repelled by being asked to facilitate such activity ( even without a participatory role. )

"Since you're going to the store for smokes, pick up your dad and me some condoms? Could you find the mint-flavored kind?"

This then creates a selfish interest in denying or repressing their children's sexual activity.

And, as you have pointed out, children have a selfish desire to have sex. Once we've eliminated the child, the CLer and the parent from the equation; were left waiting for childless orphaned spinsters to be the only valid parties to advocate for Youth Rights to sexual expression.

OTOH, we could always remove the baseless ad hominem and not assume ulterior motives in the lack of any evidence. Or accept evidence from previous movements that those who desire despite racial lines are not intellectually compromised from advocating against miscegenation laws affecting minorities disproportionally.

"The others must believe that this is a fact about the nature of children and what is good for them, which is not a subject they have any special knowledge of that other people don't."

You are correct. My knowledge on the subject was not conferred by my orientation. But on the whole you will find all minorities more knowledgeable about present and past discrimination against their people than those who take the majoritarian stance ( and prefer argmentum ad populum. )

When two struggles intersect, you also tend to have a greater degree of knowledge. Historically the Left has allied itself more with Civil Rights struggles. For the longest time you would find greater knowledge about Socialist struggles among the minorities than you would among the majority. H*ll, Jewish-Socialist was practically a walking cliche.

Until the death of the Kids Lib movement, uncommon knowledge about the history of children's social status was frequently found among the intellectuals in the Radical Left. Daniel Cohn Bendit was not an isolated example. ( Though now we have Jewish-Socialist-Kids-Lib-advocate. )

Another group were the education reformers. Unfortunately in the recent eras the homeschooling movement among the Religious Right has largely erased the notion that Kids Lib and education reform are linked struggles.

But as per usual, this is an ad hominem which seeks to taint the counterclaim. I don't argue that Peds have special knowledge because they are Peds. Just that special knowledge clearly exists, and is more frequently cited by Peds than by the majority.

Further, the majority has often trotted out the ad hominem that any adult who even entertains the notion of child sexual expression must be a Ped. Just as with the past accusations of being a "Communist sympathizer" it is an attempt by one partisan side with a selfish stake to try to taint even the openminded.

Its a convenient closed-loop. Peds have a conflict of interest in advocating against the AOC. Those who advocate against the AoC are Peds.

"A reasonable hypothesis is that this is a case of "epistemic closure", where pedophiles who would like to believe this talk with each other, reinforcing their beliefs and ignoring other evidence. "

Substitute "reasonable hypothesis" with baseless accusation.

The only parties I see routinely ignoring evidence are the Antis. They prefer to speculate and hypothesize. They prefer imagined potential outcomes over real results. And they prefer to believe that there is a single groupthink among their opponents rather than an ongoing debate.

But do be warned. Since the Antis promote the notion that GC is united in a stance of the AoC, and since you post at GC...................

If your attempt to further this slur internally fuels that belief among bystanding Antis and Nons, consider it blowback.

PS. Why resort to the tired "Mr. Hyde" accusation when you can trot out the "too long and scattered" one. You haven't used that excuse in a while to evade. ( Though generally speaking, The best way to avoid talking to someone is to avoid talking to them. Calling them out to say "nah, nah, I'm not listening," isn't really ignoring them. )

Dante