"My point wasn't that pedophiles' opinions should be ignored, it was that they didn't have some insight that other people don't have -- that's the only thing that could explain the 75% vs 1% difference in a light that defended the pedophiles' position.

If 75% of physicists believe some strange fact about time and space and relativity that only 1% of the general population believes, then the physicists are quite likely right because of their specialized knowledge."

Argumentum ad populum much?

And it doesn't work either in the reverse when the "comparison to Galileo" is made.

Neither the popularity nor the unpopularity of a proposal makes it true.

And in comparing a handful of people on GLer fora to the population at large you are really determined to draw staggeringly unwarranted conclusions.

Occam's Razor. There's a simpler explanation.

Those exposed to an argument are more likely to evaluate it.

There now.

Since all Peds ( even the infinitesimal portion active on online fora ) are members of society at large, we know what the general conversation about the AoC is. THERE IS NONE.

There is more conversation over the speed limit than there is over the AoC. There are no rationales for the AoC because there is no discussion against. There is not even a discussion about settling on a different magic number.

The fact that Peds at GC might have arrived at different conclusions is not due to any special knowledge conferred by sexual desire. But because the facts are only being discussed here it means that even the Antis and Nons exposed to the arguments have more special knowledge than is found outside. You will find that the Antis who engage with us must begin to create ( or speculate about ) arguments for the present AoC that they've never had to articulate before.

And BTW, science is not a matter of "belief" and is not a popularity contest either. If you cared you might've read Kuhn and understood why 75% of physicists being wrong is to be expected when a new idea is being introduced. Opposition and ridicule of the "new physics" didn't make Quantum mechanics wrong. Yes, in general the scientific method builds up consensus within a field. But its the method which makes the consensus, not vice-versa; so comparing scientists to lay "believers" is pretty silly.

Anywho, argumentum ad populum may very well misdirect you from simpler explanations warranted by the evidence.

Dante