...and tomorrow you attack the religion of the day for being illogical; and the other day you attack libertarians for being illogical. (And you'd certainly attack other ideologies if they were represented here.) And the other day you attack the anecdotal arguments for consent for being illogical.

You're right. I have a double standard on those two issues. I think there are some things where logic is much more important, one being religion. Why? Because religion by its very nature is actively destructive to science, and it uses doctrine to defy and science. Whereas, I'm not saying that you're inherently wrong about some of the things you believe; as I said at VirPed recently, I think many of the pro-contacters are on the right track, but for the wrong reasons, and they take it too far. Anyway, I am not saying your position is unreasonable on its face--I'm saying there are other issues that take precedent here over logic. Because that happens sometimes. For example, given the obvious amount of harm human beings cause to this planet and other species, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the human population be killed off so that millions of other species can thrive. But there are other issues at play there, namely the right of our species to continue existing. Is that a logical consideration? Nope. it's a moral one, and morality is not absolutely equivalent to logic.

This isn't moving goalposts, because you do not do it over a single thread and over a single point of contention. You do it as an ad hoc process for whatever ran through your mind today, sometimes in reply to a thread and sometimes as a thread you post yourself.

I'm afraid it's not that long-term focused on my part. What you're seeing is the process of my views changing as I reconsider these issues with respect to new information or realizations.

You have accused me of being a tricky, maybe dirty, debater. I have never contested this because I think it may be so. I come from competitive debate and it is inevitable that habits built as abilities for competitive debate will stay with you even in other tasks, same as soccer kicks, basketball jumps and baseball throws do for those who practice sports while young. But for all the tricky debater I can be, it is you who want to win at all costs. You use entirely contrary worldviews and incompatible positions depending on what you are arguing.

No, this is not about winning for me. If it was, I would just side with the best debaters in any given scenario, which would be you and Dante at GC. To me these issues are not a game; they are deadly serious. Actual children are at stake here, and that's important to me. I would think that, as long as I have been here, you would've at least picked up on that much about me. But you see, here's what I mean about my overall point: you're still trying to turn this into a competition, a debate, with a right side and a wrong side. I am trying to assure children are protected from abuse. That is my goal. I really don't care if you or Dante turn out to be logically correct about every issue presented here, because humanity is about way more than just seeking the most logical ends. real people are not automatons for which reason is the only measuring stick for a happy, healthy society. It only it were that simple.