Re: Researching the mind of a pedophile

I think it's helpful to focus on one area of disagreement at a time.

Let's put aside whether there is non-iatrogenic harm to adult-child sex.

Your previous post says: the pro-choice stance takes the principle that claiming to have no self-hatred or condemnation of your feelings, but then saying you feel your feelings would be toxic to youths in your respective AoA if expressed, is doing a disservice to the first claim.

I took "disservice" to mean that it means the first claim isn't true. What I hoped to convince you of was that whether or not those beliefs about non-iatrogenic harm are true, it does not have to undercut the claim to having no self-hatred or self-condemnation. Did I convince you of that?

And you ... go by a common sentimental, moralistic belief of female fragility, only transposed onto particularly younger females in this case. And your suggested solution is total prohibition ... which reeks of a draconian solution to a largely moral issue.

The next issue I'd like to address here is moralism. I don't believe my opinions on this matter are a matter of moralism, I think they are opinions about objective human nature. Do you have any reason to think my objections are moralistic rather than scientific? As evidence against moralism being my motive, I would point to some of my beliefs: that childhood masturbation and sex play are just fine, that minors who do engage in sexual activity should not be convinced it was wrong if they don't think so, and that in some cases we know that adult-child sexual activity is not harmful.

To rephrase, you think I am wrong about objective human nature, but do you have reason to think there is a moralistic anti-sex component to my beliefs too?

Finally, lets go back to non-iatrogenic harm.

Did you take a look at this video (I think I put this link in a response to Dante)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXQwtTOnLvg

I think it's excellent and believe the guy's claims. What do you think of it, at whatever level of generality or specificity you care to address it? Nothing there argues directly on the issue at hand, but your reaction could give me a sense of where you are regarding nativist explanations more broadly.

Finally, could you get for me the references to the very best scientific work arguing for no non-iatrogenic harm? I'm aware of two Rind studies. The name "Tromovich" gets mentioned, but I'd ideally like some pointers to papers where the full text is available. Then if we address that issue, we'll know we're reading the same evidence.