... then none of us would be agreeing not to break the laws, even to make a political "point," and to work for change within the system.

Please. The reason most people here don't break the law is because they don't want to go to prison. If there was a high likelihood they wouldn't get caught, I'd wager most everyone here would have sex with kids given half a chance to do so. This is not a principled stand. If the pro-contacters truly cared about standing on their principles, they wouldn't hide their identities. But we've been over all of that before.

(And yes, the VirPeds are different--their moral positions are not in stark contrast to society's with respect to the single most important moral issue pertaining to pedophiles and society, so their anonymity is mostly irrelevant in a way that the pro-contacters' is not--though, for the record, I do think their credibility would be higher if they outed themselves.)

Big difference there, pal.

Not that big, palsy walsy. Rights--like all values--are human creations and are relative. Granting rights to one group removes rights from another, in this case parents. Parents have a legal and moral responsibility to make sure their children are healthy and well-adjusted, since they brought them into the world, and because those children represent their parents' genetic legacy, which gives them rights over those children until a certain point. I think it's a fair tradeoff. Of course, since I support the Epstein system, I am not a hard-ass about it. I think kids who can demonstrate they are ready to be on their own and desire to do so should have that opportunity. THAT is what compromise looks like.