There's not much dialogue to be had about "we see ourselves as incapable of playing this sexuality in a socially acceptable way".

Why not? I might reframe it as, "the nature of girls being as it is, there are unavoidable risks of harm that exceed any benefits, so it is good social policy to prohibit adult-child sexual contact." The "we see ourselves as incapable" focuses attention on us pedophiles rather than the overall situation.

It is currently illegal for an adult to have sex with anyone under age 16 in the US. It deters genuine and indisputable rapes....

Your "best example" is just as rare as ours.

It's hard to quantify things that were deterred and didn't happen. What do you want to use as your "best example"?

And we're kinda fighting an uphill battle, putting our lives on the line.

What do you mean here? "Out" pedophiles agitating for lower AoCs? I wasn't aware of any of us/you doing that. I would argue it's not good to put your life on the line if it's not part of a strategy with a reasonable chance of success.

You're a direct adversary to the correct way of handling this, not to mention a sustainable future.

There may be some truth in the idea that VP ideas could influence the debate. I'm trying to point out that the inter-pedophile argument is not going to resolve this issue, as the teleiophiles will properly weigh in based on their numbers on the question of how best to advance the welfare of kids.

I suppose the gays, and the blacks, and the Jews should all have just kept their mouths shut while the teleiophiles resolved their problems.

I agree it makes sense to agitate for one's own rights. What makes pedophiles different is that there is a third party involved -- children. We can agitate for the right to not be hated as along as we're celibate, but when it comes to adult-child sex, the children's welfare becomes central.

I could speculate on one aspect of black rights that's somewhat comparable -- the rights of black men to marry white women. From a political standpoint, I predict it would have worked better to have the white women take the lead in this, saying what they wanted, rather than black men marching for this right. I don't know how it really happened, but that would have been my political judgment. Similarly, if the prepubescent girls can organize marches for the right to sexual activity with adult men, people would listen much more sympathetically than to any pro-legalization arguments WE make.

So it's really closer to 65/35 even with the self-imprisoning (read: defeatist) nature of the cult you've created.

I'm not saying the 35% are pro-legalization pedophiles. That 35% is a grab-bag. It includes non-pedophiles, including researchers, artists, and friends and family. We also welcome pro-legalization pedophiles to join as long as they don't post, so they can evaluate for themselves what's going on. And we do allow pedophiles to join and post who are "humble/laid back" -- not feeling passionately pro-legalization, not certain they are right, and willing to focus on other aspects of pedophilia.

The useful half of 721740 for you is the (respectfully, well-documented) observation log

I didn't see anything I would have called an observation log. What did you have in mind?

I'm not calling you a Nazi or anything, but you're obviously grieving something here.

You've lost me. I don't understand. Do I grieve the impossibility of ethically having a sexual relationship with a young girl? I do, but it is due to my understanding of what young girls are like, not laws and societal attitudes.

I told you I supported the ban on the basis of pragmatic considerations, not "intrinsic negativity". You just ignore that.

None of the "ancestors" of this post are by you -- I'm not replying to you here. Are you speaking of your "The usual" post? I don't immediately see that in there. I can't reply to everything, and that post had enough incomprehensible statements and snide tone that I ignored it.