I am not surprised that your "arguments" here are based on a very high percentage of unbelievable intuitions and guesses and linked by reasoning that is seriously failing in logic. It confirms my earlier impression.

Would you like to try explaining what these "unbelievable intuitions and guesses" are and where that fallacious logic is, in your perspective? I'd also be interested to know what impression has been confirmed by my supposedly flawed reasoning.

So, the benefit to me in engaging in this argument is that the occasional newbie to GC (or perhaps the next Markaba) reading the exchange can judge for themselves.

Yes, I know that's why you're doing it. If you wanna convince the "occasional newbie" who might agree with your stereotyped and self-defeatist image of pedophilia as a sexual orientation (consider most pedophiles are in a state of serious psychological vulnerability), there's a possibility you've made an impression simply by aligning with (relatively speaking) the status quo and bringing that negative imagery into the discussion.

If you want to take another Markaba, you'll have to do a better job of responding to the points I make, instead of ignoring the majority of them - which makes the impression that you actually can't counter them effectively.

(Mundane hint: In modern usage, underlining means people expect a hot link. Use some other means to indicate emphasis).

Unless you're having trouble following, I don't see how it matters. I use italics to indicate emphasis, and I underline some key ideas.

If I don't reply further in the thread, surely don't conclude that I've been convinced by anything you said.

I debate you for the same reason you debate me.

Before the obvious concession you seem to have recently made in your perspective, it has never occurred to me whether anything I say convinces you personally.

My intention is to expose the lack of coherence in your line of reason.

(If you can call it that.)

Criminalization is one factor, but neither necessary nor sufficient.

You say this, and then go on to draw your supporting examples from completely unrelated phenomena. Large gaps in your thinking.

We're talking about the greatest moral hysteria perhaps in all of human history, and the most severe persecution of a minority group since the holocaust, both of which have transformed society - specifically the relationship between men and girls - in some negative ways that are really profound. So when you bring up speeding on highways as an argument for why the criminalization of the pedophilic sexual orientation is not inextricably tied to the moral rampage against pedophilic men, the attack on the sexuality of children and young girls, and... well, everything else in 721740, you are demonstrating a failure to produce ideas which connect to the topic, let alone ideas which are solid enough to convey your point of view in a persuasive manner.

Most emphatically "yes"...

So you think that "lots of children" would not be able discern whether someone they know is hurting them?

That means you have a very dissociated view of the way that normal human beings react to different stimuli.

Just because a child is unable to do anything to help an abusive situation does not mean they don't cry when Mommy slaps them.

They might not be able to discern abuse within the context of an otherwise very loving relationship. You seem to think that is a common case, and I am somewhat inclined to agree if we are counting occasional physical violence.

But if you want to assert that children lack an innate ability to differentiate a gesture of affection from a gesture of aggression, you're going to have to back that up (with idkwtf). (You did originally state this as "children", but have since switched to "lots of..." which kinda makes me feel like this is another not-so-solid idea.) If you want to assert that lots of children are unable to - in general - see the difference between a relationship that is basically loving and one that is basically abusive? I really don't see how that is possible. There's a huge dichotomy there and to say that such a distinction would elude "lots of children" makes no sense. Maybe it would elude psychologically damaged children - and you do bring that up as a supporting example - but I thought we were talking about a very sizeable portion here (lots). Whatever portion of all children have experienced psychological damage to such a degree, it can only be considered "lots" (relatively) if we are drawing a BIG LEAP type of connection between said psychological damage (i.e., severe child abuse) and pedophilia - a connection that has long since been disproved but is a derivative of the pedophile monster stereotype which frequently invades your thinking.

Survey child molesters in prison and you'd find something quite different among that large population.

Are we... still talking about child molesters?

This is another example of interchangeable usage of "pedophile rapist" and "pro-contact girl-lover" to formulate fallacious argument. You find out exactly nothing about the pedophile population as a whole by surveying child molesters in prison.

I am not relaying on an N of 1. I am relying on an N much larger than that but more importantly: a significant factor supporting my entire premise is the presumption of common human decency. Even in - *gasp* - pedos.

Your anxiety over others' intentions further clouds your thinking.

Sometimes sitting behind the computer screen is a better position for making wise policy proposals than going out and having N=1 experiences.

Have an N=1 experience and get back to me.

Society has lots and lots of antisocial people who will take what they can get. Laws have to be made to cover both classes.

Your anti-social laws (the ones you support, at least) make more "pedophiles" - in the bad connotation.

The law (and society itself) assumes all pedophiles are anti-social, which then makes it virtually unmanageable for the average pedophile to lead a pro-social life.

The criminalization is inextricably tied to the moral panic.

Take a look at 721861+862 (sorry) for further clarification.

Suppose I argue that no one should lock their houses, because no upstanding, normal person would enter another person's house to steal stuff. The obvious intent is to discourage the others, even if they are a minority.

It's not against the law to leave your front door unlocked.

I've set down my thinking in much more detail in a series of blog posts

Okay, but not everyone reads that shit, you know?

I'm gonna go with: if your thinking isn't clear enough for you to produce the answers in a debate and you need to refer someone to your personal blog... you probably haven't got the right conclusions.

Yes, I did. There are differences -- but are they relevant?

- Sex

- Crystal Meth

These two concepts are so far apart in my mind that I can't even.

And anyway, the obligation is on you two explain how they are similar in a way which is relevant to your argument. Lol.

~ RBL