Paedophilia - understood as the mere attraction to prepubescent persons - harms no one in itself, but it's a fantasy about doing something that's harmful to others, and thus something ignoble which is bound to cause a subjective dislike amongst the vast majority of people.LegendaryGamer0 said:
Publicly admitting to such repulsive wants does not and should not have any penal consequences, but it will have social consequences, and since everyone is free to choose whom they associate with based on their own subjective preferences, rightly so.
As for changing AoC laws (i.e. a move towards actually realizing that want), such thankfully does not have any feasible chance of ever coming about, nor should it. While something Freudian like child sexuality might well exist, it should never be mixed with adult sexuality, there's inherently a difference of power, ability, experience, physical and mental maturity, and overall an imbalance and incompatibility which for all practical purposes makes such relationships harmful.
You are correct that paedophilia in itself is nothing but an inclination, but it is an inclination towards something which is not merely (subjectively) unpleasant - as incest or to a few even homosexuality is - but (objectively) harmful. Acceptance of plurality extends only to harm.
The empirical material suggesting that children are psychologically harmed by such relations is vast (whereas there's none on gay or indeed incestual relationships), so burden of proof that it could not be would now rest firmly on the shoulders of those who wish to legalize it. And even if such a single case was in fact proven, a utilitarian weighing of whether the law should protect millions of children or give a carte blance which incredibly few - if any - couplings could utilize without inherent harm while millions would suffer would still have to be made.
You have vast burden of proof to lift to reasonably alter the law, and will never get to decide what people feel - and are allowed to feel - on the subject. It's a lost cause, and one which should be lost.
Agreed, not only does it potentially hurt their cause, they're conceptually on different sides of the harm principle (when realized), and thus there's no valid comparison to be made. Not being able to realize harm is hardly a pligt.Simiathan said:
