Present arguments that show what's wrong with pedophilia

So which is it? Are you referring to all cases or most? If it's just most, What's your argument for the tiny remnant? You say they're wrong. Why are they wrong? I don't have an argument for consent being irrelevant to knowledge. You see what you have to go with in everyday life. At least I would think so. We have common everyday examples like people agreeing to take recreational drugs unaware of it's consequences. People taking it upon themselves to make purchases without due diligence. Traveling to certain areas, Going to strange places unaware of the consequences from their surroundings. People make uninformed decisions and consent to gamble with their lives, With money, Etc. This is pretty known in life, Is it not? So is this every time a child is told something they rebel or do they learn to make a choice and follow a command? Well how do you explain for the least part of children listening to reason? Are you saying no adult ever anywhere on the planet is unaware of the consequences? They have the capacity to do the right thing, An adult that is, But why would an adult not do the right thing and not make the right choice? Does the adult still have some level of infantile mental faculty like a kid? Why didn't the adult assess the cause and effect properly? What's the missing link? Yes you can find outliers but in law it can be filed as negligence. Meaning even though they did not know they were supposed to know. The law blames the parents of the child. The reason is the child cannot do the best with what they have. A less superior brain that requires time and the right developed to make it helpful. " I can't fully comprehend this part. Please rephrase or summarize it more concisely. Why can't you give consent without knowledge? So no adult is ever ignorant in deciding something, Let's say for example, A business move, Investment or venture. Is that correct? "Said knowledge or knowledge", What's suppose to be the distinction? What's the discrepancy with the law then, Concerning 25 and 18 years of age? Fill in that inconsistency. Clearly the law is saying one thing about who is legally an adult. Do I have to explain what the meaning of being legally adult is or do you follow what's going on here? Yet we have this other side of the argument dealing with an age difference in regards to mature cognitive function. Laws do and can change you say. Do you care to elaborate on that a little further to make a point? My point is, What is your point about brain development? Please explain the disparity in the law concerning the age of legal adulthood. Also to add to that, Expound on the law concerning the age for alcohol consumption. "Yes generally wisdom comes with age but like you said before there are outliers and Adults can still make decisions to things that they were ignorant to the consequences of. So I do not see how you made a point here. " I don't understand what your saying there. Please rephrase that in another words. Are you saying that not all brains are fully developed at age 25? Well what are your arguments for those of exception? What age should it be for those not in the majority? What do you mean, "circumstances will cause to increase the time or decrease the time"? What is an example of "a thing of bad wisdom"? "I am not saying no one below the age of 25 can do the examples above sufficiently but as the brain is developed a more informative choice can be made". Those examples are what? It's not about not liking what someone is saying. When we're talking about speech, Remember, It starts with thought, Speech then to action. Now if we all feel so strongly against whatever it is, We have to have the words to fight it. If something is truly wrong and harmful, Would it not be sensible to build up a defense against it? We can make a practical defense at least that starts with words. These are not just idling conversations that just never go anywhere. We talk about real issues that may eventually take over a society and that is pretty much what political war is all about. No I'm not making a defense for pedophilia. If you go all the way back to my opening in round 1. My position in this was made clear. I'm questioning your arguments against pedophilia. What would be the point in that? To show how pedophilia supporters can tear down your arguments. I can be totally neutral. I CAN be, And your arguments may not be strong enough to convince or sway me from NEUTRALITY. But that's not the position either. You have to be able to provide ironclad arguments. Now if you misunderstood that, Apologies on my part. Someone's channel getting deleted from YouTube is wrong according to you. Isn't that right? YouTube is owned by an entity that's made rules and enforces it's policy. Infringing on free speech would be coming into somebody's house, Disrupting whatever they wish to say under their roof and they're using no other facilities or property of media belonging to another. Same goes for public settings as long as it's confirmed that the public setting hasn't reached any private sector or territory. If so, Some type of clearance or permission is required. Silence free speech, How do we converse? There are ways to go about it. A lot of them are done through legal actions such as in the court of law. Either way, Ill or not, Pedophiles definitely fall under the criminal category. A psych ward or prison remains to be the solution for now. Society clearly has dealt with the situation as such. This has been interesting.