Present arguments that show what's wrong with pedophilia

"To start did you have to write too much. Not once have I found a case for paedophilia. If you are not playing devil's advocate but you did say you were then you decided you are neutral after you said I hope you win. Are you actually on the Pro side and can you keep your arguments short. It looks mainly like filler. Burden of proof is on your end since you did start the debate and I did show my proof and you didn't. That is not fair because I have nothing to work with apart from the your rebuttals which are somehow a lot longer then mine. Can you get straight to the point? " That first sentence will have to be rephrased. I'm sorry you totally misunderstood the format of this discussion. You can message me and we can go over and clear up any confusion your in. I'll attempt to answer all of your questions. You keep saying "get to the point, Get to the point". The point is what is your point? You continue to make arguments for the majority or the general but it doesn't appear you have any for the exceptional cases. So I continue to ask what about this and what about that? I'm not getting anything solid. Your position is to be able to provide ironclad arguments that are able to maintain consistency no matter the questions that are being asked. When the questions continue to repeat, Something is not being made clear. It is through your arguments that direct the questions and discussion in the way that it goes. So what is your argument for the "17 year old that lied" in participated in a pedophilia act? Is it still wrong? Is it acceptable? Wait a minute, What are misinformed decisions then? " If a person does not know what a drug does and still takes it, It is their fault. Reason is they could've found out the consequences of said drugs either asking the pharmacist or the doctor. " It's their fault, But is it still consent without knowledge? Why is the reason relevant? Was the context about reason or consent without knowledge? Is it consent without knowledge? So children are not the only ones that can consent without knowledge, Isn't so? How do you know who can find out the consequences or not? Are kids not able to find out the consequences? Isn't it one of the duties of parenthood to kids to teach them about the aftermaths of situations? Yes I see the difference between pedophilia and "mis-informed purchases". However the context is, Consent to something, CONSENT to something without KNOWLEDGE, Is that so? "One is based on a child with lack of reason and the other is a money transfer. To boil it down. I am sure we can both agree paedophilia is more of a problem then mis-informed purchases because of the severity of what is taking place. " Don't just look at the surface of the two different actions, Look at the context, Please. "To me this should not be a problem because if they really cared about going on holiday they would check the weather, Crime statistics and any necessary injections required if they were a responsible adult. ""Adults in most cases know full well why gambling is bad. The low chance of wining and the addictive nature. People do it for fun but when they realize there money has run out that is their fault. It wasn't who placed the bets on games it was the adult. If the adult was more aware of what he was doing he would've said maybe I should not gamble my last 20 since the last 5 times I did I lost. "To you, Huh? We know these are examples of decision making with poor judgment and ignorance. Did you wish to be intellectually dishonest here? Don't make excuses for individuals. This consent with knowledge thing is not a very strong argument. We've just gone over many common life issues that affect all kinds of people of different ages. Regardless of what an adult can do versus a kid still doesn't change that people can consent without knowledge. Maybe you want to throw that argument out and just use one that's exclusive to kids and excludes adults. Excluding adults that are also older than 25 years of age by the way. " There are outliers like children listen to reason or are afraid of their parents but that is rare. Lets go with the rare example. If he knew doing something drastic that can affect their life without having the most developed brain to do so would tell them no I should not partake in paedophilia because it might be good in the short term but in the long term he/she is mentally scared. It might even be the case that there was no short term gain and the entire experience was awful. " So in this case, Since the kid can factor all this out? Is it possible for the kid to rationalize a bit further and consider how they feel about participating and tread cautiously getting involved in this manner with the adult? Granted, It's been figured for the sake of context that they'll be nothing different in the pedophilia relationship than it would be in a regular affair between two adults. The benefits, Pros and cons have been factored. By this exceptional case, Would it be acceptable then? "I am saying adults have the capacity to make the right decision even if they don't. That is why the law punishes them a lot more then children because the capacity is not on the same level. Yes there are adults who do not use reason and do you know what happens? They make a bad mistake. Punishment is dependent what the person actually done. " That didn't answer the question. Yes or no, Is there no adult anywhere on the plant unaware of consequences? So kids don't have the ability to make the right decision, Is that right? You keep arguing things that are not exclusive so the question remains. I understand what the law and punishment is. We don't even need to cover that. We're dealing with the similarities and the fundamentals here. "At least you agree with me on the capacity part. If the an adult did the wrong thing it would be because it was a mis-informed decision. Either they did not have information on what they were doing or the information that they did have was bad information which is not helpful. " Oh there's tons of agreement and now we can just get understanding. Adults and kids are able to do the right thing and they can do the wrong thing by a misinformed decision or decision without knowledge, Is that right? "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? " So the answer is yes and the missing link is missing information like a kid. Hey, Another agreement. "I thought it was clear. Oh well. Parents have the capacity to do the right thing and the child more often then not do not have capacity to do the right thing. That should get my point across. ": What's your evidence for a kid not being able to do the right thing? How is it that a parent can teach a kid in the way they should go? If they're incapable of doing it, What's the point in disciplining the child? The child already has to have the nature of virtue, Isn't it so? "I don't know what you mean. I think you misinterpreted what I said. Said knowledge and knowledge are the same thing. Said knowledge is only restricting it to what the topic is about. I don't get what you mean by the discrepancy. Do you want me to give you an argument. That is not how it works. I am Against you are Pro (Neutral/Devil's advocate or whatever you want to say later). I don't know why it is like that. Maybe it needs changing or maybe it does not. You still haven't given me anything to work with in how paedophilia is a good thing. " If I misinterpreted, Please reinstate what your point was so we can get understanding. No I didn't state my position is neutral. Please re-read what was stated carefully. I said I CAN be neutral. Then I said that's not the position. I clearly identified what I meant when I said " playing the devil's advocate so to speak". Please re-read the comments or go back over the opening in the beginning of the discussion. I'll put the remaining responses in the comments.