[r9etb]

I think that arguments in favour of adult-child sex are easily demolished on their own.

But they're not. You've already noted some of them, even if you "don't buy them." Note that "demolition of arguments" requires you first to engage yourself in what amounts to a reasoned debate with pedophiles.

If some judge ruled solely on the basis of the arguments, you'd lose the general argument on the grounds of "informed consent," and also historical and cultural precedent. You would be reduced to arguing whether this or that child was capable of informed consent, and perhaps what protections must be afforded to children who are adjudged to be capable.

But of course, there's more to it than reasoned argument: it's wrong, and we both know it. Pedophiles are monsters who deserve to be severely punished.

Next we get to child pornography. Once again we're faced with the informed consent problem, and now must contend also with questions of "artistic merit;" whether it's really porn; and whether it's merely a "thought crime" (and thus supposedly unprosecutable) to be viewing and getting off on it.

But once again, we both know it's wrong -- for the same reason pedophilia is wrong: because it is wrong to view a child as an object of sexual desire.

[Dimensio]

But of course, there's more to it than reasoned argument: it's wrong, and we both know it.

I've never liked that kind of "reasoning". I've found it completely unsatisfying, because it's appealing to nothing. I always like to ask "why is it wrong?", because I figure that if something is wrong, it's for valid reasons rather than just some arbitrary standard that someone created. In the case of adult-child sexual contact, I can think of a number of reasons (not the least of which is "informed consent"). Historical and cultural precedent doesn't amount to anything either, as using norms of the past to decide that an action is right or wrong is no less arbitrary than just saying "it's wrong because it's wrong"; it's appeal to tradition. Murder has commonly been considered unacceptable in the past while slavery was commonly considered acceptable. Arguments for rightness or wrongness should be based on more than "it's always been like that" or "ignorant people used to do that, but we've advanced since then".

[Stone Mountain]

Note that "demolition of arguments" requires you first to engage yourself in what amounts to a reasoned debate with pedophiles.

There's nothing wrong with that. If someone is so afraid that their reasoning can't stand up to arguments from pedophiles, perhaps it would be enlightening to think about their reasoning some more. It is only through reasoned debate with those you disagree with that you can expose the fallacy of their arguments to the world.

But once again, we both know it's wrong

I used to have a problem when my parents told me something was wrong or forbidden without telling me why, and I still feel this way today. There's no lack of intelligent arguments against the actions of pedophiles. I know it is wrong AND I have good reasons for believing so.

If some judge ruled solely on the basis of the arguments, you'd lose the general argument on the grounds of "informed consent,"

Why would this be? Consent is an issue that has been ruled upon many times. Informed consent is a well-defined legal concept.