Nevermind a child consenting.

I wonder are some of you guys undercover pedophilia supporters.

Whoa, that was something else there.

Truly.

pedophile pervert discussions here...

I admire your curiosity mall. You never seem to give up trying to expand your horizons. I wish you well on your journey.

And killing children is not a disaster? Cars are one of the least safe modes of transport when applied generally. And it is preciselly because so much is invested in cars, that public transport suffers. And not just the public transport. If everyone replaced cars with scooters that have limited speed, you would see the death rate in traffic fall by over 80%.
This "disaster" would save over a million lives every year world wide.

Public transport is a disaster, I'm sorry. I'm from the UK which is known for public transport and i literally had to stop going to college because of how much of a hassle bus's are.

Lack of cars makes life harder? I dont see how. It literally makes life easier for all those who wont painfully die due to cars existing.
Also, if it did make life harder, it doesnt negate the argument of harm. If you say that harm is okay when it makes life easier, this means you justify harm when it suits you, so harm cannot be used as an argument against pedophilia as some pedophiles can justify harm too when it suits them.
Not to mention, if people actually wanted an easier life, they wouldnt make it so difficult for children by causing them harm. Life is not easier if there is harm. If there is harm, life is harder. So using easier life to justify terrible harm is a contradiction, as easier life is the one with less harm.
You say you need knives? You can use the plastic ones.
You talk about physical safety being unachivable? This is actually only correct when safety causes more harm than it prevents. So what are your arguments against pedophilia then? It cant be consent, because you dont care about childs consent. It cant be harm, as you justify the harm of children when it suits you. So what is left? Practicality and function also depend on harm argument.

And then you say it isnt impractical to ban child adult sex for a society to function? Isnt the best function when there is least harm? And we already proved you dont want the least harm, so you dont want the best function.

And let us just remember that banning pedophilia doesnt stop it. It decreases it, but doesnt stop it. The only way to stop a pedophile from making love to children is to lock him up forever, which is a form of torture far worse than any experienced by most children who did something sexual with pedophiles.
So basically, your only solution is to cause even more harm?

I feel like we can create an argument through practicality. It would be unreasonable to never have a child go in a car (even if its objectively safer) it would be true we should lock a child in their room if we want maximum physical safety but it would be both damaging to their long term mental health and practical application for everyday living.

Argument against the position you propose:

1. It is impractical to stop a child from ever going in a car, it makes life much harder. Same for all the other things you mentioned.
2. It isn't impractical to say a adult shouldn't have sex with a child and stop them from doing so, as this function holds little in the ways of pragmatic utility for everyday societal functioning, unlike knives, and cars.

Well, yes, that is another contradiction. Society forces children to go to school because it "benefits" children. But at the same time society does things, I mentioned before, that harm children. So its obvious their interest is not benefit of the children, but rather their own benefit.
If children could choose, they would probably choose school over job if school is actually attractive.
But this depends on society and how much choice it gives to children.

Should children have the ability to work jobs, like an adult instead of going to school?

Lets not do anything that harms children. That means no more cars, smoking, guns, corporal punishments, circumcision, internet, electricity, tall buildings, buildings in general, knives, glass... yes, there is plenty of things we must give up upon to protect children. Also no more meat eating, as that harms children too. Well, if you are ready to give up upon these things, then I will believe you want to decrease the harming of children. But if you only mention harm just when it comes to pedophilia, then I must say that your argument is dishonest and inconsistent.

Go ahead. Post your argument so that I can explain to you.

Okay, you convinced me. I will accept it. But dont expect any arguments from my side.

Do we have any takers?
Otherwise the topic is non-disputable.

Not really.

Likewise.

I have no tolerance for perversive harmful unwanted words.

Yes sometimes I don't read certain things no matter how true they are. Well a lot of times I don't do that but it is what it is.

I wont reply to your weak tiny insignificant arguments. Even if I accepted this debate, I wouldnt bother to read your arguments at all.

Yes please, let there be nobody to take the time out to read those horrible hateful degrading arguments.
Not-ah.

They would be maybe valid if I actually decide to read them. I probably wont. I have better way to use my time than reading horrible hateful degrading arguments.

My arguments are valid regardless because they're the truth and that's justification for why anyone would not want to debate this irrefutable position, period.

"I still will argue that pedophilia, the act of sexual relations between adults and minors is still harmful, wrong and everything else."
You can argue all day. I wont take your arguments as valid. I wont even read them.