Most people dont know how badly the pedophiles are treated in prison

This is your definition.

Such definition is inappropriate, because it fails to take into account consent based on limited knowledge.

It also fails to determine who decides what amount of knowledge is enough for consent.

For example, child knows that certain sexual activities bring pleasure. Child consents to them because child wants pleasure. What more knowledge does child need? 

The fact that you try to equalize "childs consent based on childs current knowledge" to "no consent" so that you could violate childs consent and make decisions about childs own body, and then accuse others of doing what you do, is nonsense.

Childs will is consisted of childs goals. Only knowledge relevant to these goals is relevant for consent.

If you're going to give a subjective opinion you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say imply that disagreement "blatantly disingenuous".

"It's blatantly disingenuous that you are trying to define anchovies as delicious."

"Anchovies are disgusting"

"That is my own subjective opinion"

Subjectivism and debate don't mix. If you can't articulate a reason common to others then by definition you can't advance an argument.

"I will stick with my original premise, children are easily manipulated and if they are subject to coercive manipulation by an adult, for that adult’s own ends, then that child is not consenting."

For adults own end? Children can desire sex for pleasure. So really, when they consent knowing they will get  such pleasure, it is a valid consent.

Greater consent is the one where individual has greater knowledge about an action related to his goals.

In cases where individual is consenting but is unaware of a great violation of his goals by such an action, only such consent can be treated as invalid.

This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.

I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.

There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.

--> @Best.Korea

Children have plenty of rights in the UK, from what I read,

A right is an entitlement to something,

We all have rights, and lack some rights, as we are not entitled to 'everything.

. . .

Pretty common story to hear of pedophiles in prison being beaten or killed though,

Various reasons I'm sure.

. . .

Norway has nice prisons I hear.

[ADOL] Incomplete theory because it assumes that complete knowledge is inevitable (or even possible).

[Best.Korea] Actually, it only says that ones consent can be violated only in cases where it uphelds ones greater consent.

Its purpose was to describe when is it allowed to violate ones consent.

So, violations of consent that dont serve such purpose are unjustified.

And of course, an effort to upheld consent needs to be made by entire society.

That is a complete lie. There are plenty of people who have died, children, babies and women and men due to the trauma caused by a sexual assault to their body. There are people who have been killed so they did not talk about being sexually assaulted.

First, I am not committing anything. I dont know where you got that from.

Do you just assume that everyone who says "children can consent" is a rapist?

"Legally unable" is not an argument.

If you claim children are not physically ready, then explain why.

But they do have other rights.

--> @Lemming

But they do have other rights.

Yeah, they have the right to be kept free from harm and receive protections that most adults generally don’t get. For example, an adult can make choices that children can’t (e.g they can use drugs, get drunk, etc.) but if a child is exposed to or engaged in those things, the state is obligated to intervene in some way.

If you go to work and don’t do your job, you’ll just get fired. But, if you’re a child and you go to school and act out, appear to be neglected, or do harmful things...your parents are going to be asked questions.

With regard to pedophilia, it’s obvious that it is not only sick and abnormal, but is incredibly harmful to children as well. Most children understand that it’s harmful, and so are rarely ever willing participants. They can’t give consent anyway, but if they could they truly wouldn’t want to. 

I would argue that the treatment of pedophiles in prison is more than justified, as being convicted of a crime in relation to pedophilia means they have acted on their impulses and caused harm to a child. Even pedophiles who only look at inappropriate images of children are causing harm because someone had to put that child in a position where they could take (illegal) photos of them, and that child can’t give their consent to being photographed or having their images shared. 

So, they deserve what they get.

Note: for anyone who doesn’t understand why people hate pedophiles, it’s because of the immense harm they cause to children, who are extremely vulnerable and not willing participants who are capable of giving consent. Other disorders are also harmful, and they cause a lot of other people to end up in prison too; however, they are considered somewhat less harmful when they only result in the mistreatment of adults, who are considered to be much less vulnerable than children and equal to other adults. 

It’s that simple.