THE READERS MAY BE CONFUSED BY DANIEL JOHNSON I AM MORE KNOWN AS JUST DANIEL

Big thanks for the Mega Archive link, Tom! Wonder who made such a collection of materials – I just looked there, and there seems to be something that even I haven’t yet found (and my storage of documents on the intergenerational sexuality, ranging from scientific research to activist polemics, is, dare I say, colossal).
P.S. I hope that another non-hostile scholarly dissertation on the child-adult sex, that I found and provided to IPCE, would be edited and published soon there.

Couple of news items :
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/movies/luc-besson-and-the-disturbing-true-story-behind-%e2%80%98l%c3%a9on-the-professional%e2%80%99/ar-AAxJzZc?li=BBoPWjQ
I didn’t think it was disturbing…
https://www.chiangraitimes.com/64-year-old-swiss-national-christian-python-busted-in-central-thailand-for-publishing-child-pornography.html

You don’t need huge studies to show that minor attraction is normal among men, just look at the mammoth lengths youtube goes to just to disable comments and suspend accounts from ‘predators’.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/youtube-is-disabling-predatory-comments-but-leaving-up-the?utm_term=.ydGZDZWov#.vgLWxWKle

***MY TRIPARTITE LIBERTARIAN ETHICS***
Ok, here is my full – well, as full as a comment format may allow! – explanation of my meta-ethical and ethical positions. Feel free, and even encouraged, to reply! And – if you notice that a few of my statements repeat, to an extent, what I said in my previous post, do not be surprised: I wrote this text as a self-sufficient one, an essay to describe my ethical dedications in their fullness, so I have to reiterate some basic things… yet, most (almost all, in fact) of what I wrote here is entirely novel, so this ethical essay of mine it is worth reading (at least, I hope so!).
1. SELF AND OTHER, FREEDOM AND LIMITATION: THE ROOT OF MORALITY
Our basic understanding of what morality is critically based on our understanding of what a human being is. For materialists, the man is a product of the so-called “nature” – the weird creation of human imagination, supposedly an unperceivable impersonal force that exists outside the lived experience of anyone and everyone, yet completely determines such experience through its universal, immutable and inviolable “laws”. In such understanding of reality, the very notion of “morality” is just plain meaningless, since everyone’s acts are entirely predetermined by the mechanisms of “nature” and no real choice is ever possible.
If the materialism was the only ontological option available, the prospects of the moral debate of any kind would be quite bleak. Happily, materialism is neither the sole nor actually the best option of ontology – immaterialism, with its multiple variations (from psychophysical dualism to neutral monism and panpsychism to the full-blown idealism), is much better choice. The many advantages of immaterialist worldview(s) are quite clear for the ones who dare to step outside of the socially-enforced confines of the respectable “mainstream” in ones’ search for the authentic knowledge: the stigmatised and marginalised, yet in fact fully methodologically sound, parts of consciousness research, like parapsychology, transpersonal psychology and near-death studies, provides one with the evidential basis for the objective existence of the non-physical mind that is strong enough to refute the materialists’ claims. Yet, what the parapsychological research does not and, I think, simply cannot provide is any clear and stable description of what the non-psychical realms are like. This is quite understandable: it is the dedication to the methods of the sciences what makes parapsychological research so reliable and persuasive (on par with the other results achieved by employing these methods), yet it is also what limits its scope, since these very methods were originally produced for the study of body-related and body-connected – and thus “physical” – experiences. Because of it, the parapsychological research may be called “negative” in the sense that it objectively proves that the actual existence is not limited to the traditional realm of “material” (read: somatic), yet it cannot create a detailed explanatory model of what exactly lies beyond that realm. Its role, in my opinion, is to delineate the outer limits of the scientific domain with the methodology of the science itself.
So, if we move beyond the domain of the physical – and by talking about morality, we inevitably move beyond it, since nothing moral (or immoral, or even amoral…) can be ever found in the physical fields, waves and particles. Nor it can be found in the bodies made of all this physical stuff – yet it can be and should be found in the way how conscious beings (which humans are) deal with their embodiment, and in their ideas about, attitude to, and usage of their own bodies and the bodies of others.
But before we move to the body-related – and sexuality-related – parts of morality, we should first understand what is the root of the moral impulse. Really, what is this persistent inner imperative to act in a way that we consider to be “good” (or “right”, or “true”, or whatever) in the human mind – the imperative which is persistent enough to remain largely intact even in the minds of most self-professed “immoralists” and “amoralists”, even if they do not dare to call it by its name? Yet why, if this imperative is so universal, it is also so ambivalent; why, while the intent to act “morally” can inspire the deeds and mercy and charity, it may also lead a person to act in the most cruel and atrocious ways? And why the moral principles and ideals of people may differ radically enough to become mutually incompatible?
The root, the first step of the moral impulse, in my opinion, lies in the freedom and will of the Self – and, in the same time, the fact that its will usually includes the will to meet the Other, to be with the Other. The freedom of a singular Self, the potential to enact its will, is virtually unlimited. Yet this very will contains an intrinsic impulse to find someone beyond itself, to meet with the other Self with which it may interact and coexist. Such will-to-Other is the expression of the Self’s freedom; but the problem is that it is also the source of its limitation. Since, to coexist with the Other, the Self has to find some form of concordance of its own will with the Other’s will; yet the sacrifice for such concordance must have its own limit as well – otherwise it will lead to the utter suppression of the Self’s own willfulness, its will-of-Self. So, the difficult trilemma arises: being with the Other is the expression of the Self’s intrinsic free will; yet the enactment of this freedom requires the limitation of it, since the Other possesses the free will of its own; and this limitation should itself be limited in turn, so not to destroy the original will of the Self. So, the will-to-Other, which is born from the will-of-Self and simultaneously limits it, gives birth to the will-from-Other, the will to protect itself from the excessive limitation of freedom that arose from the will to coexistence; the will to weaken, if not to break, this free-willed and yet limiting interaction with the Other. But to break it would be to destroy the original will to start it…
This tension between the freedom, limitation and limitation-of-the-limitation, between the will-of-Self, will-to-Other and will-from-Other produces the impulse to resolve this inner conflict of the Self. Such resolution is hard to find, however, because of the fact the Self is not alone in finding it – let’s not forget that the Other is another Self, for whom the first Self is the Other; it has to face a similar inner conflict. And, since the wills of these two Selves (and Others-for-each-other in same time) are interacting, the decision of any of them will inevitably affect the other one. So, while they both, being free agents, decide for themselves, they, since they are interacting already, has to take into account the decisions of each other; the resolution of the situation can also be found only in the interaction of their decisive acts.
There are fundamentally four forms this resolution may take:
– the first one is PARTING – the Self and the Other break their contact, and each of them goes its own way from now on;
– the second one is SUBJUGATION – the Self either gives up its own freedom to fulfill the will of the Other enforced on it, or force the Other to give up its freedom to fulfill the will of the Self;
– the third one is COMRADESHIP (it is the most difficult to achieve, yet it is also the most productive) – the Self and the Other recognize each other as equals, and work together to decide how they make the best of their interaction, while maintaining each other’s freedom as fully as it can be actually done, given the limited limitations of coexistence;
– the forth one is STRUGGLE – the forceful conflict between the Self and the Other, which, strictly speaking, is not the solution but the way either to one of the three solutions (reconciliation between the struggling sides and then comradeship, capitulation of one of the sides and then subjugation, exhaustion of conflict between the sides and then parting), or elimination of the Self, or the Other, or both.
So, here we come to the first fundamental moral problem: what resolution of the trilemma of coexistence, what way to ease its tension, we ought to prefer? My answer is clear: if we value the intrinsic freedom each of us possess, both in our-Selves and in Others, we ought to choose comradeship; yet the choice of parting ought to be kept as an open option if the attempt to reach comradeship fails; and struggle may also be employed of the case of our-Selves or Others being forced into subjugation, which is the unethical, the ethically unacceptable, resolution. Why is it unethical and unacceptable? Well, because it deprives the Selves which are being subjugated of their inherent autonomous agency and turns them into objects and instruments of Others; it destroys the freedom of each Self that is the foundation of any morality, any ethics whatsoever. There is no “morality of slavery”, and there can never be one: the very nature of slavery is non-moral, since it is a relationship based on brute force, on the domination and submission to it, rather than on the interaction of freedoms.
And, conversely, any voluntary, mutual, consensual contact has a moral fundament: even if the participants of such contact has never bothered themselves with any sophisticated ethical concepts, their course of action – the respect of each other’s will and decision – is a moral one even if it was never consciously called one, even if it was just a natural, spontaneous expression of the intuitive recognition of free agency both in another participant of a contact and in oneself.
Yet, now we have to recall that this relationship, the basic dynamics of which I have described above, does not happen in a vacuum: it happens in an experiential world, with all of its participants experiencing an embodiment within an environment – with all sensuality and affectivity such embodiment brings with itself, including the complex experiential phenomena of sexuality. These shared sensual-sexual-affective, environment-immersed experiences provides a whole new dimension to the relationship, since they create both the community in which we dwell and to which we relate, and the habitat which this community inhabits and that it uses for its needs. It is this entrance into the shared experiential world that elevate us from simple free selves into complex world-integrated (as yet world-changing) persons, with all our passions, desires and needs.
2. SENSUALITY AND AFFECTIVITY, ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY: BEING-IN-THE-WORLD
When we enter the state of embodiment with our birth as a human infant, the first connection to it, the first demarcated experiential event to which we can relate, is a positive bodily sensual contact with other human beings who are taking care of us. From these friendly and joyful touches the first affections arise, the first emotional bonds with the humans who bring us joyful sensations form. It is the time when the positive affectionate-sensual feedback of empathy: the infant’s Self, with its inborn social intuition of the Other’s selfhood, is combined with, and immersed into, the sensual contact and affective bond that it feels to the other sensing and feeling person. It creates the sense of mutual care: I care for the ones who care about me, I joy when they joy, I am hurt when they are hurt – and I desire joy and not suffering both for the others and for myself. This interpenetration of conscious will, sensual desire and affective bond is what creates a prolonged positive relationship, which may include sexuality to the degree which the participants of it mutually desire. And such desire is common and natural for the human beings of all ages and genders, being an integral part of our inborn sensual-affective potential and the relations in which it manifests.
And these interpersonal relations are not exclusive to human beings: since the conscious-volitional and sensual-affective traits are shared by animals as well, the interpersonal relationships are possible, and common, between humans and animals (and, of course, between animals themselves…) as well. The animals with whom we live and to whom we care (and they care about us as well) are also part of the interpersonal structure of relations which we create between ourselves.
It is also important to notice the targets of our sensual-affective bonds are not limited to the living – conscious-volitional and sensual-affective – beings; we feel emotional and sensory connection to the inanimate objects as well, such as places where we live and the things which we possess. Our home and our belongings are valuable for us, and we care for them.
These constellation of persons who willingly belong to each other emotionally, and reach each other sensually, and care about each other’s well-being; the things which they possess and use; and the land where they live and which products they gather – that is what form a community. And such a community may provide both sustenance and company to each person belonging to it… or it may not. Unfortunately, the communality – as well as sensuality, sexuality and affectivity on which it is based – also have its own dark side. The community may be open, free and egalitarian, based on the mutuality and voluntariness expressed by its members. But it also may be closed, authoritarian and harshly hierarchical, based on a subjugation of some of its members by the others via the forceful and painful contact. Or it may be based on the suppression of any sensual contact altogether and thus on mutual affective isolation as well, thus producing the impersonal, bureaucratic-style relations. And, in the two latter cases, the sensuality and affectivity that serve as basis of an empathic feedback between persons can be twisted to suppress this very empathy and either produce either brutality or alienation on an interpersonal, communal level. These two negative reversals of sensual-affective bonds, of empathy – brutality-based one and alienation-based one – are different in many respects, yet both are based on a suppression of an egalitarian sensual-affective relationships and contacts.
The positive sensuality – from which an empathetic emotionality arises – may be described as (dare I use this expression?) a “good touch”. By “good”, I do not mean “apparently non-sexual and thus accepted by the modern Western sexually-repressive Age Apartheid society”; I mean the sensual contact that is voluntary – it may be accepted or declined by any of the ones who practice it – and pleasant for all its participants; tender caress or willful sexual play are the good examples. In the free and egalitarian community, it is often common and acceptable for children to participate in the mutual “good touch” with others, including the adults, both who care about them initially and to whom they form voluntary sensuality-including (and sexuality-including, if both participants are desiring and willing) friendships. In contrast with it, brutality-based community is based on a “bad touch” – the involuntary and painful one, enforced by the people who are considered to be of the higher social standing (and thus form an entitled elite) to the ones who are lower to them on a social ladder. In such community, pain is especially actively inflicted by the adults on children whose social standing is the one of these adults’ dependents; thus, deliberate forceful infliction of pain and suffering is a common way of upbringing. What is worse, such infliction is not just a way to make a child suffer; it is a mean to the end of subjugating the children’s will to the forcefully manifested will of adults, who effectively serve the role of the entitled elite in the intergenerational relations: even the adults occupying the very bottom of the social ladder in their relationships with other adults can feel themselves as elite rulers in the relationships with their children (and act accordingly). As a result, the rigidly hierarchical, dominant-submissive structure of relationships in created and maintained within a brutality-based community. It leads to a militarised – brutality-based, as I would call it – community that is arbitrarily ruled by hierarchy of force, and this force is worshipped; where initiatory violence against other human beings is socially acceptable, and even socially prescribed, if it is initiated by the entitled elite who is supposed to have the “right” to do so. Usually, the hierarchy is personified in the figure of a power-wielding dictator, who is simultaneously revered and feared by the subjugated populace. The physical torture and execution – which may be public and spectacular – are the common ways to deal with dissenting, let alone rebellious, members.
Such brutality-based communities, however, have a side which, in a bit twisted fashion, may be even called “positive”: their violence is so spectacular – and so overtly personified by a dictator figure – that it is very easy to expose it, to condemn it and to fight against it. When the enemy is so concrete and visible, and its cruel deeds are so public and demonstrative, the mass insurrection of tormented and oppressed people is relatively easy to achieve. One can say, that, despite all their proclaimed “superiority” in the relations with their subjects, the elites of the brutality-based communities are in fact relatively close to their alleged “inferiors” – to hurt someone, you have to be in touch with someone; and it is relatively easy to these alleged “inferiors” to touch their “superiors” back in the same forceful and painful fashion that they prefer. The situation with the other type of repressive communities – alienation-based ones – are much more difficult to resolve.
If the basic sensual practice of the brutality-based community is “bad touch” – the infliction of pain – then such practice of an alienation-based communities can be described as “no touch” – the suppression of any sensual-sexual-affective contact. It is the community of apparently detached, “impersonal”, formalised cruelty. It is, as much as brutality-based one, starts with oppressive and punitive child-rearing, yet this intergenerational oppression takes very different forms. Instead of being based on infliction of pain, it finds its foundation in a constant deprivation of pleasure. So it uses social and somatic isolation as a common punitive practice: it starts from time-outs and corner-time in childhood, proceeds through groundings and detentions in adolescence and ends in arrests and imprisonments in adulthood. Yet even in non-punitive situations, the sensual contact between children and adults is generally considered unacceptable and thus limited to a few socially entitled adults (usually parents) – and even in their case is approved only in demonstratively desexualised situations, and to a small degree. This sensual deprivation is combined with strict social segregation between generations, which may take the forms only adequately characterised as the Age Apartheid.
Such pleasure-deprived, relationship-limiting upbringing tend to turn children into the adults who live in a state which I may describe, no matter how tautologically it may sound, as “partial parting” – the situation when people are co-existing with each other yet feel (and act) in way as if they were completely apart, isolated from each other; to maintain such close-and-yet-apart social condition, they make their interaction extremely formalised and ritualised, based on an obedient adherence to the strict and rigid (and yet, in fact, quite arbitrary) rules and norms.
The problem of such society is that such deprivation of pleasure and segregation between age groups, being strongly – and unnecessary – stressful to sensual and social beings that human beings are, do not destroy aggression; it just hides it behind fake formal politeness. So, thus appearing as much less violent than brutality-based community on a surface, alienation-based one, in fact, only a bit less violent than it; violence is just made covert, non-spectacular, hidden from the public gaze. It is also hidden from a public thought with a system of euphemisms. Such “shameful violence” is seen in torture, assassination and war propaganda programs of the intelligence services, described by their participants with a bureaucratic language of “interrogations”, “neutralisations”, “informational operations” and so on; in the prisons and other where human spirit is being intentionally suppressed and it is called “correction” or even “rehabilitation”; in the psychiatric and psychological clinics, where human spirit is not just suppressed but literally devastated, and such devastation is being described as “therapy” and “medical treatment”. It is seen in the fact that in “no touch” communities, “good touch” are repressed with much more fervour than the “bad” one – try to compare that fate of the person who gave a cruel, violent beating to the child who was obviously unwilling to receive it, with the one of a person who touched child sexually, with a child’s overt consent and pleasure. Whose future is much more bleak and ugly in the “no touch” society – one of the violent assaulters or one of the “sex offenders”? I think everyone here knows the answer…
Yet why people tend to keep “bad touch” and “no touch” conditions for so long, despite the fact that they bring them so much anguish? Well, oftentimes because they believe, intellectually, that they must act in this way because of some supposedly “objective” (yet, in fact, quite imaginary) “necessity”. So, here I come to the third and the last part of my essay, which is dedicated to the deep connection between morality and knowledge – or, to be more precise, what people believe to be knowledge.
3. MORALITY AND KNOWLEDGE, ACTION AND UNDERSTADING: HOW IDEAS CAN BECOME CRUEL
Human beings are, generally, empathic types. Tormenting and killing their fellow humans, and even animals, are hard and unpleasant actions to the most of them. Even socially-enforced brutality or alienation are usually not enough, in themselves, to drive most people to committing atrocities. Yet, as history painfully shows, countless atrocities were committed by human beings – by large masses of human beings, in fact. Why? One part of the answer is the sensual-social dynamics I described above; the other one – and, in many cases, the larger one – is the intellectually-constructed (and yet, importantly, socially-connected and thus emotionally-charged) beliefs that were in the minds of the people willingly participating in the atrocious acts.
Such beliefs may be crudely separated into two large groups. The first ones are presented (and perceived) by their defenders as indubitable axioms, forever immune from any refutation. Other ones are formally verifiable and falsifiable positions, usually drawn from the scientific research, that, however, in practice are treated by their followers if they were indubitable axioms. In both cases, such beliefs are aggressively enforced by the large part of society and, especially, by the societal elites. They are deeply emotionally significant for their supporters. Being so, they effectively serve as a supposedly “absolute” (in the first case) or “objective” (in the second case) basis for moral acts of the people who adhere to them. And to doubt such supposedly “absolute” or “objective” statements, even if in an clearly evidential or logical way, is to encourage furious repressive measures against oneself.
The first group of beliefs that may serve as a moral demands strong enough to justify acting in an non-empathetic way are religious and philosophical ideas. The religious ideas are oftentimes overtly and explicitly prescriptive, commanding the believers to act in an outright cruel way to fulfill the supposed laws and commands of a deity. In the case of the philosophical systems, prescriptions may take more covert and implicit forms.
The good example of such implicit prescriptions is the dominant philosophical ontology of the modern Western(ised) cultures, materialism, that has encouraged a lot of cruel practices. Here I won’t go a common road of pointing to the mass violence of the militantly materialistic ideocratic regimes like Stalinism or Nazism. Decrying the grandiose atrocities is necessary, yet also a bit too easy; I would prefer to point to the much less spectacularly gruesome, yet still, in fact, quite cruel everyday practice of marginalisation and pathologisation of the people who either personally encountered some phenomena that are deemed “impossible” by the materialistic worldview (such as psychic phenomena like ESP or psychokinesis), or tried to research them in some way, or even simply defended the possibility of their existence. In all these cases, they can expect to encounter, at least, intense ridicule, insults and personal attacks from the numerous “defenders of science”. People who try to study such phenomena may have severe professional problems, such as breakdown of career or loss of funding, especially in academia. And the persons who experienced such phenomena personally may, at the worst cases, be simply declared insane and forced into psychiatric torture-styled “treatment”.
This is not to say that all materialists act in such way. There are some of them who are much more tolerant to the unknown and to the people who deal with it; in fact, there were (and are) a few active parapsychologists who were dedicated materialists. Yet the materialism-as-socially-dominant-worldview is implicitly prescribing the people who accept it to act in a way which, in fact, cruel.
From the other side, many of the followers of the initially dogmatic and highly violent traditional religions (and nearly all old, traditional religions were such, reflecting the mores of the eras of their birth) may take their religious views critically and choose themselves what parts of their religions to follow and what ones not to. It should be noted, however, that such critical attitude has become common among religious believers only after these religions were deprived of their social dominance.
So, an intellectual belief as such, in itself, is usually not enough to inspire cruel acts in persons who share such belief. It may do it if it is combined with social – and thus sensual-emotional – factors; the more socially intertwined and thus emotionally (and sensually) charged the belief is, the more angrily and aggressively its followers are likely to act. The interaction between imaginal-intellectual cultural notion and sensual-emotional social (and thus, implicitly, personal) structure tend to take the form of a “vicious circle” where cultural notions and social structures are constantly mutually reinforcing one another. This is, to a differing extent, true in the cases of all social structures – while authoritarian and hierarchical social structures are especially prone to such explosive mixture of passion and mentation, free and egalitarian societies are far from being immune to it.
Now we come to the second group of beliefs which may be used to prescribe cruel acts toward others: ones which are connected with science – or, to be more precise, with the science taken, and used, as a social authority and a justification-producing part of the power-structure. Here I can make a good case study of the mutual sociocultural enforcement I describe above is the current cultural notion of the “scientific consensus” – and the social structure of “expertocracy” which is intertwined with it.
Originally, science has entirely no emphasis on consensus-building – in fact, it was literally anti-consensus. On its birth, science was a rebellious practice, being based on an idea that a single individual may be more correct and justified in his views than nearly everyone else, if the evidence and argumentation presented by such individual would be found to be superior. Such postulation of the free personal search for the truth was the direct opposite to the appeal to authority commonly practiced by the then-dominant social worldview of the Christian Church (be it Catholic one or one of the many Protestant ones). Later, science was accepted, glorified and exalted by the Western society; it changed from a rebellion into a respectable, establishment practice. And such social ascension had its very dark side: scientific community began to turn from an open gathering of enthusiastic truth-seekers to the corporate organisation of professional “experts”, thus bonding itself with the power-structures of society. It has become increasingly commercialised, politicised and (to call it so) moralised, bowing to the increasing pressure and temptation to serve as a producer of technically-sounding justifications of the dominant social practices and structures.
After the World War II, the corporatisation of science was essentially complete: it became not just bonded with the power-structures, but effectively immersed in them: respectable experts became the priests of the secular age, entering the ruling elite and forming its integral part. That’s why in the 1980s, for the first time in the history of science (and society) in a major public science-related controversy – a debate about the reality of the anthropogenic global warming – decisions were justified by the appeals not to evidence and logic, but simply to the authority of the majority of respectable experts: to the so-called “scientific consensus”. Since then, a new social practice was installed, one that I may call “compulsory unlimited trust”: non-experts were supposed – in fact, tacitly yet powerfully commanded by the social authorities – to take any currently dominant expert opinion simply on faith in the experts’ authority, without any reasonable doubt or critical examination of their statements whatsoever. To question the expert majority positions and positions espoused by it is to become a target for social enforcement, varying from ridicule and insults to professional ruin and social marginalisation.
The result was as counter-productive as it may get: most public science-related controversies turned from a relatively rational discussions into completely irrational, passionate ideological battles, with take-no-prisoners approach. Now decisions were usually presented as simply black-and-white: either you accept each and every currently dominant scientific model and proposal (and thus “pro-science”), or you are an “anti-science denialist”. Any possibility of meaningful and productive dialogue – rather than the hostile confrontation – between the supporters and the critics of, say, anthropogenic global warming was erased, and with it, the possibility of finding really effective and safe technical solutions of the problems humanity face. For example, a debate on the safety of GMOs is usually reduced either to full and uncritical “pro-science” acceptance of any GMOs or the “anti-science” rejection of any of them. Or the debate about the safety of some vaccines is usually portrayed as a choice only between “pro-science” usage of all and any vaccines currently prescribed or the “anti-science” rejection of vaccination as such (while any intermediate positions – say, to vaccinate, yet in less amounts, less tight regimes and with some but not all vaccines – is largely unrepresented in the public mind).
That’s why, I think, we should agree that the search for the objective – and, thus, method-based rather than consensus-based – understanding is a necessary prerequisite for a moral act, since we can only act beneficially towards ourselves and others if we can effectively orientate ourselves in the actual situation in which we find ourselves and make reliable predictions about its development; and science as a free yet methodologically rigourous search is still the best instrument of obtaining objective understanding humanity has yet devised. We should not forget that a moral choice which is badly misguided about the actual or potential state of events may be terribly damaging for everyone, even if the intent was entirely empathetic and well-meaning.
So, if one will to act in way which is genuinely beneficial, one should learn to listen to and look to the all sides of the conflict, be they “mainstream” or “fringe”, since both may possess some reliable knowledge of the situation. Otherwise, we may act in a harmful way without even intending it. The practice of listening only to your own side’s arguments, looking only at your side’s evidence is the easiest way to harmful and yet persistent mistakes. This is especially important to remember to the all “defenders of science” and other “mainstream” watchdogs, who refuse to recognize the “fringe” groups as the participants of the debate (sometimes they refuse to recognize even the very existence of the debate).
4. SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS
Not to be misunderstood, I want to make clear: despite all my appeals to compassion and open dialogue, I do not think that every and any problem may be resolved as a part of a peaceful debate and cooperation. Sometimes, there is no making peace with the ones who willingly try to subjugate others – they simply won’t stop their subjugation attempts, until being forced to do so. The brutal and alienating social structures, as well as cultural notions that support and perpetuate them, are part of the reason while some people oppress others. But other, and crucially important, part of this reason was mentioned by me in the beginning: we are free beings, with the selfhood and will that may be suppressed by the circumstances of our life, but never die completely. So, even if we are free and equal, happy and satisfied, we can still willingly choose to act in a cruel and enslaving way toward others.
This is probably the greatest paradox of ethics: the root of slavery – which is, as I have told above, is based on a suppression of the other Self’s intrinsic agency and thus non-moral – actually lies in freedom, in the Self’s moral capacity, since only a free agent, a Self, can enslave another Self with an act of its free will; and, what even worse, the enslaved Self may submit to enslavement, thus effectively accepting the suppression of its agency. Yet to destroy freedom in the fear that the ones may enslave the others is to enslave everyone, thus creating the very slavery that was apparently prevented.
So, while we can sometimes use force to dismantle the structures of oppression and torment, we should always be careful not to reinstate these very structures under the protectionist guise. The tyranny that is based on honest yet misguided benevolence may easily turned out to be more cruel that the one ruled by power-hungry scoundrels.

Amos Yee did a lot better in this debate, but it was painful to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ExN4TZbgw
Also, there is an Easter egg at 1:41:00. Here is the long version of that message posted in the comment section:
“Weebo’s studies are inherently biased because they use clinical samples from people in psychological therapy due to their abuse, most of whom were forced in to non-consensual relationships. Obviously if you only study people who have been harmed then you’ll come to the conclusion that the thing you’re studying (adult-child sex in this case) is harmful.?”

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/4110-india-hangs-first-pedophile-under-strict-new-laws-they-re-demons-
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/12/us/delaware-child-marriage-ban/index.html

IT IS SO AWFUL WE REALLY NEED TO FREE THESE CHILDREN FROM THEIR PRISON AND I HOPE GENUINE LOVING PARENTS WHO WANT TO PROTECT THESE POTENTIAL SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVORS GIVE ME A THUMBS UP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi0GrFgPH9Y

On ‘Unreported World’ (channel four) Evil in Paradise, They visited the Dominican Republic, Reporting on ‘sex tourism’…Many tourists from Europe and the US exploiting teenagers there. I thought they’d fish out some horror stories but there was none on this documentary. They were really scraping the barrel trying to make these girls look like victims, but it was quite the reverse. I shared a video on attitudes to sex in Dominica a few months ago, but the YT account has since closed down.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world

Interesting. There is a new organization called the Indiana Freedom Alliance.
https://www.in-freedom-alliance.org/about-us/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfa2_qx8SwQ

hope this works

I refer to Youth Liberations recent video, ‘PEDOPHILE comes out’, starting roughly five minutes eight seconds in :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZTUsYpGADw
Mrs Jane Elliot’s experimentation / demonstration concerning discrimination and demonisation, as Youth Liberation says :
‘They became miserable, frightened and paranoid. This was a microcosm of society. She demonstrated how racism, homophobia, and other discrimination ruins the lives of people and how easy it is for authoritarian figures to teach hate. I’ve personally confirmed with her that the same tactics are used to demonise pedophiles.’
I don’t know about anyone else here, but I guess I am not alone, but this is the kind of discrimination that has taken place in my life, regardless of whether anyone believes me or not. The truth will come out in time.

http://www.ejhs.org/volume11/Newman.htm
In the next activity, titled Sexuality: When does it begin? (Appendix C), participants are asked to determine when various aspects of human sexual development can first happen. For example at what age can penile erection, vaginal lubrication and clitoral erection, toilet training, and possibility of orgasm first occur?
In almost all cases, participants who had baby boys reported that penile erection could first occur from birth-3 years, as they had already witnessed it. Yet, almost all participants (regardless of the gender of their child(ren)) guessed that vaginal lubrication and clitoral erection could not occur until 4-8 or even 9-12 years of age. For possibility of orgasm, five out of 17 participants answered from birth-3 years. For the other participants, answers ranged from age 4-8 up to 12-18 years of age.
When does it begin? also provides an opportunity to discuss infant’s exploration of their own body (including their genitals), curiosity about other’s bodies and how they are learning about love and trust through touching and holding. Most participants guessed that these aspects would first occur from birth-3 and from 4-8 years old. Almost all participants express surprise when told that all of the aspects of sexual development listed can first occur from birth-3 years and some even before, in utero. According to Parrot (1994), this is consistent with the literature.
When does it begin? gives parents a sense of what is normal behavior for their growing children. For some participants, finding out that what they have been observing is normal and healthy can be a relief. One of the couples who attended had a three year old who had exhibited masturbatory behavior from infancy. Both parents expressed that they wished they had known this information sooner, so as to save them the stress of worrying about their child and also not knowing how to respond.
Once the activity if finished, participants review a comprehensive definition of sexuality (Appendix D) that includes sexual anatomy, physiology, gender, sexual orientation, fantasies, life experiences and spirituality. This information helps parents understand that sexuality education is about more than anatomy and reproduction. It is about providing a foundation for the future. And it doesn’t only happen once with “the talk.” It is a lifelong process (Haffner, 1999)

Needless to say, Tom, I’m very proud of you. I always knew you could–and someday, would–have something like this published. And I’m pleased to see that “someday” is now. I appreciate that big financial expenditure you made, and I will do my best to donate what I can to help. You might want to start a Patreon account if you can, since people helping fund the work and bills of authors they admire so they can keep writing rather than being forced to do something else for a living is quite common.

In response to Explorer and bjmuirhead and extending my comments below on virtue theory …
I too was influenced by MacIntyre’s ideas on virtue ethics. Like him, I’m interested in a less positivist, more embedded epistemology in moral thinking. I was particularly encouraged by his being influenced by Kuhn and Lakatos.
Garner’s “Beyond Morality” looks fascinating! I’d hazard to guess that as MacIntyre is to Kuhn, Garner may be to the anarchism of Paul Feyerabend.
I’m scientist, but I rate Feyerabend. I’m a pragmatist and a ‘bottom up’ thinker, automatically skeptical of theories of everything. However, I have a massive respect for the power of science as a formalism and a tool for answering questions about the world.
Similarly, consequentialist and deontological ethics clarify the process of inquiry into questions of right and wrong. They also allow a degree of universalism that, like science, is fundamental to modern life. Despite the challenges of modernity, I’m not nostalgic for ancient times, and I think concepts like ‘human rights’ (for example) are valuable, not least for MAPs.
The trick in both science and ethics is to make room for accounts that preserve an understanding of the messiness, emotion and ad hoc compromising that constitute our thinking about life as we actually live it.
My interest is not so much what conduct should be allowed as in how ethical constraints can be articulated, accepted and policed in a manner that acknowledges that inevitable messiness, emotion and ad hoc compromising.

Amos Yee is going viral again after his YouTube account was shut down.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44039616