In message , Cynic 
 writes
>On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:39:58 GMT, Kendall K. Down
> wrote:
>
>>> However there are other paedophile-related acts that do *not* carry a
>>> significant probability of causing harm, but which are prohibited, and
>>> yes, I have and do argue for the lifting of such prohibitions.
>
>>I rest my case.
>
>Which is what?  That banning things that do no harm is justified?
>

I'm guessing he is of the mindset that thinks that because he brought in 
the word "paedophile" into the argument then everybody must immediately 
get behind him and attack anyone who disagrees.

-- 
Mike_B