I have developed views on the subject, though I like to think that I can be persuaded to change them, and one thing I hope to get here on LessWrong is reason-based challenges. Hopefully others will find the topics informative as well. In the absence of advice on a better way to proceed, I plan to make posts in Discussion now and then on various aspects of the topic.
Reason based challenges? There doesn't seem to be much to say. You have some attraction, you choose not to act on it for altruistic and/or pragmatic reasons. Nothing much to challenge.
Perhaps an aspect that could provoke discussion would be the decision of whether to self-modify to not have those desires if the technological capability to do so easily were available. I believe there is a Sci. Fi. short story out there that explores this premise. My take is that given an inclusive preference to not have sex with children I'd be perfectly content to self modify to remove the urge which I would never endorse acting on. I would consider this to be a practical choice that allowed me to experience more pleasure and less frustration without sacrificing my values. I would not consider it a moral obligation for people to do so.
A variant situation would be when that same technology is available, along with the technology to detect both preferences and decision making traits in people. Consider a case where it is detected that someone with a desire to do a forbidden thing and who is committed to not doing that thing and yet who has also identifiable deficits in willpower or decision making that make it likely that they will act on the desires anyway. In that case it seems practical to enforce a choice of either self-modifying or submitting to restrictions of behaviour and access.
A further scenario would be one in which for technological or evolutionary reasons there are 12 year old girls who would not be physically or psychologically harmed by sexual liaisons with adults and who have been confirmed (by brain scan and superintelligent extrapolation) to prefer outcomes where they engage in such practice than those in which they don't. That would tend to make any residual moral objection to pedophilia to be not about altruistic consideration of consequenes and all about prudishness. (I of course declare vehemently that I would still oppose pedophilia regardless of consequences. Rah Blues!)
For some real controversy I suppose you could do an analysis of the research on just how much physical and psychological damage is done to children in loving-but-sexual relationships with adults versus how much damage is done by other adults who wish to signal their opposition to the crime by the way they treat the victims. Mind you, that is something that if it were ever to be discussed would perhaps best be discussed by people who are not celibate pedophiles. It would be offensive enough to many people to even see it considered a valid avenue of enquiry by an individual with zero sexual interest in children. Protection of victims from 'righteous' authorities is something best done by those with no interest in committing the crime.
A few notes about the site mechanics
A few notes about the community
If English is not your first language, don't let that make you afraid to post or comment. You can get English help on Discussion- or Main-level posts by sending a PM to one of the following users (use the "send message" link on the upper right of their user page). Either put the text of the post in the PM, or just say that you'd like English help and you'll get a response with an email address.
* Normal_Anomaly
* Randaly
* shokwave
* Barry Cotter
A note for theists: you will find the Less Wrong community to be predominantly atheist, though not completely so, and most of us are genuinely respectful of religious people who keep the usual community norms. It's worth saying that we might think religion is off-topic in some places where you think it's on-topic, so be thoughtful about where and how you start explicitly talking about it; some of us are happy to talk about religion, some of us aren't interested. Bear in mind that many of us really, truly have given full consideration to theistic claims and found them to be false, so starting with the most common arguments is pretty likely just to annoy people. Anyhow, it's absolutely OK to mention that you're religious in your welcome post and to invite a discussion there.
A list of some posts that are pretty awesome
I recommend the major sequences to everybody, but I realize how daunting they look at first. So for purposes of immediate gratification, the following posts are particularly interesting/illuminating/provocative and don't require any previous reading:
More suggestions are welcome! Or just check out the top-rated posts from the history of Less Wrong. Most posts at +50 or more are well worth your time.
Welcome to Less Wrong, and we look forward to hearing from you throughout the site!
Note from orthonormal: MBlume and other contributors wrote the original version of this welcome post, and I've edited it a fair bit. If there's anything I should add or update on this post (especially broken links), please send me a private message—I may not notice a comment on the post. Finally, once this gets past 500 comments, anyone is welcome to copy and edit this intro to start the next welcome thread.