Few ordinary kids rape other kids or otherwise break the law with regard to their sexual activity. That's not true. Having a strict age of consent at 18 doesn't stop 15 year olds from having sex with each other.

If there are jursidictions where two 15-year-olds having sex with each other is breaking the law, they are rare.

In addition parents ban children frequently from having sex and they still have sex. The church in which a child is might forbid them from having sex before marriage but they still have sex. Laws that regulate the sexual behavior of children have roughly the same effect as laws that regulate drug use.

It is certainly true that children often break parental rules regarding sex -- many others choose not to have sex. But having sex with another person against their will is something that most people don't do -- I speculate because they think it isn't right. There is a danger with pedophile attractions, in that it is comparatively easy for an abuser to convince himself that the child really is inherently interested and enthusiastic. But I think a lot of pedophiles do understand that very well and so they abstain, a lot are deterred by not breaking a serious taboo, and many don't want to face prison.

Civil liberties are usually given to achieve some end. You give people the right for free speech to further political debate. You might convince a free extreme libertarians with that argument but not many people.

Whoa, do you have a source on that? In the US, I think a lot of people take civil liberties very seriously. We don't dole out freedoms for a specific purpose, we assume we have freedoms unless there is a compelling reason to take them away.

Nothing in the argument you made provides evidence for child porn reducing the abuse of children by pedophiles.

It is in the Diamond paper that I referenced before: "It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims."

Not all professionals agree with that, so I don't take it as established fact, but the idea that it does not increase child sex abuse is more firmly established.

If there is a decrease, we don't know the exact mechanism behind it, but the idea that pedophiles are looking at it is a very plausible hypothesis.

The wikipedia articles talks about a link to testosterone. Not masturbating increases testosterone. Watching porn often comes with masturbation so the data that the wikipedia article doesn't suggest that increasing porn availability is a good thing.

I was citing the Wikipedia article in answer to your comment "Shall we believe that being a pedophile is genetic and the environment to which a person is exposed has nothing to do with them becoming a pedophile? ", and I think the section I linked to does a decent job of showing very early effects.

The way you've used testosterone level as a mediating variable seems very weak and questionable. The relevant data there is the societal experiments studied by Diamond: If you make child porn freely available, what happens to society-wide levels of child sex abuse?