Now that everyone else answered, I'll add what I'd like to add

Yes, of course, Dante did an awesome job; and so did jd420, who I knew was going to touch this post very Bad Touch right since I first read it...

But I am in a certain mood tonight...

The act of sex with a child could pemenantley psychologically damage a child and therefore it cannot be allowed in any circimstaces to have sex with children weather harm is caused or not,

Your ultra-protectionism doesn't convince me. First of all, you would have to prove that the social and fiscal cost of prohibition is smaller than the cost of *actual* (not possible, actual - because we're talking policy, not theory) harm to children. You will have a hard time arguing that prohibitions for sex make more sense than bans on cars or on junk food would. And you will also have to deal with the Classical Prohibition Side Effects, to me mentioned later...

((Do cities with millions of cars and producing tonnes of trash have the moral authority to tell me I can't light up??))

it can turn them into a pedophile and most people dont want to be a pedophile,

And most people don't want to be old either. Denying current choice, which is the only choice that actually exists in the present, for the promise of a superior future choice that we all hope will exist in the future, works for religion, but not for policy. But, just in case, cellphones sold in Saudi Arabia don't have cameras.

((No, Mr Terrorist, don't kill me - I quit smoking last month because I want to live to 100))

ever heard that victims of sexual abuse go on to do it themselves?

Certainly - because if you learn a dynamic of abuse, well, then that is what you learned. But there is no reason to single sexual abuse out when 1) all other types of abuse also share the pattern, 2) other types of abuse are far more prevalent and 3) people are thinking beings (usually) that can prevent themselves from repeating the pattern if so they wanted.

((Admittedly, the children of smokers are far likelier to take up the habit themselves))

If it is allowed then there will sureley be much more cases of damage done to children and therefore it cannot be allowed.

Classical Prohibition Side Effects: prohibited items, by definition... 1) don't pay taxes; 2) go undetected to public officials, which is especially dangerous if they go undetected to public health officials; 3) cannot be regulated for safety or health standards; 4) become a hub for criminality because of their illegal character - depending on profitability and compatibility with other businesses, might be small independent networks or might be Big Organised Crime, and while the latter is worse, I don't think you really want either; 5) become a hub for forced participation, because of (4); 6) become, depending on their profitability, a permanent source of police and government corruption.

You have the hardest case arguing that "out in the open" will provide more opportunities for harm and / or less chances of learning through witnessing and / or less chances of detection of abuse instances than "hidden from everyone".

((After all, if tobacco was illegal, I wouldn't be able to know that my cigarettes don't contain crack or aren't the product of slave labour))

Also it messes them up in all sorts of ways

Always shower afterwards. Next.

Perhaps if we all had sex with children then it would all be okay because people wouldnt care if they were pedophiles

You are completely right there. Pitcairn, the Children of God, and countless other examples in all continents and eras prove that...

but thats not the case, we dont all have sex with children and actually doing it isnt going to change anything, also many people have the "yuck factor" they find the thought of sex with a child disgusting, like eating turds or something like that and so they dont like the thought of that happening to their own children.

...the phobia of paedophilia and of underage sexuality of the Modern West is largely cultural; a specific phenomenon of the Modern West that is not shared by many other cultures which together would comprise the majority of the Human Experience.

Moreover - sexual phobias and sexual hangups that span whole societies are themselves provably largely cultural; as the Melanesian cultures where "gay" is the default orientation show. Even the once thought universal incest taboo has been proven to be, while repanded, much less universal than once affirmed.

And I can go further - even your shit-ingesting comparison is cultural: some cannibal cultures have developed a taste for bowel content preparations...

((Therefore, I admit that smoking is held in contempt in the current Western world))

its totally weird and a really nasty thing to do to somebody,

Unless you ask that somebody first.

((I don't force anyone to smoke))

if evereybody was running about doing that it wouldnt be a nice place to live.

Malinowski differs in his assessment of Trobriand Islands.
[The Sexual Life of Savages]
((as did Columbus in his assessment of the first Arawaks he found while discovering tobacco))

there is a good chance you will act upon the urge,

The reptile brain and the limbic system are consulted in every decision that committee you have in your head takes. But the neocortex has the last word. If there wasn't a neocortex then probably I would have a partner count in the tens of thousands. But there is. And it's easy enough to do what it takes to avoid acting out. After all, not acting out is a passive decision - the active one and thus harder one is to act out.

((I don't *have to* light up if I don't consciously want to))

theres nothing else that turns you on so you will become obsessed and addicted to the thought of doing it

No, I don't think of sex all the time...
((or of smoking))

but how can anybody tell if you have or not

Have you realised how much easier it would be if it wasn't forbidden??

people are protective of children,

However, as a general rule, the more that people be noisy about protecting children, the less they mean it.

i would presume you yourself actually like children and wouldnt want to hurt them

Yep. But how does this relate with the rest of the post???

but this isnt the same with all pedophiles some are sadistic and they do it because they want to hurt the child.

And if it wasn't illegal, it would be far easier for a sadistic paedophile to be detected upon acting; or even better, for them to seek help before they do.

but if that was the truth then 1 in 4 men (or much more) would be pedophiles, and that just cant be right can it?

Arousal patterns say that yes, you are right with your assumption.

Care to re-evaluate your previous statement about proclivity to act out??

i think its wrong because it hurts children to actually do it

Cat.
et al...

evereybodys going to hate you because of that,

Not everybody. Only those who don't have better things to do than poking their nose into other people's lives.
((the smoking analogy holds!!!))

and you never know there could be reasons for it that you just dont know about,

Completely true.
But irrelevant.
That something has a complex causality doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong; or defensible or not as a personal choice.

if you fantisised about killing people all the time

I sincerely and honestly believe everyone has fantasised about killing some specific people at some point in time.

And I am not shy to admit that there are a few lives I wouldn't move a finger for.

imagine a guy whoos been obsessing about killing people now for 10 years and his house is decorated with knives and hes a member of a community of other people just like him on the internet that like discussing how much they would love to murder people.

I would say that such a guy has extensively proven that he does know the difference between fantasy and reality.

YOU said 10 years, not me...

Otoh, as jd420 implied, it also depends on what you define as murder. If you define war as murder, you're by definition including the military and the defence establishment. If you define death penalty as murder, you are including the more zealous advocates of both sides; same for abortion.

someday somebodys getting murdered so i guess people arent too fond of the people who cause this,

Hehehehe.

Well...

Studying the lives and deeds and MOs and evidence, and such, of the greatest murderers, is itself an entire discipline. And it is interesting. It can even be fun I guess.

But...

Go to your local police department.

Ask to see the murder records.

The majority of the murders are committed by people that the victim knew.

The overwhelming majority are committed with a clear goal in mind that is not simply the personal achievement of the murderer or their satisfaction at the kill - money, "passion crimes", revenge, in the course of another crime...

Proportionally, the greatest murderers commit a minority of all murders.

So again... better to point the finger in the right direction...

pedophillias not as bad as murder, but its getting there i guess.

Of course it's getting there - but still, it's cultural, and...

sometimes pedophiles do murder their victims so i guess thats another unignorable factor.

...that wouldn't happen if sex wasn't illegal, as there would be no "crime" to "cover"; and / or if the penalties weren't as draconian as they are, as the additional murder would escale penalties up by a lot, not by just a little.

((would you not kill your partner if the penalty for giving them a cigarette was decades in jail + registration + therapy + further restrictions and the penalty for murder added only a couple years, or nothing at all???))