Sin? No. The fallibility of nature (of which we are a part)? I was already there.

That is most of the definition of original sin: inherent, inescapable fallibility present in and pervading all hoomins.

You are again being Augustinian and anti-Pelagian.

You see? Have you ever stopped and actually looked at what you're doing? It doesn't matter what it is, negative or positive, you find some way to twist it around. You are lying to yourself, and it's sad.

You cannot give something that you don't have.

This is evident in material things, so evident I don't think it needs to be analyzed further, does it?

But it is also there in non-material things. You cannot give stability, peace, support, love, if you do not have them in yourself. You cannot love another if you hate yourself. You cannot give another peace if you are at war in yourself. You cannot give another stability if you are unstable. You cannot give another support if you don't support yourself. You cannot give another confidence if you are not confident in yourself. Whatever you seek to give others, you have to have it in you already.

And if you are not self-interested, then you will not develop the positive qualities in yourself either. Because they only benefit yourself. Even if you project them outwards later, first you have to experience the development and associated benefit in yourself.

That doesn't . . . never mind.

It's not a syllogism, sylly. It's three different statements. Each of which refutes part of your paragraph.

1. I already have LGFs - so there is no need for any legal reform for that, as your paragraph implies.
2. I do not presume to be perfectly noble; nor do I presume other pedos to be - so your accusation that we are or think we are is at best a strawman.
3. My girls are less vulnerable because of me - so having AFs makes children less vulnerable; or at least you cannot generalize that it will make them more vulnerable.