"I've seen the allegation that I ignore science, or pretend that science has settled some matter that it has not. These questions are too complicated for science to have any practical answers."

When you cease advocating for reparative therapies that have been found empirically to have no valid effects to help, but whose harm is demonstrable, then maybe I might believe you.

When you stop believing that B4UACT was wrong to remain "undeclared" on the scientific issue of contact being harmful just because there is no consensus among the experts, then I might believe you.

Science's answers are practical ones. They aren't the only factors. The irrational moral beliefs of the neighbors do cause harm. The enforcement of unjust laws do cause harm. But when the legislators and morale zealots are seeking validation through claims that are matters of science; then ignoring the science is folly.

"A question like, "Does anarcho-syndicalism maximize human happiness (as measured by surveys)?" is in theory a scientific question, but it is just very hard to get good data. Really hard to get good controlled experiments."

No, it isn't a scientific question.

Its a matter of a demographic survey soliciting an opinion about happiness.

And since there are no Anarcho-Syndicalist systems in place, it is an opinion survey based on a hypothetical. I know you conflate hypotheticals with claims whose testability is based on the outcomes of experimentation, but misunderstanding how science works doesn't mean that the science is the source of the complexity.

And despite your erroneous beliefs, empirical science and opinion surveys are two different things. Nobody outside of you treats the social sciences as interchangeable with the hard sciences ( except for Markaba's claim that the Social Contract's existence is a matter of fact like gravity. )

There will always be other social factors. But if we can respect historians on history, sociologists on sociology and hard scientists on science then we might create better arguments about the other factors which complicate things.

They will be complex regardless of which shift in the status-quo we are asking people to accept. And since you say you're for eliminating laws against Virtual KP, you don't want to complicate your efforts by denying what any other body of outside experts have to offer on the topic; provided that the "experts" aren't also playing mix'n'match when it comes to treating morality as science, or the the law as sociology, &tc.

"Rind showed harm from adult-child sex was not universal and not typically severe. But it did exist. As another vital data source, we do know that large numbers of abuse survivors today believe they were seriously damaged. It's all a question of values how to weigh that harm against freedom."

Susan Clancy and others demonstrate that the harm isn't created in consensual contact or even for years later. We must then understand that it originates in something later which gives rise to it. Something which reframes consensual contact as a source of harm, and which ( as Rind points out ) does not happen to all.

And many people believe that they've been harmed by alien abductions that never took place, and by Satanic Rituals that turned out to be artifacts of hypnotherapy and implanted memories.

Nobody denies the lasting repercussions of Satanic sexual abuse at the hands of one's father. But one can still ask where the harm came from once we eliminate the act itself.

The abuse narrative industry is indisputable. And in many cases the therapist will make it clear just what narrative will deserve support and treatment, and which narrative will be denied help. ( See the case of Sybil for pressure to manufacture a different etiology in order to receive needed treatment. ) We can still question where the causes lie.

When we're weighing harm against freedom it becomes even more necessary to demonstrate first that the harm we seek to eliminate arises from the things we claim we need to restrict; and that they do so in a meaningful way.

The default position should be to maintain the freedom to act unless there is a clear necessary causal relationship between action and harm. We could eliminate road deaths if we eliminate driving. But instead we seek out causal factors for accidents, and we keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation.

It seems to me that despite the importance of her work to abuse victims, Clancy's writing is ignored specifically because it points away from the false "Trauma narrative" which makes the claim of harm uncomplicated.

Dante