The case for tolerance

The more you marginalize people ... the more likely they are to actually commit crimes. They don't feel associated with the society that rejected them, so why keep society's rules?

I'm quoting Bethan Tuttle, a director with Mothers Against Sex Predators (source). The inverse of the statement follows: the less you marginalise people, the less likely they are to commit crimes. The logical consequence is that the universal, unconditional hatred against all minor-attracted adults is counter-productive in a very dangerous way. People force those attracted to minors to hide that part of themselves, and they do their best to make them feel like despicable, worthless Untermensch just for being what they are, even if they are powerless to change and they have never acted illegally or immorally on it. People force them into this shadowy hell because they think it somehow lessens the probability that they may harm children. But as every psychologist worth their degree will confirm, Bethan Tuttle is exactly right. The well-meaning, but uncontemplated and inhuman condemnation actually has the opposite effect.

If you care about children, you will find that you can tolerate a friend's minor-attraction without tolerating sexual abuse. Those unwilling to accept this, have to ask themselves one very inconvenient question: what is it you care for the most; children, or your hatred? Pick one, and the other will suffer.

Cross-posted to ANU.