>>"But isn't that only because of the persistant fear and scaremongering that exists now thanks to the ilk of the Daily Mail, et al."
I wouldn't have thought so. Sex with a prepubescent child is intrinsically damaging to that child and equally is inescapably taking advantage of a child through one's greater power over them. It is not arguable that sex with a child isn't both harmful to the child and lacking in even the pretence of consent. It is inherently wrong. Anyone who was a good person and found themself sexually attracted to children is going to suffer distress about their urges. Hence why any good person who finds themself suffering from this would want and need help.
>>"Do you tell everyone about your sexual attractions? Do you tell everyone that you're a heterophile? Homophile? Podophile? Zoophile? Whatever attraction floats your boat? No, probably not."
I tell anyone who asks that I'm heterosexual because I am. However, having seen the distress homosexual people have suffered historically (and may still do today with their families), I can see how having to keep a sexual attraction, even one that is harmless like homosexuality, can cause immense distress for the person who has to live the lie.
>>"You mean child molestation? By that logic, what's stopping you, a person with an attraction, from raping every person that you meet?"
Well I have no penis, so I guess lack of the necessary equipment for a start. But you're badly failing to comprehend what is being said to you which is that sexual attraction can lead to horrific outcomes. Which it can. I didn't say that someone who is a paedophile necessarily will - that part was covered by the suffering in my first part. But I do go on to say that unaddressed paedophilia is a risk. I would think a lifetime of any unfulfilled sexual desire would have a high chance of leading someone towards giving in at some point. What's up for debate in that? So again, the OP wasn't unreasonable in saying they need help. You're being unreasonable in contesting that.
>>"For the purpose of Devil's Advocate though. [...]"
No. You're arguing against points I didn't make through your own inability to understand. Additionally, this is a massive distraction from what the article is actually about. What is happening here is plain: you have some particular issues with paedophilia and having seen an off-hand reference to it in someone's post are now going into some death spiral of arguing about it for your own reasons. I'm satisfied that the points I made are clear and reasonably uncontroversial to any bystander so I decline to derail this forum discussion any further for the sake of your issues. I am done on this.