Except that it’s literally not a suggestion that there are circumstances under which it is ok. You’re not stupid. You know what he meant. And you know what he meant wasn’t what he is being smeared as.
Under what circumstances is something that does no harm not ok?
Feel free to quote or link the passage where he says it does no harm. If you cannot find one, you’ll issue an apology to RMS for falsely defaming him, right? That’s what it’s called when you claim someone says pedophilia does no harm when they didn’t say that.
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children" - if it's not harming children, who or what is it harming?
And if you can't make a coherent argument on that point, maybe you should apologise for suggesting that
JohnHaugeland was "willfully, blatantly lying"?
As you’re aware, this isn’t a claim that pedophilia does no harm. Keep looking.
Who or what is harmed in this case if not the children?