@J Thomas:
What I'm supposed to respond this ? 
Well, he is insane, after all....
I've found sams interesting in the context of this "Pedo Bear" (whatever in hell that means) discussion because he seems reliably to personify the senseless presumptions at the base of all efforts to criminalize consensual human action in the name of maintaining some sort of fabulous traditionalist aggressively violent ordinative scheme.
sams' is the voice of Prohibition, of Comstockery, of the War on (Some) Drugs, of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and of "every kind of tyranny over the mind of man."
Do I really have to respond to this massive straw-man and paternalist condescension ?
Absolutely not. You have the right to not respond to anything you prefer to ignore. You have no obligation to respond to anybody.
So for example, somebody here recently said that the Lancet study of Iraqi casualties was done with bad methods and should be ignored. There was a lot of propaganda claiming that, because it gave results that were politically inconvenient. The methods they claimed to use were in fact exactly the approved methods for that sort of problem. If they used the wrong methods they must have lied about what they did. Some time after they got their inconvenient results, there was funding for another study on similar topics which got very different results with the same methods. So maybe the first study was faked for political reasons, or maybe the second study (which was commissioned and funded to disprove the first one) was faked for political reasons, or maybe both, or maybe they were both honest but got different results from one of those statistical flukes which happen every now and then. Did I argue with the guy who heard the propaganda? No! I'm tired of that argument. In general, people who believe propaganda instead of statistics are never going to learn the statistics well enough to argue about them. OK, I can let somebody be wrong on the Internet. I don't have to argue every time somebody disagrees with me.
People who think they
should respond or
must respond are troll-bait.
If a troll comes along and enrages you, and you respond to him and he enrages you more, and you keep coming back trying to prove to his satisfaction that you are better than him, in a way it is his fault for picking on you. But it is also your responsibility for being somebody who is easily trolled.
If somebody doesn't like you on the Internet, you have no obligation to make friends with him or defeat him.
http://xkcd.com/386/In general, when somebody on the internet says you are insane, he is only being rude. "Insane" on the internet basicly means "says things that don't make sense to me". In person, insane also includes "does things that don't make sense to me". The assumption is that if I don't understand it, it must be crazy.
His other claims about you do make a kind of sense. You have consistently taken the stand that the ways our (sort of anglo-saxon US) customs have developed are workable and good, and that alternatives are probably not workable and bad. Most of the people here assume that coercion is bad in principle, and that all of our customs that involve coercing people are bad because of that, and that they can successfully be replaced by new customs that do not involve coercion except in response to prior coercion. (With a few exceptions or gray areas when you perceive threats of coercion.)
Can we create a noncoercive society? I'm reasonably sure it's possible, and I'm not certain people will get it right the first try. There are surely lots of things that don't work, some of them for reasons we will not understand ahead of time. Some for reasons we may never understand. Some things just don't work. So it may take time to develop whole societies that don't do coercion at all. We have a start with Quakers and Amish etc who already try to live noncoercively inside a deeply coercive society which possibly might be doing their dirty work for them, or might be just causing them problems.
Our old customs give us the results we have now. They have survived to this point, and it's an open question whether they can survive our new conditions. They do have a track record. Not great in my opinion, but there are survivors, which is better than some alternatives. Would it be worth it to look for something better? I say yes, and also it's important to keep the old ways going for a good long time in case there's something wrong with the particular choices we make when we create alternatives.
When you say the old ways are as good as it gets, of course people here will tend to get upset. I hope they will argue with you while it's fun for them, and quit before it stops being fun.
If it turns into a long argument where you don't have fun, and the other guy doesn't have fun, which one is the troll?