As long as my average expected utility over all choices available goes up, I'm down to get more goals, and even loose old ones. But if my average expected utility goes down, then screw getting a new value. Though in general, adding a new value does not imply getting rid of an old one; as long as you keep all your old values there is no danger in adding a new one.

"1+1=giraffe" is meaningless "Godel sentence" is undecidable

"There is no particular word limit. It's too many words, and too overwrought, for what it's saying, which is simply the often-made point that overreaction to child abuse scares can itself be damaging." Sorry sir, but if you had simply read my introduction a bit more carefully you might have noticed that from the very beginning I make it clear that my aim is to give an example of how completely un-beneficial moral judgements can enter our culture and become rooted if they hide in our taboo box.

Wait I misunderstood what you were asking, sorry. No, I specifically argue that sex involving a non-consenting partner is always going to be traumatic for that member of the ordeal.

I don't disagree, but i think the situation becomes drastically different when we are talking about sexual desires. Again, I don't have anything better than moderate familiarization with Kinsey to back that up.

I would say quite the opposite, as would Dr. Kinsey from what i understand.

Yes, absolutely would. The only thing i think i would loose in doing so is showing that there is much more to our distaste of pedophiles than the obvious harms they cause.

Also, I don't understand why it say's my page does not exist. I might just try again.

It means precisely that it works well with what we already consider to be beneficial thanks to our genetic and memetic predispositions.