This is what I hate about this debate. If you take a position that supports empiricism but doesn’t discount child abuse, you are still seen as sympathizing with child molesters. How can one win an argument when the premise is flawed right from the beginning? I actually overheard a person tell my father that he doesn’t care about children because of his views on the AWA. Anyone who knows my father can attest otherwise. It pisses me off to no end that they can throw out this BS response to basically shut us up because after all, who doesn’t want to protect the most innocent among us?