Yeah let's leave the jokes to posts about non serious topics like the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

I think you misspelled "libertarian".

It's not really a grammatical error, more a sign that the writer doesn't read much, and hence indicative of illiteracy. It's like using "to all intensive purposes" instead of "to all intents and purposes", or "should of" instead of "should've": it shows that you've only ever heard it said, not written down

Is that a joke about the vagaries of English spelling/pronounciation (rough, through, bough, etc)or do you really not know that it derives from "nought" which rhymes with "ought"?

tl;dr having a gay grandad makes women more fertile

Does the phrase "informed consent" ring any bells? A true paedophile would presumably not class any sexual actrivity between an adult and a child as automatically wrong.

Now, if you're talking about people who are purely paedophiles in their own heads, that's a different matter, as you can act inside your own head however you please.

You are correct that more research into this area is needed. But the idea that the vast majority of paedophiles will never act out their desires seems unrealistic in the extreme.

No, in English we say "near miss". It is a contraction of "it was a miss, but very near".

Yes, but why should someone who is low to averagely intelligent but with rich parents be allowed the choice between a trade and a profession, while someone who is above averagely intelligent but with poor parents not have the choice?

There is nothing meritocratic about your parents being the main deciding factor in your future career prospects.

I know that a few poor but brilliant students will find a way through due to scholarships, etc. It's the very good non-geniuses who suffer.

I once said "meerkats adore conservation" does that count?

There were two armed and highly trained policemen guarding them, and that didn't help much.

If all the staff had been carrying machine guns, the terrorists would just have bombed the offices instead. In Afghanistan and Iraq there are a lot of armed people around, so the terrorists use car bombs.

I dislike murdering psychotic religious fanatics as much as the next man, but...WALES?

We're supposed to be better than the terrorists.

So would you rather be shot or blown up than have governments (say) issue passports and check incoming passengers' details against known terrorists? or have a police force?

It's not a black or white thing, because while obviously no government can 100% guarantee your safety, they can do certain things which increase it greatly.

I believe even libertarians admit the need for a country to have a military, for instance.

Numberwang!