Because constantly being in a state in which he is attracted to children substantially increases the chance that he will cave and end up raping a child, perhaps. It’s basically valuing something that strongly incentivizes you to do X while simulataneously strongly disvaluing actually doing X. A dangerously unstable situation.
Because constantly being in a state in which he is attracted to children substantially increases the chance that he will cave and end up raping a child, perhaps. It’s basically valuing something that strongly incentivizes you to do X while simulataneously strongly disvaluing actually doing X. A dangerously unstable situation.
Sure.
So, let me try to summarize… consider two values: (V1) having sex with children, and (V2) not having sex with children.
If we assume X has (V1 and NOT V2) my original comments apply.
If we assume X has (V2 and NOT V1) my response to Luke applies.
If we assume X has (V1 and V2) I’m not sure the OP makes any sense at all, but I agree with you that the situation is unstable.
Just for completeness: if we assume X has NOT(V1 OR V2) I’m fairly sure the OP makes no sense.