The problem with the Robin character is that he doesn't fit in well with the whole loner fighting criminals to avenge his parent's deaths.

Fine. But when the vast majority of the lore plainly has Batman fighting alongside Robin, then maybe fans need to reassess if that "loner" title is rightly deserved. If readers prefer a very specific interpretation in which Bruce genuinely is a loner with no partners, then they need to admit that neither history nor quantity of stories support their position.

And if you want Batman to be taken seriously as a story for adult you have the whole problem of Batman taking a kid into dangerous situations. Child endangerment is not heroic and its not bad-assed.

How is this a question of seriousness? If anything that's a moral and ethical dilemma. Which any good story should feature. And Batman's entire character is FULL of these clashes of what's right and wrong. The rationale behind Bruce's willingness to take Robin(s) under his wing is that they would've gone off and pursued the vigilante thing regardless. At least under his guidance, they're less likely to be killed and can be taught to approach situations more intelligently. You don't have to agree with it. All the writers have to ensure is that it makes sense from Bruce's perspective. And it absolutely does.

The Robin character works ok for the campy version of Batman where we know if we tune in next week at the same bat-time on the same bat-channel Batman and the boy wonder will find some way to escape whatever trap the villains set for them.

I'm going to make a guess I've made every time I've come across comments like this: you've never read more than a handful of Robin stories, and the campy iteration likely dominates your perception of who Robin is. I haven't been wrong yet.

The existence of Robin means the danger isn't as real. If the danger is real then Batman is a real dick for putting a kid in that situation. I think the death of Jason Todd should have ended the Robin character. And of course Jason Todd should have stayed dead. That should have made it obvious that what Batman does is too dangerous to involve children. But I guess they have to have a Robin because... tradition.

Then you have an issue with a very large aspect of Batman. There's just no way around it. Him "endangering" kids is IN EVERY MEDIUM he's been written in. Since 1940. Why do people just blatantly ignore this? This isn't something you can debate over. It is a fact that Robin has been a significant role in the mythos. All thanks to Batman taking them in. Period. This is like watching a news interview with a murderer's friends/family: "he would NEVER! that's just not in his nature!" -- well, the overwhelming evidence indicates the exact opposite.

Feel free to take it up with the hundreds of writers since 1940 who have kept Robin an integral part of the lore. Peruse through the list, and you'll find dozens of acclaimed and respected writers. I'll leave it to you to determine if they're "wrong".