Debate user BoxerShorts47 on "strawmans" and logical fallacies, definitions of ephebophilia, how to MAGA, religion, Sailor Moon and more

[Pee Cola]

tbh the craziest thing is that he looks relatively normal. Like, most seriously fucked up people look the part and you could pick them out of a crowd, but Emil's like, not even ugly

View attachment 2888282

In that photo he looks like Sacha Baron Cohen.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

tbh the craziest thing is that he looks relatively normal. Like, most seriously fucked up people look the part and you could pick them out of a crowd, but Emil's like, not even ugly

View attachment 2888282

He's by no means a casanova, but if he got his head straight for one second and learned to smile for his photos, I'm certain he could find a nice OF LEGAL AGE girl. Especially in gay-ass California, where I'd think being a Hispanic in a suit would be a boon to his dating life. And he ain't even fat! What the fuck!

But what's the point? Just to become a hated minority in America? To have mixed race kids who aren't even remotely similar to me? Or white kids who face discrimination and pressure to race mix?
If we were Gen X and this was 40 years ago, this would be solid advice but we're past that point.

 

[Pissmaster]

But what's the point? Just to become a hated minority in America? To have mixed race kids who aren't even remotely similar to me? Or white kids who face discrimination and pressure to race mix?
If we were Gen X and this was 40 years ago, this would be solid advice but we're past that point.

For your own personal happiness. You can't reshape the world by arguing on forums where absolutely everyone disagrees with you for years on end.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

For your own personal happiness. You can't reshape the world by arguing on forums where absolutely everyone disagrees with you for years on end.

There is too much anti whiteness in the American systems for me to be happy.
There is no way I'll be able to go up the corporate ladder with all these firms trying to increase their non white diversity percentages.
Likewise I don't feel safe in this nation because the media can ferment race riots and bias juries.
Ignorance is bliss but I'm not ignorant.
As you said, 2016 election changed many people, including me.

I want a referendum on diversity. I want Americans to vote on their future.
Worst case scenario whites vote to become a minority and go extinct through race mixing.
But if that happens, I'll cause a waves in Europe and I think the Europeans will vote to stop population replacement because they aren't as diverse as Americas and I'll try fleeing there.
I have 0 intentions of living in a Hispanic nation with race baiting politicians and constant discrimination against whites that's justified because of historical grievances.

 

[AnOminous]

There is too much anti whiteness in the American systems for me to be happy.

Yeah well there is too little actual whiteness in your blood for you to talk shit about anything involving white people. White people do not want depraved perverts such as yourself in our midst.

 

[KingCoomer]

Probably around the time I turned 18 and suddenly it was a crime to be attracted the same women but I guess I accepted that 18 AoC and didn't think much about jailbait and AoC until I was browsing 4chan a few years ago and I saw AoC debate threads.

Bingo, I figured it was the incel forums or 4chan. You browse /tv/ a lot Boxy?

I think it's weird that people are soo hung up on this topic.
The defense of 18 feels very religious. similar to debating Christians or other die hard groups.

People don't want others taking advantage of children, especially because they think "it could happen to my own", so people get understandably triggered.

destigmatize "non offense" pedophilia

A futile attempt not even from the left, but a very small vocal minority within them. Their slippery slope strategy for legalizing relationships with minors won't ever work in my opinion. People can't be that stupid.

I'll just have my own go at your whole AoC stance. Sure, the AoC was historically lower than what it is in the modern United States, do you understand why? Because in those times, you were considered a woman at 12 and a man at 14, and you died in your 40s or 50s. With the ongoing infantilization of society that has been occurring ever since the Industrial revolution (The infantilization of mankind is a whole other can of worms, but let's ignore that for now), 12 and 14 year olds don't need to handle the adult responsibilities they once did. Since they aren't expected to handle these responsibilities of yonder, or in layman's terms "grow up", they do not have the maturity they were once taught to have. Hence why the AoC is perfect where it is now (You are right in the regard that the AoC was raised in America by feminist movements, but let's focus on the modern effects it has, after all those feminists did this over a hundred years ago), because minors no longer have that maturity to consent to sex. To reiterate, why should the AoC be at 18 and not include younger people? Because they aren't expected to be adults anymore, hence a lack of maturity, so they cannot consent. You can rant and rave about how the AoC is feminist and how society being infantilized is bad all you want, but at the end of the day it doesn't change that now in modern times minors cannot consent because they are immature. Letting adults have sex with these people is just prime material for relationship abuse.

tbh the craziest thing is that he looks relatively normal. Like, most seriously fucked up people look the part and you could pick them out of a crowd

The stereotype that crazies/criminals/pedos look like trolls is a meme. Bundy looked normal, Epstein looked normal, you get the point.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

Bingo, I figured it was the incel forums or 4chan. You browse /tv/ a lot Boxy?

So these ideas are spreading? No, I read it on /pol/

A futile attempt not even from the left, but a very small vocal minority within them. Their slippery slope strategy for legalizing relationships with minors won't ever work in my opinion. People can't be that stupid.

People believe that blacks and whites are equal, the same. People believe men and women are equal, the same. People believe that you can be born in the wrong body, transgenderism. People can be brainwashed into believing anything is true. There are psychological experiment that show that humans will follow group think even if it's illogical. People can be brainwashed to believe anything so the left can destigmatize pedophilia with the right narratives. Don't understand estimate them. If there is 1 lesson you should have learned in the last 7 years it's that people really are that dumb and even if they aren't, they'll toe the party line if they fear punishment, e.g. cancel culture.

I'll just have my own go at your whole AoC stance. Sure, the AoC was historically lower than what it is in the modern United States, do you understand why? Because in those times, you were considered a woman at 12 and a man at 14, and you died in your 40s or 50s. With the ongoing infantilization of society that has been occurring ever since the Industrial revolution (The infantilization of mankind is a whole other can of worms, but let's ignore that for now), 12 and 14 year olds don't need to handle the adult responsibilities they once did. Since they aren't expected to handle these responsibilities of yonder, or in layman's terms "grow up", they do not have the maturity they were once taught to have. Hence why the AoC is perfect where it is now (You are right in the regard that the AoC was raised in America by feminist movements, but let's focus on the modern effects it has, after all those feminists did this over a hundred years ago), because minors no longer have that maturity to consent to sex. To reiterate, why should the AoC be at 18 and not include younger people? Because they aren't expected to be adults anymore, hence a lack of maturity, so they cannot consent. You can rant and rave about how the AoC is feminist and how society being infantilized is bad all you want, but at the end of the day it doesn't change that now in modern times minors cannot consent because they are immature. Letting adults have sex with these people is just prime material for relationship abuse.

Do you acknowledge that you're being a reactionary whose default response is to defend the status quo?

1) The biggest flaw in your argument is that AoC is already 14 and 15 in parts of Europe TODAY. While you're correct that society has gotten more infantilized since industrial revolution, people are delaying maturity, that doesn't change human biology.

2) Minors CAN consent to sex in America BUT ONLY WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WITH A FEW YEARS. This is clearly a huge contradiction. Either these people can consent to sex or they cannot. People like yourself use mental gymnastics people use to compartmentalize this problem.

3) I would argue that you increase maturity by giving younger people adult responsibilities rather than delaying them. One of my major goals is abolishing public education. I think it's largely responsible for the arrested development we see today. If we get rid of it and figure out a way to allow people to enter the workforce at a younger age, we could undo much of the arrested development we see today.

 

[AnOminous]

How is it even possible that there is this person?

 

[KingCoomer]

So these ideas are spreading? No, I read it on /pol/

No, I argued with pedos on there awhile back and they had extremely similar arguments to you. I assumed for a bit you were probably one of those posters to be honest. Also cause /tv/ is notorious for being the pedo board.

People believe that blacks and whites are equal, the same. People believe men and women are equal, the same. People believe that you can be born in the wrong body, transgenderism. People can be brainwashed into believing anything is true. There are psychological experiment that show that humans will follow group think even if it's illogical. People can be brainwashed to believe anything so the left can destigmatize pedophilia with the right narratives. Don't understand estimate them. If there is 1 lesson you should have learned in the last 7 years it's that people really are that dumb and even if they aren't, they'll toe the party line if they fear punishment, e.g. cancel culture.

There are certain things that even group think won't change. Nobody will support you killing somebody randomly for absolutely no reason.

2) Minors CAN consent to sex in America BUT ONLY WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WITH A FEW YEARS. This is clearly a huge contradiction. Either these people can consent to sex or they cannot. People like yourself use mental gymnastics people use to compartmentalize this problem.

I should have been more specific, honestly I typed this in-between a match of a videogame and am still doing so. Let me try to solidify my point. Minors cannot consent with adults because they are immature because they aren't expected to handle the same responsibilities they once were, and so the AoC is the way it is because it protects minors from committing to relationships where there is an obvious power imbalance mentally because well, like I said, they aren't mature. A 14 year old and a 14 year old together is ok because they are both fucking stupid.

1) The biggest flaw in your argument is that AoC is already 14 and 15 in parts of Europe TODAY. While you're correct that society has gotten more infantilized since industrial revolution, people are delaying maturity, that doesn't change human biology.

You are American boxy. You can't just pick and choose aspects of a country you like to enforce your points (which specifically focus on the AoC in AMERICA), but if you really want to then let's also make America a muslim occupied nation. It's a different culture, and even in those countries if you are 30 with a 16 year old you will get lynched.

Your comment about mental gymnastics seems like a catch-all cope you use on everything to me. I'm starting to get the idea that you won't ever budge on this. Feel free to explain my mental gymnastics though. I think my argument is pretty clear and concise.

 

[Balanced Boomer]

Did that thumb ever get posted? I'm too flabbergasted that this nigger is still going to bother playing catch up from last year.

Edit oh shit negative six million when did that happen?

 

[BoxerShorts47]

No, I argued with pedos on there awhile back and they had extremely similar arguments to you. I assumed for a bit you were probably one of those posters to be honest. Also cause /tv/ is notorious for being the pedo board.

We're not talking about pedophilia and you should use that word properly as actual pedophilia becomes a political issue.

There are certain things that even group think won't change. Nobody will support you killing somebody randomly for absolutely no reason.

Sure but that's why I said there has to be a proper narrative i.e. reason.

I should have been more specific, honestly I typed this in-between a match of a videogame and am still doing so. Let me try to solidify my point. Minors cannot consent with adults because they are immature because they aren't expected to handle the same responsibilities they once were, and so the AoC is the way it is because it protects minors from committing to relationships where there is an obvious power imbalance mentally because well, like I said, they aren't mature. A 14 year old and a 14 year old together is ok because they are both fucking stupid.

You are American boxy. You can't just pick and choose aspects of a country you like to enforce your points (which specifically focus on the AoC in AMERICA), but if you really want to then let's also make America a muslim occupied nation. It's a different culture, and even in those countries if you are 30 with a 16 year old you will get lynched.

Your comment about mental gymnastics seems like a catch-all cope you use on everything to me. I'm starting to get the idea that you won't ever budge on this. Feel free to explain my mental gymnastics though. I think my argument is pretty clear and concise.

It's clear to me that you're backwards rationalizing the justification (power imbalance) from the current status quo (18 AoC).
The reason I know this is because the Romeo & Juliet loopholes weren't implemented for this reason.
They were implemented because after AoC was raised from 12 to 18, many people broke the law and people felt bad that 15 year olds were being charged with rape so they partially repealed the law.
It wasn't because people thought there was a power imbalance issue, it was because people felt bad and didn't agree that 15 yr olds couldn't consent to sex.
If this power imbalance theory (which btw is a feminist concept) was correct, you would see this reflected in other nations but in cases like Sweden, that power imbalance once occurs if you're the minor's (15-17) legal guardian, it doesn't apply de jure in all situations.
So you're clearly backwards rationalizing the justification from the outcome/status quo and that's why I asked you if you would admit to being a reactionary.

 

[Balanced Boomer]

@BoxerShorts47 hey yo I know you're busy explaining why wanting to fuck underaged kids isn't pedophilia, but can we hear some cool stories about your Jewish Russian dog wizard uncle maybe? I'm just saying people might like you better if you'd share some of his "tails" of woofermancy.

I mean me. I wanna hear readings from the puppernomicon.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

@BoxerShorts47 hey yo I know you're busy explaining why wanting to fuck underaged kids isn't pedophilia, but can we hear some cool stories about your Jewish Russian dog wizard uncle maybe? I'm just saying people might like you better if you'd share some of his "tails" of woofermancy.

I mean me. I wanna hear readings from the puppernomicon.

What is your favorite dog breed?

 

[KingCoomer]

Romeo & Juliet loopholes

15 year olds were being charged with rape

Are we on the same page? Romeo and Juilet laws are generally designed for those 18 -19 year olds who are dating 16-17 year olds. (If you want to be more specific, cite a state's specfic Romeo and Juilet laws because they vary widely) The logic is that while maybe a 17 year old is too immature to deal with a 30 year old in a relationship, a 18 or 19 year old adult (who typically has no income, no college degree, no real work experience, besides McJobs very similiar to a 17 year old) is ok. I've never heard of a 15 year old going to jail for rape for fucking another 15 year old, nor ever heard of Romeo and Juilet laws saving these individuals. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

We're not talking about pedophilia and you should use that word properly as actual pedophilia becomes a political issue.

You can't be arguing that a 15 year old is a grown woman right? Though I guess you are more into JB age-range so I'll give you that since pedo is exclusively talking about prepubescence. You are into minors.

 

[Balanced Boomer]

What is your favorite dog breed?

Doggo. Fluffers are pretty nice too. Also you got your Good Boys. They good boys.

Where are the Dog Wizard stories?

 

[BoxerShorts47]

Are we on the same page? Romeo and Juilet laws are generally designed for those 18 -19 year olds who are dating 16-17 year olds. (If you want to be more specific, cite a state's specfic Romeo and Juilet laws because they vary widely)

No. My impression is they're loophole that allow people under the age of 18 to have sex with a person that's a few years older. In other words they're a partial repeal of 18 AoC.

Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
The victim was at least 14 years old
The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act

Romeo and Juliet loophole means that Texas would allow a 14 year to have sex with a 17 year despite both being under the age of 18.

The logic is that while maybe a 17 year old is too immature to deal with a 30 year old in a relationship, a 18 or 19 year old adult (who typically has no income, no college degree, no real work experience, besides McJobs very similiar to a 17 year old) is ok.

This is mental gymnastics and backwards rationalization (no income, no college degree, no real world exp). Either a person can or cannot consent to sex.
Instead of admitting that raising AoC from 12 to 18 was a mistake, you're creating mental hoops to justify the status quo.
This entire line of reasoning falls apart when I point out that European nations like Germany and Sweden allow 15 year olds to enter relationships with 30 years.

I've never heard of a 15 year old going to jail for rape for fucking another 15 year old, nor ever heard of Romeo and Juilet laws saving these individuals. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Hyperbole. I would need to look at which court causes actually triggered the Romeo & Juliet loopholes.

You can't be arguing that a 15 year old is a grown woman right? Though I guess you are more into JB age-range so I'll give you that since pedo is exclusively talking about prepubescence. You are into minors.

I would argue that biologically most women are physically adults by 16, maybe some a bit faster. If you mean in terms of maturity, I would concede that teenagers aren't as mature as 20 somethings but that same can be said of 20 somethings compared to 30 somethings. But I do think they're old enough to consent to sex and even the Romeo and Juliet loopholes in America affirm that yes they people are old enough to understand sex.

According to the average, then, women stop growing at about 14 or 16 years of age, while men stop growing around the time they’re between 16 and 18.

For men, this range extends. Some continue to grow, albeit very slightly, until the age of 21. And always in a much slower way than at puberty. The development of muscle mass continues until about 24 years of age.

It seems to me that you're conceding the biological argument and focusing on mental/maturity argument?

 

[draggs]

Keeps holding up Europe as some kind of good example

ngmi

 

[BoxerShorts47]

(who typically has no income, no college degree, no real work experience, besides McJobs very similiar to a 17 year old)

Would you acknowledge this is a fallacious argument?

If someone has no income, does that mean they can't consent to sex?
If someone has no college degree, does that mean they can't consent to sex?
If someone has no real world exp (ignoring how we define real), does that mean they can't consent to sex?

I think the answer is no.
So these arguments seem reasonable at 1st glance but they aren't logically valid.
So that's why from my point of view, you're jumping through mental hoops to backwards rationalize the status quo.
I wouldn't be surprised if these arguments work against people with less debate exp but I'm competent enough to see through them.

 

[KingCoomer]

If someone has no income, does that mean they can't consent to sex?
If someone has no college degree, does that mean they can't consent to sex?
If someone has no real world exp (ignoring how we define real), does that mean they can't consent to sex?

You are not understanding why I highlight those things. They are to highlight immaturity (immaturity being the reason minors cant consent with adults), not that they can't consent because they have no college degree.

Romeo and Juliet loophole means that Texas would allow a 14 year to have sex with a 17 year despite both being under the age of 18.

Minors don't get prosecuted with statutory rape of minors because they themselves are minors. Legally they are BOTH victims and perpetrators, so nothing happens. Romeo and Juliet laws exists primarily so that a 15 year old and 17 year old couple can legally have sex when they are 16 and 18. Why? Because as highlighted above an 18 year old is just as immature as a 16 year old.

It seems to me that you're conceding the biological argument and focusing on mental/maturity argument?

My entire focus was the mental and maturity option. What am I conceding exactly? We haven’t even covered the biological aspect besides you mentioning 16 year old is a woman.

This is mental gymnastics and backwards rationalization (no income, no college degree, no real world exp). Either a person can or cannot consent to sex.

Why are you so black and white?

Yes, the AoC was raised primarily because of feminist movements, but can we not look at different reasons for actions? Just because the original cause for action was arbitrary doesn't mean our reasons for having it now are automatically invalid. I don't follow this line of thinking.

I wouldn't be surprised if these arguments work against people with less debate exp but I'm competent enough to see through them.

You are a laughriot Boxy.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

You are not understanding why I highlight those things. They are to highlight immaturity (immaturity being the reason minors cant consent with adults), not that they can't consent because they have no college degree.

Romeo and Juliet laws exists primarily so that a 15 year old and 17 year old couple can legally have sex when they are 16 and 18. Why? Because as highlighted above an 18 year old is just as immature as a 16 year old

My entire focus was the mental and maturity option. What am I conceding exactly? We haven’t even covered the biological aspect besides you mentioning 16 year old is a woman.

I've met people who are 60 and still as immature as 20, why not have an exception for them?
I would argue that a 21 yr old is just as immature as an 17 yr old on avg. If you're using real work exp and a college degree as your metric then clearly you can include up to 22 year olds in these Romeo & Juliet loopholes, right?
But most loopholes don't go up that high? So your immaturity argument is not consistent, it's not codified in the law and so it's an example of you backwards rationalizing the status quo.
You keep ignoring that European nations have AoC before 18 and they don't have these problems so your fears are completely baseless.

Minors don't get prosecuted with statutory rape of minors because they themselves are minors. Legally they are BOTH victims and perpetrators, so nothing happens.

They would both be prosecuted as perpetrators with maybe a mitigating factor.

Why are you so black and white?

Yes, the AoC was raised primarily because of feminist movements, but can we not look at different reasons for actions? Just because the original cause for action was arbitrary doesn't mean our reasons for having it now are automatically invalid. I don't follow this line of thinking.

No and yes it does. You can't redefine the law based on arbitrary justifications that you create ad hoc and then pretend there is a consensus on the subject.