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

If you want women to get married in their early 20s than you need to put them on a path to marriage BEFORE their 20s. This is the problem with age of consent. You're basically locking these women up until age 18, 18 yr = same as 9 yr. Society, including the women still think of themselves as children. and then these women treat their early-mid 20s the same as they should have treated their mid-late 10s.

Pedo retard didn't even read any of the links.
Argument falls flat on its face because the opportunity was provided for over 200 years yet the vetted numbers show that nobody even remotely thought about exploiting it, because they were actual fucking humans and not whatever this shit-eating idiot actually is. This is the highest form of exceptionalism possible - being so caught up in your fantasy that you believe the subjects of your view think the way you expect them to.
 
No you misunderstand, my bad.

I was talking in regards to how YOU would handle that, if you achieved your goal of a white ethnostate, what would such concepts as permanent 40% unemployment rate due to robotic labour or genetically superior designer babies affect the state.

I'm genuinely curious to your answer, no one really has a definitive strategy to handle such a contingency
We need to decrease the population in a sustainable way and focus on improving the quality of life for the avg person (not necessarily GDP per capita PPP but similar idea). I don't think there is a future for humans that are sub 130 IQ. Most of human history has been natural selection towards higher IQ people. Over the last 10,000 years we've had a different mindset of quantity > quality because of agriculture and industrial revolution but automation will put the lower end of the population out of work. inevitable. You can always reframe an unemployment problem as an overpopulation problem.

Real GDP USA was 550B in 1960, 20.5T today. 41x higher. Is the quality of life 41x higher today? Maybe a few X. Our current model of max GDP growth disproportionally helps the rich because they own the means of production (capital/stocks/bonds). I think lowering the population size/less overcrowding + increase IQ, would make your society overall better place to live in the long-run and this is completely contrary to the current vision of max population, max GDP (consumption), subsidize and encourage low IQ births, which IMO will cripple America and many other western nations by the end of the century.

I also think people will take advantage of designer babies when they get the opportunity and people are already aborting fetuses with genetic defects. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189
Eugenics is going to be part of life. inevitable.
 
Pedo retard didn't even read any of the links.
Argument falls flat on its face because the opportunity was provided for over 200 years yet the vetted numbers show that nobody even remotely thought about exploiting it, because they were actual fucking humans and not whatever this shit-eating idiot actually is. This is the highest form of exceptionalism possible - being so caught up in your fantasy that you believe the subjects of your view think the way you expect them to.
If avg age of marriage was 20f/26m that means you had people on the left side of the curve. e.g. 17f/23m and since people usually don't get married immediately, you could reasonably say that the relationship maybe stared 6m-1yr prior 16f/21m. So high age of consent is preventing/criminalizing relationships would be on the left side of the bell curve. Are these relationships going to be the norm? no. but are they ones that did occur in the past and still (sorta) occur today .e.g jailbait, yes. Ultimately you are criminalizing normal human relationships.
 
Maybe it's because I'm not a pedo like BoxerShorts, but I just don't get how anyone could think that lowering the age of consent to thirteen (twelve? I don't fucking remember) and letting thirteen-year-olds be allowed to marry is a good idea at all.

It would make it so that there would be more babies? Um no, like I said before, just letting them marry and letting them fuck doesn't mean they suddenly would. Also, birth control exists, you dumbass. Even if they were suddenly fucking, it doesn't mean they'd be popping out babies left and right.

Secondly, even if hypothetically there'd be more babies being born, it doesn't mean they would be healthy. Birthing complications and risks are much, much greater for both the mother and the unborn child the younger the mother is.
The simple reason is that they're not developed enough for the baby to fit in and out of them. Forgive me for the visual, but there's just not enough room inside thirteen-year-olds for a baby to develop healthily, and for it to be born safely for both it and the mother.

"But what about C-sections?!" I hear BoxerShorts ree from down inside his mother's basement. Those carry a lot of risks of too and are only done (or at least, supposed to only be done) as a last resort. The mother is bedridden for weeks afterward and there's a considerable chance of the doctor fucking up and screwing over both the mother and the child.

Moving on, the argument that letting thirteen-year-olds legally marry and fuck would somehow cause them to mature faster is also complete bullshit. Exactly how would it make them mature faster? By shoving adult responsibilities onto a totally unprepared person, and forcing them to take care of another human being that just traumatically came out of them? How would that help?

I'm assuming you mean that they'd suddenly willingly take up the responsibility of raising children, and being a spouse and stop doing kid shit, but no, that wouldn't happen. Teenagers are ridiculously immature, and preteens especially. All you need to do is just watch Teen Mom to realize that having a baby doesn't suddenly mature you at all. Another thing is that the parents on that show are usually at the very least sixteen, and you're advocating for thirteen-year-olds.

Thirteen-year-olds aren't even allowed to drive, dude, and you want them to be allowed to raise another human being? Get the fuck outta here.

Furthermore, your goal to abolish K-12 education is just fucking absurd. So you want uneducated thirteen-year-olds to settle down and raise children? Yeah, I can't see how that could possibly go wrong. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Lastly, you clearly seem to be focusing on just the girls being the only underage ones in this aspect, but would underage boys be held to the same standard?

What if a thirty-year-old woman gets knocked up by some poor thirteen-year-old boy, and he rightfully doesn't want anything to do with her? Does he have to pay child support? How would he do that if he's not old enough to work? Where would he get the money from? If he does for some reason want to provide for them, how the fuck can he? He's not old enough to get a fucking job. And all of this assumes that his parents would be okay with a thirty-year-old bitch raping and getting knocked up by their thirteen-year-old son in the first place.

Tl;dr: None of your reasons make any sense logically, biologically, lawfully, and practically. Just admit you're a fucking pedo, dude.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's because I'm not a pedo like BoxerShorts, but I just don't get how anyone could think that lowering the age of consent to thirteen (twelve? I don't fucking remember) and letting thirteen-year-olds be allowed to marry is a good idea at all.

It would make it so that there would be more babies? Um no, like I said before, just letting them marry and letting them fuck doesn't mean they suddenly would. Also, birth control exists, you dumbass. Even if they were suddenly fucking, it doesn't mean they'd be popping out babies left and right.

Secondly, even if hypothetically there'd be more babies being born, it doesn't mean they would be healthy. Birthing complications and risks are much, much greater for both the mother and the unborn child the younger the mother is.
The simple reason is that they're not developed enough for the baby to fit in and out of them. Forgive me for the visual, but there's just enough room in thirteen-year-olds for a baby to develop healthily, and for it to be born safely for both it and the mother.

"But what about C-sections?!" I hear BoxerShorts ree from down inside his mother's basement. Those carry a lot of risks of too and are only done (or at least, supposed to only be done) as a last resort. The mother is bedridden for weeks afterwards and there's a considerable chance of the doctor fucking up and screwing over both the mother and the child.

Moving on, the argument that letting thirteen-year-olds legally marry and fuck would somehow cause them to mature faster is also complete bullshit. Exactly how would it make them mature faster? By shoving adult responsibilities onto a totally unprepared person, and forcing them to take care of another human being that just traumatically came out of them? How does that help?

I'm assuming you mean that they'd suddenly willingly take up the responsibility of raising children, and being a spouse and stop doing kid shit, but no, that wouldn't happen. Teenagers are ridiculously immature, and preteens especially. All you need to do is just watch Teen Mom to realize that having a baby doesn't suddenly mature you at all. Another thing is that the parents on that show are usually at the very least sixteen, and you're advocating for thirteen-year-olds.

Thirteen-year-olds aren't even allowed to drive, dude, and you want them to be allowed to raise another human being? Get the fuck outta here.

Furthermore, your goal to abolish K-12 education is just fucking absurd. So you want uneducated thirteen-year-olds to settle down and raise children? Yeah, I can't see how that could possibly go wrong. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Lastly, you clearly seem to be focusing on just the girls being the only underage ones in this aspect, but would underage boys be held to the same standard?

What if a thirty-year-old woman gets knocked up by some poor thirteen-year-old boy, and he rightfully doesn't want anything to do with her? Does he have to pay child support? How would he do that if he's not old enough to work? Where would he get the money from? If he does for some reason want to provide for them, how the fuck can he? And all of this still assumes that his parents would be suddenly okay with a thirty-year-old bitch raping and getting knocked up by their thirteen-year-old son.

Tl;dr: None of your reasons make any sense logically, biologically, lawfully, and practically. Just admit you're a fucking pedo, dude.
Because it changes the fucking culture you retard. No one is saying 13 yr olds should be married and get pregnant but changing the age of consent allows for relationships that would LEAD to marriage. holy shit are you people stupid.
read:

read
If avg age of marriage was 20f/26m that means you had people on the left side of the curve. e.g. 17f/23m and since people usually don't get married immediately, you could reasonably say that the relationship maybe stared 6m-1yr prior 16f/21m. So high age of consent is preventing/criminalizing relationships would be on the left side of the bell curve. Are these relationships going to be the norm? no. but are they ones that did occur in the past and still (sorta) occur today .e.g jailbait, yes. Ultimately you are criminalizing normal human relationships.

and abolishing k-12 is for a completely different reason. compulsory education is very inefficient + filled with propaganda, it drives many kids mad and they get put on ADHD meds because they aren't happy being locked up for 6 hrs each day in effectively a kid's prison and the culture in these schools is very toxic.
 
Maybe it's because I'm not a pedo like BoxerShorts, but I just don't get how anyone could think that lowering the age of consent to thirteen (twelve? I don't fucking remember) and letting thirteen-year-olds be allowed to marry is a good idea at all.

It would make it so that there would be more babies? Um no, like I said before, just letting them marry and letting them fuck doesn't mean they suddenly would. Also, birth control exists, you dumbass. Even if they were suddenly fucking, it doesn't mean they'd be popping out babies left and right.

Secondly, even if hypothetically there'd be more babies being born, it doesn't mean they would be healthy. Birthing complications and risks are much, much greater for both the mother and the unborn child the younger the mother is.
The simple reason is that they're not developed enough for the baby to fit in and out of them. Forgive me for the visual, but there's just enough room in thirteen-year-olds for a baby to develop healthily, and for it to be born safely for both it and the mother.

"But what about C-sections?!" I hear BoxerShorts ree from down inside his mother's basement. Those carry a lot of risks of too and are only done (or at least, supposed to only be done) as a last resort. The mother is bedridden for weeks afterwards and there's a considerable chance of the doctor fucking up and screwing over both the mother and the child.

Moving on, the argument that letting thirteen-year-olds legally marry and fuck would somehow cause them to mature faster is also complete bullshit. Exactly how would it make them mature faster? By shoving adult responsibilities onto a totally unprepared person, and forcing them to take care of another human being that just traumatically came out of them? How does that help?

I'm assuming you mean that they'd suddenly willingly take up the responsibility of raising children, and being a spouse and stop doing kid shit, but no, that wouldn't happen. Teenagers are ridiculously immature, and preteens especially. All you need to do is just watch Teen Mom to realize that having a baby doesn't suddenly mature you at all. Another thing is that the parents on that show are usually at the very least sixteen, and you're advocating for thirteen-year-olds.

Thirteen-year-olds aren't even allowed to drive, dude, and you want them to be allowed to raise another human being? Get the fuck outta here.

Furthermore, your goal to abolish K-12 education is just fucking absurd. So you want uneducated thirteen-year-olds to settle down and raise children? Yeah, I can't see how that could possibly go wrong. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Lastly, you clearly seem to be focusing on just the girls being the only underage ones in this aspect, but would underage boys be held to the same standard?

What if a thirty-year-old woman gets knocked up by some poor thirteen-year-old boy, and he rightfully doesn't want anything to do with her? Does he have to pay child support? How would he do that if he's not old enough to work? Where would he get the money from? If he does for some reason want to provide for them, how the fuck can he? And all of this still assumes that his parents would be suddenly okay with a thirty-year-old bitch raping and getting knocked up by their thirteen-year-old son.

Tl;dr: None of your reasons make any sense logically, biologically, lawfully, and practically. Just admit you're a fucking pedo, dude.

Look you don't understand back in the 1600s age of consent being 12 was good, and feminism didn't exist in the 1600s therefore it is good.

Also he doesn't want a million new babies now in the long run as his latest tangent says he believe we'll be rid of all low IQ indivduals (except himself) because our GDP has gone up by 41 times since the 60s, yet we haven't gotten 41 times better QOL. Therefore the math checks out. We need less people to ensure better overall QoL for the avg person, his charts say this is good therefore it is good. So why does he want a bunch of extra wives? Fuck if I know.

In simple math 2 + 2 = deport niggers, 3 x 3 = lower age of consent, and 20/5 = white ethnostate. The math checks out.
 
Because it changes the fucking culture you retard. No one is saying 13 yr olds should be married and get pregnant but changing the age of consent allows for relationships that would LEAD to marriage. holy shit are you people stupid.

It is really weird and creepy to do so, but you can build a relationship with somebody underage right now. To lower the age of consent isn't necessary for that, unless what you want isn't a relationship but sex.
 
Because it changes the fucking culture you retard. No one is saying 13 yr olds should be married and get pregnant but changing the age of consent allows for relationships that would LEAD to marriage. holy shit are you people stupid.
Okay, but how would it change the culture for the better?
and abolishing k-12 is for a completely different reason. compulsory education is very inefficient + filled with propaganda, it drives many kids mad and they get put on ADHD meds because they aren't happy being locked up for 6 hrs each day in effectively a kid's prison and the culture in these schools is very toxic.
While I do agree that the US educational system is in dire need of reform, it's still vitally important and better than nothing, and abolishing it entirely would be utterly disastrous. How would getting rid of it possibly help at all?
 
It is really weird and creepy to do so, but you can build a relationship with somebody underage right now. To lower the age of consent isn't necessary for that, unless what you want isn't a relationship but sex.

Relationships don't exist with incels unless sex is an option on date 1. Patience is a libtard concept.
 
We need to decrease the population in a sustainable way and focus on improving the quality of life for the avg person (not necessarily GDP per capita PPP but similar idea). I don't think there is a future for humans that are sub 130 IQ. Most of human history has been natural selection towards higher IQ people. Over the last 10,000 years we've had a different mindset of quantity > quality because of agriculture and industrial revolution but automation will put the lower end of the population out of work. inevitable. You can always reframe an unemployment problem as an overpopulation problem.

Real GDP USA was 550B in 1960, 20.5T today. 41x higher. Is the quality of life 41x higher today? Maybe a few X. Our current model of max GDP growth disproportionally helps the rich because they own the means of production (capital/stocks/bonds). I think lowering the population size/less overcrowding + increase IQ, would make your society overall better place to live in the long-run and this is completely contrary to the current vision of max population, max GDP (consumption), subsidize and encourage low IQ births, which IMO will cripple America and many other western nations by the end of the century.

I also think people will take advantage of designer babies when they get the opportunity and people are already aborting fetuses with genetic defects. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189
Eugenics is going to be part of life. inevitable.
First, in an automation fuelled society of the future, your IQ doesn't matter. That's the problem: It is impossible for a human to compete. No matter how smart or talented you are, robots are just going to be faster than you, and thus make you unemployable. Judging from your stance, you're going to have to remove a lot of 'useless' white people in the future, people who are useless through no fault of their own.

Same problem applies with designer babies and human editing: some humans (white ones in the case of your hypothetical future America) are just gonna be crap and unneeded. I don't think removing humans of any kind is a good solution to such problems as the ones you've brought up.
 
Look you don't understand back in the 1600s age of consent being 12 was good, and feminism didn't exist in the 1600s therefore it is good.

Also he doesn't want a million new babies now in the long run as his latest tangent says he believe we'll be rid of all low IQ indivduals (except himself) because our GDP has gone up by 41 times since the 60s, yet we haven't gotten 41 times better QOL. Therefore the math checks out. We need less people to ensure better overall QoL for the avg person, his charts say this is good therefore it is good. So why does he want a bunch of extra wives? Fuck if I know.

In simple math 2 + 2 = deport niggers, 3 x 3 = lower age of consent, and 20/5 = white ethnostate. The math checks out.
You're a dumbass and arguing in bad faith. We're living in the collapse of America and to go into the future, we need to fix the mistakes of the past and change many of these laws that do fundamentally control/engineer our lives. Nations that restructure and modernize for a 21st century will continue into the future and nations that do not (like USA) will collapse by the end of the century. Many of these laws like age of consent or compulsory education or term limits are not reexamined. What are the consequences of these laws? Good. Bad. Net? People pass these laws like religious commandants and they don't examine the real world effects. Total incompetence.

It is really weird and creepy to do so, but you can build a relationship with somebody underage right now. To lower the age of consent isn't necessary for that, unless what you want isn't a relationship but sex.
It's weird because of the age of consent. People will falsely accuse you of pedophoile. People conflate sex with relationship. Having 16 or 18 as age of consent makes people think that 14-18 yr olds are still children, no different from 6-10. There is a cultural or mental impact from age of consent. Just the words people use. Is a 14 yr old a girl or a women? Is she more similar to a 7yr old or a 21 yr old? Once you start thinking about this concept, you realize it is a problem. Is it the biggest problem? No. But it's a problem and jailbat comes up frequently enough so this issue will keep occurring until the laws are changed to match human nature. Similar to the weed or prohibition laws.

Okay, but how would it change the culture for the better?

While I do agree that the US educational system is in dire need of reform, it's still vitally important and better than nothing, and abolishing it entirely would be utterly disastrous. How would getting rid of it possibly help at all?
1. People would stop treating 14-18 yr olds as little kids and start treating them as young adults.
2. The data is showing that home schooling is having better results than public schooling. At this point you can learn efficiently from educational youtube channels than in the classroom. Compulsory education laws and age of consent both stem from the modern period 1880-1920 when many social changes and reforms were put into place. Again, to go into the future, you need to break the chains that bind us to the past, including age of consent, complementary education, civil rights, great society, US Cons. etc. We need a complete restructure in terms to go into the future.

First, in an automation fuelled society of the future, your IQ doesn't matter. That's the problem: It is impossible for a human to compete. No matter how smart or talented you are, robots are just going to be faster than you, and thus make you unemployable. Judging from your stance, you're going to have to remove a lot of 'useless' white people in the future, people who are useless through no fault of their own.

Same problem applies with designer babies and human editing: some humans (white ones in the case of your hypothetical future America) are just gonna be crap and unneeded. I don't think removing humans of any kind is a good solution to such problems as the ones you've brought up.
Automation builds upon capitalism but you cannot automate everything. There will be jobs for humans in the future and we need to develop industries that aren't easy to automate. Look at a lot of content creators on YouTube, you cannot automate those videos with AI.

I think that if your society has the avg IQ of a makeup video it'll be a worse place to live than if it had the avg iq of a science video. I think this era of rampant individualism and politics also as a religion is coming to an end and nations that can work together as a group will advance into the future and those that cannot will become low quality of life dystopias and current America is on this path.
 
"Everything I say was 100% normal in America - 100 years ago."

So, BoxerShorts47 is either (A) a time-traveler from the 1920s who cannot adapt to our present, (B) an absolute autist prone to degeneracy, (C) legitimately nostalgic for the past, (D) a self-hating Filipino who is attempting to be THE Uncle Tom for white people, (E) thinks being mad at the internet is how you woo pre-teen girls, or (F) all of the above.

I would like to go with A, please
 
and abolishing k-12 is for a completely different reason. compulsory education is very inefficient + filled with propaganda, it drives many kids mad and they get put on ADHD meds because they aren't happy being locked up for 6 hrs each day in effectively a kid's prison and the culture in these schools is very toxic.
Today I learned BoxerShorts47 was bullied at school. To the surprise of absolutely no one.
What was it, Tinks; were you the kid that brought boxes to school with dead animals in, or were you the guy who'd just growl at people randomly and Naruto run in the halls?

Most cows adopt the faggotry, OP was born in it, molded by it. He didn't see the autism until he was already a pedo; by then, it was nothing to him but strawmen.
 
Today I learned BoxerShorts47 was bullied at school. To the surprise of absolutely no one.
What was it, Tinks; were you the kid that brought boxes to school with dead animals in, or were you the guy who'd just growl at people randomly and Naruto run in the halls?

Most cows adopt the faggotry, OP was born in it, molded by it. He didn't see the autism until he was already a pedo; by then, it was nothing to him but strawmen.
This thread just proves that he wasn't bullied enough.
 
Back