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

[ProgKing of the North]

AYYY we moved!

If only jailbait girls could move away from Boxer.

I'm sure they can, he's probably fat and out of shape, they can easily outrun him

 

[SIGSEGV]

Let this be a lesson to you, @BoxerShorts47: you are only allowed to post on Kiwi Farms for our amusement. Nobody cares what you think, because all of your beliefs are reprehensible garbage. Your only value is as a source of entertainment. We come in here to point and laugh at the retarded freak in his cage. Now get back up and start dancing, faggot.

 

[Drain Todger]

Let this be a lesson to you, @BoxerShorts47: you are only allowed to post on Kiwi Farms for our amusement. Nobody cares what you think, because all of your beliefs are reprehensible garbage. Your only value is as a source of entertainment. We come in here to point and laugh at the retarded freak in his cage. Now get back up and start dancing, faggot.

Dancing? This one’s so low-energy, he needs some uppers and a cattle prod to elicit so much as a fleshy jiggle from him.

 

[SIGSEGV]

Dancing? This one’s so low-energy, he needs some uppers and a cattle prod to elicit so much as a fleshy jiggle from him.

Jeb Bush's goblin wife has more energy than this faggot. It's really sad.

 

[Getting tard comed]

This thread in an image

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Ironically, the best argument against multiculturalism and diversity ITT is your own behavior. Stop immigration from the third world and we get less of you and your disgusting sexual mores...sounds pretty persuasive to me.

Is Autism a country?

 

[Swiss46]

Is Autism a country?

Yes.

 

[Stardust]

At first, it perplexed me why Boxy lost interest in primarily discussing white supremacy, and put his autistic energy into the age of consent instead. Then I realized, it makes sense as to why, the topic of white supremacy simply became too old for him.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

This thread in an image

View attachment 1438766

what is dead may never die

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Now I fully expect to receive your hatred, but the ephebophile perverts out here have a legitimate point in that sexual attraction to teenagers is normal (don't tell me otherwise you fucking liar) and it is a recent construct of our society that it has been stigmatized. Anybody trying to argue otherwise is doing little more than virtue signalling. It is also obviously true, to any reasonable person, that there is a huge difference in the body and intellect of a teenager versus an actual, prepubescent child.

What's of more interest is WHY it is stigmatized and whether or not the stigma is valid. Generally we stigmatize something because we perceive there being some sort of social or personal harm.

The harm in the case of teenager-adult relationships is the perception that the teenager lacks enough wisdom and will therefore be subject to manipulation, and that the relationships will disrupt the normal flow of life in a modern society.

The first argument is more relevant to modern concerns due to the combination of a shift away from arranged marriage towards love marriage and because teenagers are fucking dipshits nowadays. Arranged marriages have tons of drawbacks but at least they tend to be more practical, which is something teenagers are not known for prioritizing. On the other hand, you cannot expect a flighty teenager, with their bad judgment, to make their own sound decisions about who to start a family with. Also, I personally believe that children/teenagers nowadays are even larger idiots because of their upbringings, where they're sheltered from any sort of responsibility well into adulthood.

So, as long as society is operating under a love marriage model, it is pretty much necessary to ban adults from marrying teens, and because our society coddles kids that becomes even more necessary since their ability to make a good decision is even more compromised. There are flaws in this, though. Firstly, it leaves teen-teen relationships open free, which is possibly worse. As much as it's assumed that an adult poses a risk because of their greater capacity of manipulation, it's assumed that putting two dipshits together will somehow be guaranteed to turn out a better option. So I'm largely in favor of social repression of teenage marriage/sexuality, but that's repression IN GENERAL, without discrimination towards age.

The second point is the disruption of life flow. Basically, as long as you're married, all of your life decisions are going to be chained to your spouse, and if you have a child then you're chained to them too. In an agrarian or even an early industrial society, where 90% of the population is just going to work the same plot of land that they were born on until the day they die, they might as well pair off as soon as possible. However, if an individual has to go to school until they're at least 22 just to have a chance at a decent job (or to be well-established in their trade), then that starts to really make that idea of pairing off really bad. I have an example of something similar from my own experience. I dated a girl about five years my senior when I started college. It was a stupid idea, because she wanted to start a family (not with me in particular, just with somebody) while I was looking at a minimum of four years before I would be respectably employable, much less to add on the extra time of graduate school. I was retarded to think that could ever work, and that was between two legal adults. If one of us had been college-aged and the other high-school aged, or worse, that'd be an even bigger problem.

All of this is further complicated by the fact that we've decoupled the concept of marriage/family formation from sexual/romantic relationships, but the decoupling is somewhat of a separate issue. The age of consent was raised to 16-18 by about 1920 in all US states, long before the widespread destigmatization of fornication occurred, and for largely separate reasons.

In summary, I believe that social values in general tend to be heavily influenced by economic circumstances; we do what we do because it's convenient first, and then rationalize it later. In the specific case of social concepts of the age of consent, we have raised the age of consent because:
1) Our marriage formation practices now emphasize the desires of the marriage partners over that of their elders, which necessitates that the marriage partners be wiser, which requires that they be older.
2) The time it takes to establish an acceptable level of wealth to support a household has raised considerably, making it very impractical and discouraging useful acquisition of human capital.

These are all logical reasons to support a higher age of consent (relative to that of the past, which could go as low as 10 - ew - in some states), and I'm on board with that. What I'm not on board with is the insane idea that a dude who is 26 who thinks a 16-year-old is hot is evil and a 16-year-old who thinks that isn't. As for prepubescent and pubescent children, it's hard to imagine ANY scenario in which it's acceptable for anybody to having sex with or marrying them. Of course cultures existed which did tolerate or encourage that (Islam in particular comes to my mind), but it's inherently fucked up because a child that cannot even feel a coherent sexual impulse cannot be anything other than a coerced or tricked party to the action.

A child cannot consent at all, because they lack the mental development for it.
A teenager cannot legally consent because it is socially undesirable that the union take place.
Ethically speaking, sex with a child is a crime against the child.
Ethically speaking, sex with a teenager is a crime against society.

All that said, BoxerShorts is still a degenerate and belongs on a cross.

 

[*extremely mom voice*]

Hey @BoxerShorts47 let's talk about the Western European marriage pattern, a well-documented cultural practice evident from the 1500s, where women began marrying in their mid twenties rather than their mid teens. You're right that it's a bit of an anomaly in human history. But how do you deal with the understanding that the rise of European colonial power occurred around the same time when grown men stopped fucking so many teenagers?

I'd invite you to think about why the practice of delaying marriage coincided with five centuries of unprecedented development of Western European culture, science, and empire. Do you acknowledge that the taboos which you despise are inseparable from these complex systems of human relationships? Do you understand that you can't escape your historical context, no matter how much fetish manga you jerk off to?

You don't know why the Western European marriage pattern exists. You don't understand how it arose, and you don't know what would need to change in our society for it to become obsolete. Instead, you believe that changing an age of consent law will overturn five centuries of norms and social organization, like a child who believes that a toy doesn't exist if it's hidden from him.

You're under the heel of time and history. All of this has already been decided for you. You don't get a say.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

There are a few points I want to add about the ephebophilia issue.

Firstly, I think that the concept of ephebophilia is kind of bullshit in and of itself. Sexual attraction of legal adults to teenagers slightly below the age of consent line is basically universal and thus doesn't deserve an identity.

On the other hand, ephebophilia as an active preference for, even an exclusive preference for, teenagers is an obvious dysfunction and generally a sign of emotional/social retardation in the person who has it. This depends in large part, I feel, on the maturity level/culture. If teenagers were socially treated as younger adults, like they used to be, I wouldn't view it that way. Fetishes in general are a dysfunction, but ephebophilia is a particularly malignant one since it contradicts our social goals of encouraging healthy families.

Secondly, I do not have a horse in this race myself. I largely despise high schoolers, in as much as I spend any time around them at all (really just relatives at family events and, a long time ago, when I went to church), and the women I liked the most have all been several years older than me. I've always gotten along better with elderly people and kids some years older than me, and even into adulthood I found that I liked people in their mid-20s more than ones in their early-20s. I don't think that beauty drops off that significantly from the early-20s to the mid-20s, so I consider it to be very much a positive to date a little bit older and gain the benefits of a better personality.

Correction: Actually, there was one woman a year younger than me who I was stuck on, but she gave the feeling of being mentally older than she was, and I didn't get on with her well even though I wanted her more.

Thirdly, this whole debate obviously has an issue with continuums. I would challenge anybody who disagrees with me to explain at what point, exactly, a relationship between an older and a younger party becomes immoral, assuming a scenario where there is no sort of government regulation. What you'll obviously come to is an acceptance that the age of consent is an arbitrary diving line created because we have to have some sort of strict limit to evaluate legal cases based on, as opposed to some sort of scientific or ethical thing.

Hey @BoxerShorts47 let's talk about the Western European marriage pattern, a well-documented cultural practice evident from the 1500s, where women began marrying in their mid twenties rather than their mid teens. You're right that it's a bit of an anomaly in human history. But how do you deal with the understanding that the rise of European colonial power occurred around the same time when grown men stopped fucking so many teenagers?

I'd invite you to think about why the practice of delaying marriage coincided with five centuries of unprecedented development of Western European culture, science, and empire. Do you acknowledge that the taboos which you despise are inseparable from these complex systems of human relationships? Do you understand that you can't escape your historical context, no matter how much fetish manga you jerk off to?

You don't know why the Western European marriage pattern exists. You don't understand how it arose, and you don't know what would need to change in our society for it to become obsolete. Instead, you believe that changing an age of consent law will overturn five centuries of norms and social organization, like a child who believes that a toy doesn't exist if it's hidden from him.

You're under the heel of time and history. All of this has already been decided for you. You don't get a say.

I would like it if you did an effortpost on Western European marriage patterns.

There's some aberrations in it, too; for example, it was pretty common in Appalachia in the 1800s and early 1900s for women about 14 or 15 to marry men about 20. But Appalachia isn't a shining example of human success, either, anymore than Afghanistan is.

 

[*extremely mom voice*]

I would like it if you did an effortpost on Western European marriage patterns.

There's some aberrations in it, too; for example, it was pretty common in Appalachia in the 1800s and early 1900s for women about 14 or 15 to marry men about 20. But Appalachia isn't a shining example of human success, either, anymore than Afghanistan is.

I won't be doing that, but there's a fairly well-cited Wikipedia article on the subject. Read the article, then dig into the sources if you'd like.

Even within Western Europe, there was (and is) variation. People in urban centers tended to marry later, while people in rural and agrarian regions tended to marry earlier.

 

[Getting tard comed]

In regards to ephebophiles I think you're right in it being a bullshit concept. People attracted to 15-16 year olds are generally not attracted to them because they are 15-16. The 15-16 year old is typically developed and has an adult body by that time and that's what's attractive.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I won't be doing that, but there's a fairly well-cited Wikipedia article on the subject. Read the article, then dig into the sources if you'd like.

Even within Western Europe, there was (and is) variation. People in urban centers tended to marry later, while people in rural and agrarian regions tended to marry earlier.

Just taking a guess, I bet it was economic motives: greater time spent learning a trade and less payoff from children versus simpler work and use of children as a form of capital.

 

[Doctor Placebo]

Hey @BoxerShorts47 let's talk about the Western European marriage pattern, a well-documented cultural practice evident from the 1500s, where women began marrying in their mid twenties rather than their mid teens. You're right that it's a bit of an anomaly in human history. But how do you deal with the understanding that the rise of European colonial power occurred around the same time when grown men stopped fucking so many teenagers?

I'd invite you to think about why the practice of delaying marriage coincided with five centuries of unprecedented development of Western European culture, science, and empire. Do you acknowledge that the taboos which you despise are inseparable from these complex systems of human relationships? Do you understand that you can't escape your historical context, no matter how much fetish manga you jerk off to?

You don't know why the Western European marriage pattern exists. You don't understand how it arose, and you don't know what would need to change in our society for it to become obsolete. Instead, you believe that changing an age of consent law will overturn five centuries of norms and social organization, like a child who believes that a toy doesn't exist if it's hidden from him.

You're under the heel of time and history. All of this has already been decided for you. You don't get a say.

I explained something similar to him earlier in the thread, and he replied that he doesn't necessarily want underage girls marrying grown men but that young girls fucking grown men (presumably premarital sex) will somehow put them "on the path to marriage." Which is really weird considering that most incels like to rant about how awful it is that women ride the cock carousel when they're young only to settle down later, and in general more free love equals lower marriage rates.

It's almost like he's talking out of his ass to try and justify his position.

 

[SIGSEGV]

sexual attraction to teenagers is normal

We've got another one lads

Do you understand

He doesn't even understand the purpose of this website.

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

We've got another one lads

He doesn't even understand the purpose of this website.

Has this become the "pedo with a thesaurus" Containment Thread, now? I mean, keep all creatures like that where you can see them, obviously that makes sense.

 

[Stardust]

Has this become the "pedo with a thesaurus" Containment Thread, now? I mean, keep all creatures like that where you can see them, obviously that makes sense.

If that is the case, Boxy is going to finally have friends.

Do you have anything to say, @crocodilian?

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

If that is the case, Boxy is going to finally have friends.

Do you have anything to say, @crocodilian?

Friends or competition?