doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[doubtingthomas]

Let's also consider the fact that LDS women were less selective in the past; many would settle for Mr. Not So Active. Liberal women were willing to marry conservative men, and conservative women were willing to marry liberal men.

However, that's not the case anymore. These days, liberal women will never consider dating conservative men, and the same is probably true for conservative women. This would have been fantastic if it weren't for the fact that liberal women aren't having enough children.

It's possible that in the future, the vast majority of conservative/religious people won't have the genes to come to their senses and realize that the Church isn't true. In the past, having not-so-religious dads was probably very helpful. However, these days, it seems that large families often have hyper-religious parents.

[drumdude]

As mentioned earlier, there's a possibility that secular Europeans will be outnumbered by Muslims in the future.

A lot of things will change in the future. Is there something wrong with that?

Maybe we should start a Caucasian zoo to mate secular caucasian humans and ensure they don’t die out?

[doubtingthomas]

A lot of things will change in the future. Is there something wrong with that?

Maybe we should start a Caucasian zoo to mate secular caucasian humans and ensure they don’t die out?

I don't think most Muslims are very liberal. Muslims are more likely to be Red Pill than feminist.

So, do you now understand the correlation between secular people, educated people, and low birth rates? And do you understand why that's a concern?

[drumdude]

A lot of things will change in the future. Is there something wrong with that?

Maybe we should start a Caucasian zoo to mate secular caucasian humans and ensure they don’t die out?

I don't think most Muslims are very liberal. Muslims are more likely to be Red Pill than feminist.

So, do you now understand the correlation between secular people, educated people, and low birth rates? And do you understand why that's a concern?

You’re really stretching to make a very strange argument. I’m trying to figure out what’s behind it, and it smells very red pill/MGTOW/incel to be quite honest…

[Gadianton]

That's BS, man. I wasn't engaging in circular reasoning. You seem to engage in confirmation bias. When I said, "There's no harm when a 26-year-old dates a 17-year-old, as long as the relationship is healthy and consensual," I was simply describing what I believe constitutes a non-harmful relationship, which is a healthy and consensual relationship. As I said, "no harm" and "healthy and consensual" don't mean the exact same thing.

Let's simplify:

"A relationship between a 26-year old and a 17-year old is non-harmful, as long as it's healthy".

Imagine a D&D character with 10 hit-points. A potion that reduces its hit-points to 9 is both harmful and unhealthy. A potion that leaves its hit-points at 10 is non-harmful but not necessarily healthy. A potion that increases its hit-points to 11 is both non-harmful and healthy. There is no possible world wherein a potion is harmful to my character, e.g., reducing my character's hit-points to 9, and also healthy. Therefore, to say "there is no harm in drinking the wizard's potion, as long as the potion is healthy" is circular. It's drawing a conclusion about the potion that's already established when asserting the premise.

How about this:

"A relationship between a 26-year old and a 17-year old is non-harmful, as long as it's consensual."

"Consensual" doesn't entail "no harm". Plenty of consensual relationships end up being harmful. In fact, "no harm if consensual" not only avoids circularity, it doesn't follow at all. Subtract 10 from the second age. The problem is you're assuming a relationship between a 26-year old and a minor can be consensual in the first place. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but that is the main point in dispute with your audience here. You can't just assume that part away.

"walking into a bank and taking money out of the vault doesn't hurt anyone, as long as it's not stealing."

In a conversation with Republicans like Ajax, you can't take money out of the bank and it be anything other than stealing. In a conversation with Democrats like me, it's the people's money and so in some cases it might not be stealing, and from there, the question is if "not stealing" is a sufficient condition for "not hurting anyone".

Likewise, in a conversation with pedos, some might share your assumption that a relation with a minor can be consensual, and so from there, the question is if consent is a sufficient condition for "no harm". But for anyone else, the glaring point in dispute is consent. You can't try to make inferences from consent until it's first agreed that there is consent in the first place.

[doubtingthomas]

You’re really stretching to make a very strange argument. I’m trying to figure out what’s behind it, and it smells very red pill/MGTOW/incel to be quite honest…

It's not strange. Read this study

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 1211031320

I don't follow Red Pill/MGTOW/Incel content, but a new study concluded that Incels aren't looking for young super models, which contradicts what you once said.

[Gadianton]

Your second example:

"A relationship between a 26-year old and a 17-year old is non-harmful, as long as it's consensual."

If you change the format:

"How can you think that a consensual relationship between a 26-year old and a 17-year is harmful?"

It's easy to recognize as a 'complex question' fallacy. Although it's the same error, I don't see a name for it in statement form. You're breaking new ground in the world of fallacious thinking, DT.

[doubtingthomas]

"Consensual" doesn't entail "no harm". Plenty of consensual relationships end up being harmful. In fact, "no harm if consensual" not only avoids circularity, it doesn't follow at all. Subtract 10 from the second age. The problem is you're assuming a relationship between a 26-year old and a minor can be consensual in the first place. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but that is the main point in dispute with your audience here. You can't just assume that part away.

"As long as the relationship is healthy and consensual," but let's rephrase it: We shouldn't assume there's harm when the relationship appears to be both healthy and consensual unless there's evidence suggesting otherwise. Does that convey the point better?

Regardless, the burden of proof lies with Doc, Dr Exiled, and all these other geniuses to demonstrate that I have done something wrong. All I hear from them are numerous ad hominem attacks and dreadful circular reasoning, yet you don't tell them anything. Instead, you solely target me.

Morality is very subjective, so it shouldn't be difficult for them to present strong arguments as to why 17-year-olds shouldn't date 26-year-olds.

[Doctor Steuss]

Morality is very subjective, so it shouldn't be difficult for them to present strong arguments as to why 17-year-olds shouldn't date 26-year-olds.

You literally approvingly shared a study, less than a few weeks ago, that provided a strong argument against it. LMAO!

[doubtingthomas]

You literally approvingly shared a study, less than a few weeks ago, that provided a strong argument against it. LMAO!

Well, I'll acknowledge that you are one of the few intelligent people on this board, and we can at least have a discussion, unlike with these other geniuses.

The study concluded that by age 16, young people can possess adult reasoning skills, but psychosocial maturity typically takes longer to develop. Of course, there are limitations; the study doesn't account for real-world behavior and competence, but that's what we have so far. However, I suspect that single moms (who had a rough childhood and had to grow up faster) are a lot more mature than your average US girl.

Additionally, I would agree that 17 and 19-year-olds are too young for lifelong commitments, but one doesn't need to be at peak reasoning capacity to be in a relationship. I doubt you'd argue that 30 year olds can't date people over 45. But maybe we do need laws to protect people over 45 from 30 year olds.