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

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Icasaracht said:
I'm amazed how @BoxerShorts47 has actually developed as a person through this "debate", whereas his detractors still behave like frustrated chaplains with their moral absolutes!
Click to expand...

You seem to be a fellow scholar of Boxology like myself. Please write up a thesis of how Boxy has developed as a person in your opinion from page 1 through page 329. I'll be waiting.
 
Zeke Von Genbu said:
You seem to be a fellow scholar of Boxology like myself. Please write up a thesis of how Boxy has developed as a person in your opinion from page 1 through page 329. I'll be waiting.
Click to expand...
I figured out your weakness.

You think 13 yr old + 15 yr old = 100% moral, experimenting with their sexuality. of course she is old enough to consent.

But 13 + 18 yr old = pedophilia, 100% immoral, her mind isn't developed enough.

Modern age of consent was created by Christian feminists in ~!880s and they could say "well we'were protecting the kids" but you don't have that moral high ground because you admit that pre-teens and teenagers are old enough to consent to sex and they should even be taught to have sex and attacked as "virgin incel losers" is they don't "do it" or "get laid." So you admit that puberty/near-puberty is the correct age of consent.
 
BoxerShorts47 said:
I already said it should be puberty. That is the most fair age.


I find your mentally to be complete hypocrisy. You want kids to "experiment." You want them to have sex before marriage. But for some reason you think 14 yr old fucking a 15 yr is = 100% moral while 14 fucking 18 = pedophilia. Totally ridiculous and you're even implicitly admitting that you think a 14 yr old is mature enough to have sex so you have 0 argument for having the age of consent be above the age at which you think people can consent to sex.
Click to expand...
You're putting words in my mouth there M8 I never said a 14 year old is mature enough to have sex. Doesn't mean they probably still will. You can tell kids not to do it, but they still will. Just like you can tell people not to do drugs, or smoke cigs, or even not to eat like shit- people do whatever they want. That's why there are laws in place to try to deter people, but even then it doesn't always work.

The issue with 18+ and underage relations is the 18+ person could very easily manipulate someone young into doing things they don't fully understand. Does that mean every kid who is underage is retarded and doesn't understand the gravity of sex and the risks? No. But the laws are there to protect the majority who dont have the mental capacity to realise the dangers of their actions. You lower that age of consent and all you do is give perverts the green light to legally pray on easy to manipulate young children.

You wanna fuck a 14 year old? Boo boo, you cant, get over it. People don't want to get married in this day and age? Again, boo fucking hoo. Marriage is expensive and many societies are becoming more and more secular so people don't want to be joined under the eyes of god.

Sorry you can't get your trad teen waifu, as I suggested earlier you should instead invest in some form of onahole.
 
BoxerShorts47 said:
I figured out your weakness.

You think 13 yr old + 15 yr old = 100% moral, experimenting with their sexuality. of course she is old enough to consent.

But 13 + 18 yr old = pedophilia, 100% immoral, her mind isn't developed enough.

Modern age of consent was created by Christian feminists in ~!880s and they could say "well we'were protecting the kids" but you don't have that moral high ground because you admit that pre-teens and teenagers are old enough to consent to sex and they should even be taught to have sex and attacked as "virgin incel losers" is they don't "do it" or "get laid." So you admit that puberty/near-puberty is the correct age of consent.
Click to expand...
No.
 
BoxerShorts47 said:
I figured out your weakness.

You think 13 yr old + 15 yr old = 100% moral, experimenting with their sexuality. of course she is old enough to consent.

But 13 + 18 yr old = pedophilia, 100% immoral, her mind isn't developed enough.

Modern age of consent was created by Christian feminists in ~!880s and they could say "well we'were protecting the kids" but you don't have that moral high ground because you admit that pre-teens and teenagers are old enough to consent to sex and they should even be taught to have sex and attacked as "virgin incel losers" is they don't "do it" or "get laid." So you admit that puberty/near-puberty is the correct age of consent.
Click to expand...
You are not allowed to use my name in vain.
 
Is this what feminist look like in your head boxy?
tgedgg.png
 
BoxerShorts47 said:
I figured out your weakness.

You think 13 yr old + 15 yr old = 100% moral, experimenting with their sexuality. of course she is old enough to consent.

But 13 + 18 yr old = pedophilia, 100% immoral, her mind isn't developed enough.

Modern age of consent was created by Christian feminists in ~!880s and they could say "well we'were protecting the kids" but you don't have that moral high ground because you admit that pre-teens and teenagers are old enough to consent to sex and they should even be taught to have sex and attacked as "virgin incel losers" is they don't "do it" or "get laid." So you admit that puberty/near-puberty is the correct age of consent.
Click to expand...
I'd try to see things from your point of view but I doubt there's room even in your legendarily capacious asshole for both of our heads.

No one is saying age-adjacent teens screwing is morally right; the very crux of that issue is that they lack the decision making skills to weigh that decision properly. Once you reach the arbitrary age of majority, you are expected, indeed deemed, to have that decision making process down to a larger degree. You should literally know better by the time you're a legally-defined adult. How is this difficult for you to understand? You can't possibly be as dumb as ignoring this would make you seem.
 
Chicken Picnic said:
You're putting words in my mouth there M8 I never said a 14 year old is mature enough to have sex. Doesn't mean they probably still will. You can tell kids not to do it, but they still will. Just like you can tell people not to do drugs, or smoke cigs, or even not to eat like shit- people do whatever they want. That's why there are laws in place to try to deter people, but even then it doesn't always work.
Click to expand...
so you do think they're old enough to have sex. Why don't 7 yrs have sex?

Chicken Picnic said:
The issue with 18+ and underage relations is the 18+ person could very easily manipulate someone young into doing things they don't fully understand. Does that mean every kid who is underage is retarded and doesn't understand the gravity of sex and the risks? No. But the laws are there to protect the majority who dont have the mental capacity to realise the dangers of their actions. You lower that age of consent and all you do is give perverts the green light to legally pray on easy to manipulate young children.
Click to expand...
complete straw-man argument. We're not talking about abusive relationships. Just because someone is 18 doesn't mean they'll be abusive. This sounds liek feminist power dynamics patriarchy bs.

Chicken Picnic said:
You wanna fuck a 14 year old? Boo boo, you cant, get over it. People don't want to get married in this day and age? Again, boo fucking hoo. Marriage is expensive and many societies are becoming more and more secular so people don't want to be joined under the eyes of god.

Sorry you can't get your trad teen waifu, as I suggested earlier you should instead invest in some form of onahole..
Click to expand...

More strawmans. you're trying to evade hard. You know the age of consent is BS and you're perfectly okay with 14 yr olds having sex. Yet somehow a one night stand with an 19 yr old is horrible and abusive to the women while a one night stand with a 15 yr old is perfectly moral. There is no difference and you know it.

Troon Draugur said:
I'd try to see things from your point of view but I doubt there's room even in your legendarily capacious asshole for both of our heads.

No one is saying age-adjacent teens screwing is morally right; the very crux of that issue is that they lack the decision making skills to weigh that decision properly. Once you reach the arbitrary age of majority, you are expected, indeed deemed, to have that decision making process down to a larger degree. You should literally know better by the time you're a legally-defined adult. How is this difficult for you to understand? You can't possibly be as dumb as ignoring this would make you seem.
Click to expand...
You made all this bullshit up. Either a person is old enough to consent to sex or not and every single one of you thinks a 14 yr old (on avg) is old enough... just as long as they're age-adjacent (like alt-right adjacent?), social construct to backwards rationalize the current age of consent and you know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom