1. If we consider free will to be a myth, why would the aristocrats be exempt? What they do would also be based on their genes instead of their thoughts. And why should we trust them not to be criminals? Our current crop of aristocrats seems fond of kiddy diddling.
2. Nobody agrees on what the best state of a society is. This solution would lead to genocide and civil war.
3. That's naively hopeful. Some people have shown they can't be reformed.
Truth is, no one is sure what to do. Teenage sexuality is a moral grey area. The age of consent is just the best solution we've come up with.
Firstly, I am pro-genocide. Anyone who thinks certain types of people should be killed is pro-genocide.
1. Certain traits are good, and we can say they're good. Moral nihilists can sit around and talk about how objective morality doesn't exist but nobody cares what they have to say and their mental traits are dysgenic. You select the aristocrats based on good traits.
2. The people who can't make positive claims about what is best would obviously have no say in the direction society moves.
3. Reform is impossible. This was a joke based on what we do now.
Firstly, I am pro-genocide. Anyone who thinks certain types of people should be killed is pro-genocide.
1. Certain traits are good, and we can say they're good. Moral nihilists can sit around and talk about how objective morality doesn't exist but nobody cares what they have to say and their mental traits are dysgenic. You select the aristocrats based on good traits.
2. The people who can't make positive claims about what is best would obviously have no say in the direction society moves.
3. Reform is impossible. This was a joke based on what we do now.
1. Who would chose who the aristocrats are? How would they make sure the aristocrats aren't larping sociopaths or don't become corrupt as time passes?
2. What's a positive claim? Everyone would have an opinion on what traits are undesirable and when the country was at its best but nobody would agree. People would then flee to a different country or begin killing each other. It's not the pedophiles who would get genocided, it's whichever group loses the civil war. There's also a high chance the aristocrats who suggested the purge in the first place would get assassinated.
1. Who would chose who the aristocrats are? How would they make sure the aristocrats aren't larping sociopaths or don't become corrupt as time passes?
2. What's a positive claim? Everyone would have an opinion on what traits are undesirable and when the country was at its best but nobody would agree with each other. People would then flee to a different country or begin killing each other. It's not the pedophiles who would get genocided, it's whichever group loses the civil war. There's also a high chance the aristocrats who suggested the purge in the first place would get assassinated.
Obviously anti-pedo and diddling kids. But I'm really sick of pedophilia being an excuse for people to excessively moralfag. People seem to get a pleasure from hating pedos that itself boarders on sexual. That being said, if someone told me they were into lolicon, I'd probably avoid hanging out with you.
I fucking hate loli anime and MAPs with a burning passion.
SO sick and tired of the fucking Neonazis ranting about gays and trans people predating on minors, while they're thinking of fucking an underage "waifu". The fucking race-mixing Asian-loving Neonazi bastard hypocrites, man. Bunch of sexual tourists and fucked up bigoted prejudiced weirdos. There's so much bigotry and filth in the World, so much moral disease.
I think I should basically buy a baseball bat and stop debating online. I feel irreversibly disgusted by all the filth I saw within the bloody Alt Right.