It's immoral to have reproductive urges toward females capable of reproduction!

what if the person is stupid tho

honestly, if you had a daughter would you like it if men slept with your daughter?

That's the issue with these pedos. They always have to eventually admit that they have the misogynistic view that women are mentally children, no matter the age.

Like it always comes down to physical biology, where when it comes to an actual relationship and not some weird dom/sub thing communication and respect is needed.

source: your ass
originalo

that's impossible since there's a cock lodged into it

What if I'm also mentally a child, with the perks of sexual desire only an adult feels, but don't act on those sexual urges with the underage girl because I know they haven't developed those feelies yet so what I really want to do is play nintendo with them?

>Evolution is not a moral system
The biological reality of the universe is the only objective standard we can measure and refer to as truly moral.
Then you should have no problem refuting his claims and presenting a counter-argument that blows him out of the water.
>crying about muh soggy knees
>on Jow Forums
It isn't misogyny, it's just recognition of facts.

Hey Lolita, hey
Hey Lolita, hey
I know what the boys want, I'm not gonna play
Hey Lolita, hey
Hey Lolita, hey
Whistle all you want but I'm not gonna say

is it though? who says so? you refuse to accept any moral guidelines proposed by society and the system we've built - more or less - but you blindly accept a set of natural laws as some kind of a higher principle, you even dare to say objective standard? how can we exactly measure the morality of it? if we were to do so, shouldn't we just stop attempting to cure cancer, because natural laws deemed it a morally acceptable condition for humans? you are full of shite

There isn't anything wrong with it. The idea of men valuing underage girls over them just makes women really insecure, so they've responded by demonising and stigmatising men that express attraction or do anything with underage girls.

It's fair though, because for women in society everything is based around their attractiveness and reproductive value, and this helps 18+ women in that regard.

Cancers are a result of unnatural human action that causes defects. You shouldn't be trying to cure cancer, you should stop living your life incorrectly and you won't get cancer. Where do you get your morals if not from the primordial truth? What other "truth" is there? Hint: there isn't any.

Also, science is not "blindly" following anything. It's observation of the universe around me and adherence to the natural order. Religious or secular philosophical ideas of "morality" that disregard the primordial truth are the truly blind, and rely on nothing but feelings.

>Cancers are a result of unnatural human action that causes defects.

no, majority of times(when not inherited) it's due to copy errors during Cell replication which gets more common the older you are

it means you're past your expiration date and should go

exactly, there might not be any, but you missed my point. if you dont get morals from anything else, why get morals from the "primordial" ? natural laws were never meant to serve as moral guidelines. its just random stuff happening because of physics and chemistry and whatnot. you are adding value to it by pulling it out of your ass. isnt it smarter to construct a system of morals tailored in such a way that quality of life improves? rather than blindly assuming that what happens in nature is some kind of hurr durr super edgy primordial truth and pretend you're a big boy viking? okay cancer might be partially caused by lifestyle choices, but lots of cancers really aren't. animals get cancer and they were getting it long before humans came. fire is in nature, foods charred in fire cause cancer, so is fire unnatural? is living life incorrectly wiping your ass, using computer, making music, painting? is anything but grunting while being naked and covered in your own feces while raping everything around you and smashing other beings' heads with rocks morally wrong? you tell me buddy

Humans prematurely expire due to the unnatural environments they live in today.

Go fuck a child and see what happens faggot.

point being, by trying to propose you are clear of any unnecessary moral guidelines, you are acting more blindly and sheepishly than anybody you scoff at. moral guidelines of society are not the holy grail, nor are they an universal set of rules that can be "objectively measured". that does however not mean that they cant be beneficial and worth exploring and discussing. but hey if youd rather masturbate in front of the mirror with a thors hammer up your ass, none of my business, whatever makes you happy

my peepee be very hard and i will make big cumes

oh, good old times when humans were naturally expiring at the age of 30, amirite?

>if you dont get morals from anything else, why get morals from the "primordial" ? natural laws were never meant to serve as moral guidelines
Because we have to base our decisions on something, and the biological reality of the universe is the only objective measuring stick.
>natural laws were never meant to serve as moral guidelines.
Says who? You? Natural laws are either the result of unconcievable amounts of natural selection or the will of the divine, are YOU capable of creating a better system to adhere to? Not reading the rest of your low IQ post.

that's not really true, it's an average brought way down by all the infant deaths

user, you're so retarded; you will probably pass it down to your kid. Plz keep your peener away from any and all pussy.

That was literally never, sweetie. Life expectancy was lower in the past due to high infant mortality, the culling of the weak.

im not talking about science, but you were connecting natural laws to moral guidelines. you used those specific words. only objective stnadard we can measure and refer to as truly moral, that is what you said. im not saying its not the only objective standard we can measure, but it is far from moral and you made that statement based purely on the stuff that comes from your anus, so yeah, emotions

that's kinda correct but is there any proof that modern lifestyles lead to earlier Development of cancer?

and why are infants not dying as much anymore? because of modern medicine. and yeah there was a time when homo sapiens was dying at the age of 30. its not just the infant mortality. its the hunger. its the cold. its all the sickness, all the wounds we were unable to treat. modern medicine made us live longer and if you think the opposite you are literally a retard because its just cold statistics thrown into your face

will of the divine and you call my post low iq, lol. you blame me of utilizing emotions when making my decisions and adhering to a system of moral values - which is by the way strictly logical - and then you start waving your spiritual dick around. congratulations youve just successfully shat into your own mouth

...

im not capable of creating a better system, i have never stated such a thing. but there are lots of systems in our world. it is a bit more nuanced. requires critiacal thinking. contextual thinking. big words amirite.

>the gaytheist is upset by even the consideration that the divine might exist

Attached: 1494108191802.jpg (829x589, 92K)

Or maybe its because women knew what they were like at that young age, and were, for the most part insecure, stupid and easily impressionable/manipulated?

I remember I would get my 13-14 year old brother to do things he originally didn't want to just by saying "oh it's because you can't", similarly you can manipulate a girl into...well whatever you want her to do to be honest.

Women hate it because chances are they project how they were at 14 or so and how they would've reacted onto the young girl pedos take their aim at. And they're disguated by the thought.

I know this'll get ridiculed or whatever but I wanted to post the opinion for anyone reading the read and coming across your post with no replies, assuming everyone agrees.

Not him, but a few leads might be
1) diet changes
cooking food was never that common until the dynamic changed from kill -> table, to kill -> sit in a fridge for months -> unthaw and cook because bad bacteria have taken hold
cooking introduces free radicals, breaks down some nutrients to unusable mush, etc, not to mention killing the good bacteria alongside the bad.
2) environmental changes (pollution, living in cities whole life, etc)

you are romanticizing it. its just a random chain of reactions. yeah it will exist, so what? i dont hate it, nor love it and i definitely dont see a reason to tailor my entire existence around this, especially when humans are finding better, more comfortable ways to live, at least in certain parts of the world. go live in a mud hut if it makes you happy, i prefer civilization

>but there are lots of systems in our world.
There is only one observable and objective system, sweetie.

never claimed that, i respect everyones right to believe in what they want to, personally i dont know if there is something out there, might be, might not. i just pointed out that he argued by cold hard logic and non-objectiveness of any other system than the natural one and contradicted himself by referring to supernatural entities

okay, so political systems, for instance, are not observable? there is no science nor discipline dedicated to observe how society, politics, human psychology, economy and all that stuff works, right? those are not systems, right? only thing that exists is the big yellow ball in the sky, right?

>you are romanticizing it
No, I'm just stating the facts of reality. I'm sorry those upset you.
>its just a random chain of reactions
By this standard, so are the "morals' of theologians and philosophers.
>humans are finding better, more comfortable ways to live, at least in certain parts of the world. go live in a mud hut if it makes you happy, i prefer civilization
Then enjoy your comfort, hedonist. Enjoy your unhappy existence and premature cancerous end as well :^)

>okay, so political systems, for instance, are not observable?
They aren't objective. Your entire post is a strawman.

facts about reality are one thing. calling it a primordial truth, thats caveman level. so hence the romanticizing.

morals of theologians and philosophers - btw why would you even connect those two, have you ever read a book? - are not a random chain of events, they are based on critically evaluating one another. it is effort.

i am a hedonist and you are not, thats the reason why you are browsking r9k in your underwear right now, yes?

>morals of theologians and philosophers - btw why would you even connect those two, have you ever read a book?
This is a very low IQ statement. I'm done replying to you as you have nothing of value to add to my brain and your genes will die out soon anyway. Goodbye.

never claimed they were objective. i just said there are several systems. nuanced. whether they are completely objectively based in nature is irrelevant, because they have very real consequences on the quality of our lives. that is something worth investing energy into, imo. why cling so desperately to only what you can count and measure? i dont deny the objectivity of those things, but there is so much more to life. there are so many ways to live and principles to explore. it is a shame to strip ourselves, to only live and experience the bare necessity of our animal side. does it matter anyway? we die and the primordial truth remains. regardless of us respecting it or tell it to go fuck itself. its not an entity, its not conscious, it doesnt judge, i assume you think this. so why give it so much credit? let it be, doing something else in life does not deny its existance or contradict these "principles"

I remember what I and other people I knew were like at that age, and were completely capable of consenting to sex if we wanted it. I doubt that's the reason.

Even in that case, why do they still care about the cases where the younger party clearly consents and actively wants it? They still demonize those cases. Why is that?

>never claimed they were objective
No, you just constructed a strawman by ignoring the fact that I said they aren't objective.

second time you have addressed my iq, whatever. theology is not about morals, google it. philosophy? in part, yes. but mostly it is just maths

>there are so many ways to live and principles to explore
Enjoy your relativism and the destruction of your line of descent.

no, the entire point of this discussion was me trying to point out that people over-value objective reality, add value to it such as "moral standards" based on the fact that it is objective, when, in fact, it has nothing to do with it. i pointed out that even systems that are prone to exploitation and have wide amplitudes of interpretation can serve as moral guidelines and they have, for years, if you took the blinders off. i was also pointing out that using natural laws as moral guidelines based SOLELY on the fact that they are objective and measurable is retarded. and that calling it a primordial truth is an edgy teenage bullshit statement

cooking food brings out more nutrients you fucking donkey

what line of descent? doesnt that contradict your "primordial truth" ? bloodlines, your name, mere concepts reinforced by years of feudalism and colonialism

Your entire complaint, as gracelessly as you compose it, boils down to "I don't like it!" Well idc, the truth remains the truth.

>doesn't the existence of biology contradict the biological reality of the universe?
Are you black?

why don't you look up the 100+ pro pedo threads that bring up the same questions, arguments and answers over and over. There's just this compulsion to correct. I was going off anecdotal evidence. That includes when my friends were 15-16 dating men in their mid 20s who they thought were so cool because they had a car when actually they were gaslighting, emotionally menipulative NEETs, but in the obvious way that older women would not put up with in the slightest. I was annoyed but I should really study, I got a big exam in 2 days.

>my friends
>I got a big exam
These are the anti-hebe normalfags that post on Jow Forums lmao

You sound like a huge white knight

no, biology is fine, dna and everything, but adding some abstract bullshit value to your line of descent and bloodlines? you see stuff you want to see to suit your ideology

i have not stated my preference. i didnt say what i like and what i didnt like, what i personally adhere to is completely irrelevant here. your logic is faulty and you refuse to admit that. you think that your truth is bigger and better than everyone elses but its based on the same uncertain idealized wishful thinking as anybody else's

>a replicator valuing it's line of descent is "abstract"

Attached: 1529359721053.jpg (230x230, 12K)

the concept of "line of descent" is abstract. yes the genes you replicate are very real, but the value you add to it, the significance you think it holds, is simply your wishful thinking. again i didnt state anything subjective: i have an opinion on this, i feel a certain way about reproduction, but that is irrelevant here. i was merely trying to point out that your view is as subjective as anybody elses in this matter

>the concept of "line of descent" is abstract
Going to stop replying now.

Yes actually. Did you really expect humans to be smart enough to invent all that is around you but not be smart enough to realise a pregnant woman dies in child birth more often at 12 than at 20?

it is immoral though. I know you are talking about pedophilia, but I'm talking about antinatalism.

>I know you are talking about pedophilia,
He quite clearly said capable of reproduction, that means pubescent.

>it means you're past your expiration date and should go
>got cancer at 17

Attached: 1546955611947.jpg (382x358, 56K)

>got cancer at 17

probably inherited or extremely unlucky

did someone else in your family have cancer?

I know you just wanted to make a pedo thread, but yes, reproduction is indeed immoral.

Antinatalism is a mental illness desu. You're also LARPing as a "sad person"

So retards can't have sex?

>actually thinking about your life choices instead of just shitting out kids because "hurr make mini version, me live forever" is a mental illness

>>actually thinking about your life choices
Guarantee you're a sedentary, fat drug addict. Since when do you think about life choices?

for the 5th time?

I'm none of that but even if I was there would be nothing wrong with it because those only effect myself, unlike bringing another person into this world

Bringing life into the world is a positive. Being alive is better than not being alive, and you agree, otherwise you wouldn't be talking to me right now, you'd be dead.

Attached: 1546880790716.jpg (1920x1200, 180K)

>Bringing life into the world is a positive
Not always and you can't possibly know as a parent if your child will lead a "good" life. Not being born doesn't harm anyone and is the more considerate option

I'm confident in my ability to give my offspring a good upbringing and the tools to be happy. Even being miserable is better than non-existence.

>I'm confident in my ability to give my offspring a good upbringing and the tools to be happy.
Confident but not certain. Too much is simply out of your control. Also you won't be there for their entire life. It isn't up to you. Even if you are actually right and can give your kid a good life, antinatalism isn't retarded. Atleast the vast majority of people shouldn't reproduce
>Even being miserable is better than non-existence.
Literally wrong. Not existing doesn't harm anyone

>Atleast the vast majority of people shouldn't reproduce
I can agree with that, but that isn't antinatalism. It's eugenics.
>Literally wrong. Not existing doesn't harm anyone
Being harmed is better than not experiencing anything.

>I can agree with that, but that isn't antinatalism. It's eugenics.
I'm not talking about their genetics but rather their situation. Most kids are born in economically unstable places with high crime rates. Then again it is impossible to predict if you child won't just suffer anyway, no matter where you are. Antinatalism is the safer option
>Being harmed is better than not experiencing anything.
Would you rather be dead or get waterboarded for the rest of your life?

>I'm not talking about their genetics but rather their situation. Most kids are born in economically unstable places with high crime rates
And crime is a result of low IQ, which is genetic.
>Would you rather be dead or get waterboarded for the rest of your life?
Waterboarding.

You, my man, are a masochist. And probably also a sadist.
And I'm not even the user you're arguing with

I am neither of these things

>And crime is a result of low IQ, which is genetic.
Vastly oversimplified. IQ also depends on nutrition and education, not only genetics. And I was talking about living somewhere with a lot of crime, not being a criminal yourself.
>Waterboarding.
You're either trolling or scared shitless of death. Either one isn't very mature

Intelligence is 80% heritable at age 18. So you're an antinatalist and an egalitarian, just further proving you are mentally ill.

>80%
As I said, not ONLY genetic. And what makes you think you have better genes than most other humans?

>As I said, not ONLY genetic
No, not only, but mostly.
>And what makes you think you have better genes than most other humans?
Most humans aren't genetically European.

>Most humans aren't genetically European.
Nor are you probably, atleast not entirely, and what does that have to with the quality of your genes?

>Nor are you probably,
Keep telling yourself that.
>and what does that have to with the quality of your genes?
Europeans are the most intelligent, industrious and successful people in the known history of existence.

>due to copy errors during Cell replication which gets more common the older you are
Yeah, and more common the more carcinogens you are exposed to. Which closely related to your lifestyle.

You're old enough to make babies at that point so with true maturity comes death.

The point stands.

>Europeans are the most intelligent, industrious and successful people in the known history of existence.
Nice meme, Asians have higher IQs than Europeans with the exception of maybe Ashkenazis. Goes to show that only Jow Forums fags oppose anti-natalism

It actually is. Your the dumb one

European Episcopalians have higher IQ than Jews. You're too stupid for conversation, you just deny reality because it hurts your fragile ego.