Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by ryan.wthxx, Jan 26, 2015.
Do I really have to include :cat: after my every sentence?
Not making any sentences, at least for a little while would help too.
Spoiler: A♣ 2♣
People seem to confuse sexy and "homely", where homely stands for person I would marry and make a home with.
The sexiness is shaped by:
How available that person is for intercourse
Does that person fulfill any fetishes we have (Boobs, ass, feet, whatever)
Do we find the shape of that person sexualy aluring/pleasing.
Not by "biological" compatibility. What if I am into person with cerebral paralisis? Are they a good biological match for healthy offspring?
And sexy is not shaped by media.
Intercourse and ability to reproduce are totally different things.
Well, the vast majority of 14 year old girls are perfectly fit for reproducing with human males, ain't that wonderful?
Let's not go there. I mean, horses.
Back in the day, people were already married and had kids by the age of 14. And those Romeo and Juliet kids weren't even 14. It's really a matter of perspective.
Considering that your profile picture comes from an anime which is exactly my username. You can already guess that I got it from years of anime, but that applies to real life too.
Back in the day kids started working when they were like, 5.
Back in the day was really shitty. That's why we don't do that anymore.
Back in the day you had to be worth something to be somewhat succesfull.
Nowaday even retro-diseased born-invalids can find a date on tinder that is into this kink and reproduce with little effort.
Just think of it.
It's not illegal to spread flawed genes.
I'm not talking about people that spray with blood fur and leather clothes, not talking about extremists, or all these bad-bad people, that in the end of the day have only one sin - they didn't educated themselves in both manners and knowledge.
I'm talking about actual born-invalids that have a chance of spreading their condition to the offspring up to 7-th ankle.
Back then, nobody would even consider doing such a thing.
I've said it before and i'd say it again - human natural selection is backwards.
---------- Post added at 07:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ----------
Don't even mention Hawking.
He did good, all things considered.
His children aren't great scientists.
His most successfull daughter is a novelist and a journaist.
Natural selection doesn't choose the best humans, it chooses the best breeders.
That line of thinking has literally nothing to do with human society, and even less to do with wanting to have sex with 14 year olds. The main reason why an adult would want to have sex with a 14 year old is because they are easy to take control of either physically or manipulatively. The prime baby making years are not 14, so whatever logic you think you are using by bringing up natural selection is wrong.
Natural selection choses the breeders that don't die from starvation, paralisis, stupidity or whatever, that on top of that can ensure that their offspring also won't do such a thing.
That's why each second person on the planet doesn't have schisophrenia, cerebral paralisis. All our arms and legs are in place, unless accident, and until recently we didn't had that many cases of reported cancer.
Now anyone can ensure a bare minimum for survival and percentages of people having damaged DNA is rising each year, because they (i'd say - We. You never know in most cases, until it's too late) have much greater chance at reproducing than, let's say 2 hundred years ago.
---------- Post added at 10:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------
You can giggle all you want, soon we'll need either quality checks or mandatory genetic surgeries, or both.
This shit is serious.
---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------
Who am i kidding? Even if this problem will go loud, it'll probably end up like global warming.
"Who cares? We'll be dead by then".
I don't think we don't do that anymore because it was really shitty, but because societies change.
Anyway, my point is that if that was possible back then, it is possible in general. I am pretty sure kids start experimenting around 14-17, and it's not super rare that a HS freshman would date a junior. I was not talking about a daddy type arrangement here.
A hs freshman and a senior are only 3-4 years apart.
Doesn't much matter then.
Capability to live in order to reproduce is included in the broad sweeping term of best breeders. Thus, you don't have to point it out, it's implied.
I am so confused now.
It's intrinsic. Men appreciate that hip to waste ratios for females. Females appreciate the fingernails for males. Don't ask why!
What "that" ratio?
Even for a "spherical male in a vacuum" that ration can change during the day, depending on his inevitable mood swings.
Depressed people tend to like huger breasts and hips - they bring the notion of well-being, stability and generally convey a "mother" image.
Opposed is also true.
And the stronger the depression (or alternatively - content-ness, for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) the stronger this preference influences the man.
There are exceptions, of course, but for the vast majority of men that's pretty much correct.
Did i accidentally answered the main question of this thread?
Spoiler: Nyes the news shan't be a disappointment
We are talking about adults having sex with 14 year olds vs having sex with 17 year olds.
Not adolescents having sex with 14 year olds vs having sex with 17 year olds.
I am even more confused now.
17 is over 16.
Separate names with a comma.