@lina @Alice @ChristiJunior @Aldo2 It's because Aldo actually got banned. He is still on the fedi, but he is on some MAP instance now. I don't know the specifics, but I think he was sharing photos of minors that were completely legal on their own, but he was sexualizing them and that could be considered CP.
Maijčika 
My rule: all porn can only involve dead people.
Solves everything.
The dead, by being dead, are naturally consenting.
@amerika @ChristiJunior@detroitriotcity.com @lina@eientei.org @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
I made a post recently about how eventually people are going to argue that everyone should just have their eyes gouged-out and their ears permanently blocked and their brains lobotomized, to protect the children from being "sexualized" in any manner whatsoever (even in thought!).
Of course, Beard will, as he always does, blame "PEEEEEEDOS" for all these restrictions, instead of the almost totalitarian Puritan Christian-derived thought-policing coming from the top of our society.
Pedophilia as a paraphilia is broken. Smart societies remove (asylumize, exile, etc) people with that problem because they are genetically broken.
Then there are people on the internet who LARP as semi-pedos in order to give society the finger.
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
It's not broken, lol.
It's the OG "sexuality". Pedophilia IS "sexuality".
I don't view it as a "paraphilia" per se.
Sexuality is part of the drive for reproduction, itself part of the will to survive and thrive.
Paraphilias reflect any sexuality which deviates from that path.
There is a carve-out for homosexuality, which seems to serve a separate and parallel biological role.
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
The notion that "sexuality = reproductive drive" is a Christian notion, related to the "masturbation is a sin because you're not procreating" notion, related to the "pleasure is sin" notion.
And, of course, you're ignoring biological puberty, which can start as early as 10 or 11 (i.e. technically during pre-pubescence) anyways ("early bloomers").
Even then, many animals (including primates) engage in inter-generational sex.
Funny that you'd be using Christian reasoning re: sex...
There's nothing wrong about sex for pleasure. Pleasure is good.
Is that pleasure, or a proxy for it?
Sex = reproduction is biology, not Christianity.
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
No dude, it's Christianity.
You'll find that the arguments you're making are all made by Christians.
No secularist will make a sweeping assertion like "sex is only for reproduction". Only religious nutjobs do/have done that.
Christians reject biological determinism
They want to constrain biology with morality
I am pointing that in healthy animals, sexuality is a biological urge
Sometimes they stroke it or whatever, but that is more a side effect of the hormone dose it gives them
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
No they don't, "biological determinism" is a key part of Christian theology and politics.
They want to link biology to morality, just as you do by calling for the exile of pedophiles form society.
In primates (our closest relatives), sexuality is not purely reproductive-focused. Most primates engage in masturbation (i.e. stimulating sexual organs for pleasure).
You need to do more actual research rather than just looking at people who already agree with you.
Biological determinism is the opposite of "all souls are equal" which is one of the tenets of Christianity as practiced.
Back to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
Ah, so you're a Darwinian purist. Have you read what Nietzsche thought of Darwin?
When I say Christians preach "biological determinism" I mean "man and woman are separate" "marriage is a Christian institution" "family values" "Christ made the natural world" etc... etc...
I mean Christians trying to control nature (biology).
"Christian universalism" is a useful strawman, but that's all it is.
The point is, pedophilia and sex for pleasure is part of the natural world (in particular part of our nearest evolutionary relatives).
Promiscuity and hypergamy are the same way.
People confuse the method with the goal. More sex does not equal greater reproductive success except in desperate circumstances.
Neurotics assume those because they are self-pitying in order to justify their egotism.
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
The argument that sex has to be controlled in order to generate greater reproduction levels has also historically been proven false as well.
This is part of the reason why our societies are the way they are now (low birth-rates).
The NatSoc way of solving this issue does not work, and even if it did, it would only work for a short or medium term, before people get annoyed at having their pleasures restricted.
I agree here. I do not think it should be controlled.
But as a biological determinist, I think we should remove defectives (paraphilias) and focus on the healthy.
This does not include homosexuality, which is a naturally-occurring variation.
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
I'm not as straight a biological determinist as you are. Obviously, I acknowledge its place, but I don't put it on a pedestal.
Evolution occurs. "Biology" can change. Behaviours can also change.
If "homosexuality" is "natural", then "pedophilia"/"hebephilia"/"ephebophilia" is even more "natural" (considering pedos outnumber gays by about 2-3x or even more, when one looks at recent studies).
I don't think paraphiles (excluding gays, trans and MAPs) have as much influence on the health of human society as you imply.
"Remove defectives" is awful close to the "purify society" language of certain mid-20th century figures...
Is it "biological determinist" to artificially mould society to fit one's understanding of "nature"? I don't think so.
Nietzsche argued for "breeding" to bring about his "Ubermensch", whereas you are arguing for "weeding".
Correct. I argue for this:
* Remove the defective
* Promote the effective
* Leave everyone else alone
That is, if someone is sitting at home drawing loli/futa and wanking until he cannot see straight, this is not on my radar.
Paraphilias however reflect dangerously defective individuals who will victimize others.
My goal is to preserve the useful, innocent, productive, creative, and intelligent.
Homosexuality is sort of its own category because nature turns off the breeding impulse entirely.
Paraphilias redirect biological impulses into symbolic ones, just like organized Abrahamic religions.
Purify? No, but weed out the broken? Oh yes. To protect the unbroken.
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
Many paraphilias are biologically the same as homosexuality (i.e. there is no innate ability to reproduce).
And again, 10-13 year old girls are indeed capable of reproducing, if that's what the metric is for retaining certain behaviours.
Careful chucking around the word "innocent", that's another hallmark of Christian morality.
You take a more negative (artificial) group-centric eugenecist approach. Mine is more positive (naturalist) and individualist.
Innocent in a legal and practical sense, i.e. doing no harm and being productive.
I support both positive and negative eugenics:
* Positive: end taxation
* Negative: remove defectives
Homosexuality is not a paraphilia, in my view. It is what happens when the reproductive urge is turned inward.
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
Ending taxation is not positive eugenics, lol That is some silly lolbert reasoning there haha
If homosexuality is not a paraphilia, then again, pedophilia is even less of a paraphilia. And many homosexuals (gays and lesbians) raise adopted children, so the "urge for children" is still there.
Taxation transfers wealth from the productive to the unproductive.
Yes/no?
@amerika @beardalaxy @xianc78 @ube
Not as simple as that.
Many of the richest people are some of the most unproductive and dysgenic in society.
Many of the poorest are the more "productive".
You are falling into Hoppean/Rothbardian/Randian logic, which itself is borderline misanthropic.
@Aldo4 @amerika @beardalaxy @ube Rich people receive tax payer money via subsidies.
@xianc78 @amerika @beardalaxy @ube
Elon is a great example of that.
The premier "welfare queen", yet simultaneously "the richest man".