Pair-bonding with pre-fertile mates facilitates love and procreative success once fertility arrives.
Yes: a post-menopausal non-fertile appearance. IE you are fetishizing someone post-fertile who will never become fertile, thus the relationship does not facilitate procreation in any way.
That's simply the truth if you want to take some kind of basic "nature's laws" argument regarding degeneracy, fucking post-fertile foids doesn't generate new life forms. You're both just wasting time you could be spending nurturing the next generation who will actually continue reproduction.
If you want to take a little laxer approach of memes beyond nature's laws crap then we need to drop the 'degenerate' language because we've gone beyond that base concept.
By what definition of degeneracy?
What would you call degeneracy's antonym?
How would you define the parameters of this antonym?
The term "generate" as in to generate new life is why we venerate heterosexuality and other natural inclinations, right?
Fucking post-fertile foids is flying in the face of that.
If a geriatric Victoria's Secret model has enough plastic surgery to look like a fertile young woman that's not much different than a tranny altering their appearance to fool you into thinking they're fertile young women, or a tall pre-pubescent girl getting breast implants to fool you into thinking she's fertile.
Again with the 'kids', you ought to stop talking like IT and use some more technical terminology suitable to your IQ.
Prepubescent girls are 100% fit for procreation within the span of a decade whereas post-menopausal Victoria Secret models and trannies will NEVER become fit for procreation.
The attraction to the former makes infinitely more sense than the latter in terms of reproductive impulse.
You're basically saying "purchase vomit, it still pretty much resembles the fresh food it used to be ... but don't purchase a green banana because it's not ideal to eat it immediately"
Cool, so we should ban anyone who whines about degeneracy from these threads.
It's not like you'd have to take it for each hooker fuck you'd just take it once, it'd be a couple hours, easy. You'd do it if you had to and it'd be a worthwhile thing to give us an extra tool to potentially jail the occasional chad who's too lazy/dumb to pass it, on the rare occasion we get evidence.
it's already a civil liberties issue, you effectively don't have liberty to engage in interpersonal actions if you punish those who would choose to engage in interpersonal actions with you, or punish you for engaging in interpersonal acts with those of your choosing
So bitch at him then, not me for calling him out for it
You should have worded this comment to Draestyn as "convince yourself that fucking pre-twelves is normal".
Anyway the simple answer here is YOU ARE BOTH WRONG
Puberty is a time of dramatic change. The Tanner stages of puberty outlines the developmental changes you can expect and when they might affect your teen.
www.healthline.com
1st stage of puberty is tanner 1 (internal change, no obvious external signs signs) and begins around age 8 in girls
2nd stage at 9-11 (tanner 2) is when breast-budding occurs with minor pubes
3rd stage is age 12 (tanner 3) is when pubes thicken and breast-buds get bigger and hips/thighs widen
4th stage is average age 13 in girls (tanner 4) when first period tends to occur
period can however occur earlier, and all stages tend to occur earlier with high-BMI girls, likely indicating that low-BMI girls delay puberty due to starvation creating a lack of resources needed to feed a fetus
tanner 5 is age 15 btw and when it finishes and they're biological adults: women reach full height 1-2 years after 1st period on average
So basically Drae mistakenly thinks stage 2 (visible puberty) is when puberty starts (nope, it began a year or two prior to that) and you mistakely think stage 4 (menarche) is when puberty begins. Both are wrong.
Options will never be perfect, options are always flawed, but there is some point at which we can declare those options necessary to employ fairer opportunity.
A point at which it is practical. So how do we assess when we are at that point?
Easy feedback loop is a mixed system: do tests, have minimum age despite whether you pass or fail the test.
You let people younger take the test (but don't let them fuck if they pass it)
But you use that to inform you as to what changes should make, either:
a) make test harder so underage stop passing it (also resulting in fewer overage passing it)
b) accept test is adequately easy and lower the age to where a % are passing it
c) if you make it so hard not enough overage are passing it, make it easier (also resulting in more underage passing it)
Nope: just a simple matter of whether they have a license or not.
The "battle" is a simple matter of grading.
Sex is more important to a lot of people than being able to drive so spending around the same amount of time to qualify for a probably LESS dangerous act is not too big a speed bump IMO
You mean I'm equating them like synonyms?
How about "it is flawed because it is arbitrary"
A non-arbitrary age cutoff would need to be impartial which would require no politicking about it, instead it should be purely mathematical based on % of age group passing tests.
I get the point you don't want to waste public resources letting some illiterate pre-K girl sit down to write something like this, so you obviously make basic other requirements besides age like "hey, be literate".
You can be as oppressive as you like about this, like "must score at least 50% in 10th grade English" for example.
That would make sex illegal for a lot of niggers but that's fine.
If there are some 10 year olds able to read as well as the average 15 year old then they deserve a chance to be fairly evaluated.
You seem confused so I will reiterate chain of conversation preceding this so you will understand why I paraphrased you this way:
you "a fully grown adult male should, biologically speaking, be attracted to someone with the body shape of a fully grown adult femoid, and not a kid. "
me " Seems like a false dichotomy. I personally take neither stance as my view is actually it's healthiest to have a "inclusive of both" outlook rather than a "one or the other" outlook."
you "its not"
me: "That's a separate discussion we can have PPE but I think you are at least acknowledging we have a consensus that there are more multi-faceted options than just "A not B" or "B not A" "
you "no"
me " What do you think is illegitimate about the idea that you can have the third stance "pubescent and post-pubescent girls are both attractive" in addition to "only pubescent girls are attractive" vs "only post-pubescent girls are attractive" ?"
Does this clarify things for you?
You actually didn't. You're expecting other people to make your arguments on your behalf.
Beginning to suspect you're trolling, tell you what, if you adequately address the above green-text I'll spend some time digging up this conversation chain too. For now I'm gonna skip on it because your replies above were low-effort and dismissive.
I'm not understanding how you can focus on the premise of defending a numerical system by avoiding the numbers of that system.
For any number the system applies to be workable it should be defensible.
It doesn't rely on YOUR personal whim but it certain relies on the whims of those who put it in place.
If not that, then how is it chosen? A bunch of behind-the-scenes bickering which I'm sure is 100% reasonable and science-based?
I'm saying it shouldn't exist in isolation, but it could certainly exist in a dual approach.
Like you need to be a certain age to take a driver's exam in most cases, so that's a dual system. The only tweak I'd make there is if a significant enough amount of 16 year olds are passing on their first go, that's evidence you might want to lower it to 15... or if a significant amount are failing on their first go, you might want to raise it to 17.
As for what is "significant", I guess that could also be an appeal to an arbitrary % (ie why 99% and not 95% or not 90% or not 80%) but at least that's an effort to move in a less arbitrary direction.
I'm not sure you can fairly evaluate the equivalency considering your lack of education regarding what a floofnoogal is.
I'm just asking you not to use a term designed to describe newborn goats, because "kid" gets used too nonspecifically to have worth in conversation, it's an appeal to emotion.
You can talk specifically via age, via education, via tanner stage, just SOME measurable level that doesn't broadly get used for anything between 0 and 30
View attachment 464332
