Leucosticte
Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Posts
- 2,008
- Online
- 14h 7m
Throughout history, there have been many reforms and social experiments. Pot used to be legal nationwide; then it was banned, and people warned of dire consequences if it were ever re-legalized. Colorado went ahead and legalized it anyway, and we did see some incidents where kids ingested a whole bunch of cannabis gummi bears and went to the hospital, but overall it hasn't been disastrous. We even saw that, as the legalizers predicted, use of harder drugs went down as people switched to pot.
Other social experiments were disastrous. Communism killed millions through famine. Feminism has destroyed families and rendered millions incel.
It usually takes awhile before people admit that a social experiment has run its course and had poor results. They have to take the blackpill before they can deal with that reality. There are some who still say that communism could work, if it were the right kind of communism. There are some who still say that females are better off under feminism, or that what we have now isn't true feminism because men still have a lot of advantages. But the statistics suggest that females are unhappier than ever, even though they have an unprecedented amount of power and freedom.
What makes people decide to do a social experiment? Usually they form a hypothesis based on logic. They say, "Females can go to school and study a bunch of facts and pass a test like any man. Therefore, they should be given the same rights as men." Or, "The rich have a bunch of wealth that could be devoted to feeding the poor. Therefore, there should be a redistribution of assets." Or, "Lots of people smoked pot and became successful politicians, businessmen, etc. Therefore, it can't be that bad."
In the case of child marriage, we can say, "Kids mess around with one another all the time, and nobody says this is harmful, so maybe marriage between adults and kids will be harmless too. Also, Eunice Winstead seemed to turn out okay, so maybe other child brides would also." But Eunice Winstead is a sample size of one.
We don't really have enough evidence to support a conclusion unless there's a larger social experiment to test the hypothesis. Some geographical area needs to be set aside as a place where child marriage is legal, or a limited number of families need to be given special permits to practice child marriage, kind of like how a bunch of medical cannabis patients were given permits by the federal Investigational New Drug program to smoke pot, long before it was legalized for the masses.
We can't really base conclusions on what goes on in a clandestine environment. Any time something is banned, those who break the law and do it anyway are going to tend to suffer in ways that are brought about by the law rather than the behavior itself. For example, if a Fundamentalist Mormon community practicing child marriage is broken up, and the children are thrown into foster homes, signs of trauma they exhibit could be due to government interference rather than their early marriage.
We know that sex with kids has been legal before in certain jurisdictions (England, for example, didn't criminalize statutory rape till 1275). Often the way legislatures make laws is by hearing a bunch of concerned citizens bring up anecdotes (or, in modern times, by hearing a bunch of academicians bring up studies that were funded by special interest groups). We also know that child porn was legal in certain countries, and that rates of child sexual abuse seemed to go down during those periods.
Sometimes experiments can have counterintuitive results, because people can come up with any number of conflicting hypotheses that seem perfectly logical. When people refuse to consider evidence that contradicts their hypothesis, that's basically dogma.
Whether we want to conduct an experiment is really just a question of whether we're willing to accept the toll if it turns out badly. The vast numbers of men who have missed out on female affection are part of the toll of the feminist social experiment. The children who grew up in broken or dysfunctional homes because their moms were rendered unfit for marriage by sleeping with Chad were also part of that toll. But we do at least know now what happens when females are given equal rights (or more rights) than men. Science has advanced; we learned something. We dispelled some myths, and hopefully will never need to experiment with feminism again.
Empathy isn't really enough of a basis for a scientific conclusion. Men said, "If I were in a female's place, I would want to have equal rights. Therefore, females should have equal rights." That turned out to be wrong, because men and females are different, and have different roles they need to fulfill in order for a family to function. Similarly, we can't say, "As a kid, I wouldn't have wanted to have sex with an adult" and assume that's true for all kids. We can't even necessarily relate all that well to our own experience as kids, given how long ago it was and how different we are now.
For example, do you like to play with fire? What about Legos? Video games? Some stuff that kids like to do, adults don't find as fascinating. As a kid, it can be hard to understand why adults don't want to play with the same toys. As an adult, one can remember enjoying those activities, but not really be able to relate to one's childhood self and comprehend what was so fun about doing that stuff back then.
But if you weren't exposed to something as a kid, then how do you really know how you would have responded to it? Babies like to suck on their mom's tits, but a lot of adults don't feel like doing that. On the other hand, some experiences that are pleasant when you're an adult are even better when you're a kid, like eating chocolate.
We also have to take people's expressed preferences with a grain of salt. Females, if you ask them, will usually say, "I want equal rights." But what they say will make them happy isn't always what actually will make them happy. They actually need patriarchy, but it's contrary to their nature to admit it, because part of how they test men is by seeing how men respond to their refusal to submit. It could be the same way if you surveyed 100 little girls about their thoughts on child marriage; they might say they don't want it, but who knows what the reality is?
The thing about approving this kind of experiment, though, is that it's tantamount to admitting there's a possibility that child marriage is beneficial or harmless. Those with pedophilic desires that currently have to go unfulfilled might prefer to cope by saying, "I don't want to marry a child anyway, because that would be harmful." We might expect that those with the strongest pedophilic desires, who are struggling the hardest to cope, might object the most strenuously to any proposal for a child marriage experiment.
Likewise, if you propose a child marriage social experiment, people might say, "Yeah, a pedophile WOULD propose that," but a pedophile could also oppose such an experiment to deflect any possible suspicion that he's a pedophile, and avoid having to confront his own pedophilic desires.
Other social experiments were disastrous. Communism killed millions through famine. Feminism has destroyed families and rendered millions incel.
It usually takes awhile before people admit that a social experiment has run its course and had poor results. They have to take the blackpill before they can deal with that reality. There are some who still say that communism could work, if it were the right kind of communism. There are some who still say that females are better off under feminism, or that what we have now isn't true feminism because men still have a lot of advantages. But the statistics suggest that females are unhappier than ever, even though they have an unprecedented amount of power and freedom.
What makes people decide to do a social experiment? Usually they form a hypothesis based on logic. They say, "Females can go to school and study a bunch of facts and pass a test like any man. Therefore, they should be given the same rights as men." Or, "The rich have a bunch of wealth that could be devoted to feeding the poor. Therefore, there should be a redistribution of assets." Or, "Lots of people smoked pot and became successful politicians, businessmen, etc. Therefore, it can't be that bad."
In the case of child marriage, we can say, "Kids mess around with one another all the time, and nobody says this is harmful, so maybe marriage between adults and kids will be harmless too. Also, Eunice Winstead seemed to turn out okay, so maybe other child brides would also." But Eunice Winstead is a sample size of one.
We don't really have enough evidence to support a conclusion unless there's a larger social experiment to test the hypothesis. Some geographical area needs to be set aside as a place where child marriage is legal, or a limited number of families need to be given special permits to practice child marriage, kind of like how a bunch of medical cannabis patients were given permits by the federal Investigational New Drug program to smoke pot, long before it was legalized for the masses.
We can't really base conclusions on what goes on in a clandestine environment. Any time something is banned, those who break the law and do it anyway are going to tend to suffer in ways that are brought about by the law rather than the behavior itself. For example, if a Fundamentalist Mormon community practicing child marriage is broken up, and the children are thrown into foster homes, signs of trauma they exhibit could be due to government interference rather than their early marriage.
We know that sex with kids has been legal before in certain jurisdictions (England, for example, didn't criminalize statutory rape till 1275). Often the way legislatures make laws is by hearing a bunch of concerned citizens bring up anecdotes (or, in modern times, by hearing a bunch of academicians bring up studies that were funded by special interest groups). We also know that child porn was legal in certain countries, and that rates of child sexual abuse seemed to go down during those periods.
Sometimes experiments can have counterintuitive results, because people can come up with any number of conflicting hypotheses that seem perfectly logical. When people refuse to consider evidence that contradicts their hypothesis, that's basically dogma.
Whether we want to conduct an experiment is really just a question of whether we're willing to accept the toll if it turns out badly. The vast numbers of men who have missed out on female affection are part of the toll of the feminist social experiment. The children who grew up in broken or dysfunctional homes because their moms were rendered unfit for marriage by sleeping with Chad were also part of that toll. But we do at least know now what happens when females are given equal rights (or more rights) than men. Science has advanced; we learned something. We dispelled some myths, and hopefully will never need to experiment with feminism again.
Empathy isn't really enough of a basis for a scientific conclusion. Men said, "If I were in a female's place, I would want to have equal rights. Therefore, females should have equal rights." That turned out to be wrong, because men and females are different, and have different roles they need to fulfill in order for a family to function. Similarly, we can't say, "As a kid, I wouldn't have wanted to have sex with an adult" and assume that's true for all kids. We can't even necessarily relate all that well to our own experience as kids, given how long ago it was and how different we are now.
For example, do you like to play with fire? What about Legos? Video games? Some stuff that kids like to do, adults don't find as fascinating. As a kid, it can be hard to understand why adults don't want to play with the same toys. As an adult, one can remember enjoying those activities, but not really be able to relate to one's childhood self and comprehend what was so fun about doing that stuff back then.
But if you weren't exposed to something as a kid, then how do you really know how you would have responded to it? Babies like to suck on their mom's tits, but a lot of adults don't feel like doing that. On the other hand, some experiences that are pleasant when you're an adult are even better when you're a kid, like eating chocolate.
We also have to take people's expressed preferences with a grain of salt. Females, if you ask them, will usually say, "I want equal rights." But what they say will make them happy isn't always what actually will make them happy. They actually need patriarchy, but it's contrary to their nature to admit it, because part of how they test men is by seeing how men respond to their refusal to submit. It could be the same way if you surveyed 100 little girls about their thoughts on child marriage; they might say they don't want it, but who knows what the reality is?
The thing about approving this kind of experiment, though, is that it's tantamount to admitting there's a possibility that child marriage is beneficial or harmless. Those with pedophilic desires that currently have to go unfulfilled might prefer to cope by saying, "I don't want to marry a child anyway, because that would be harmful." We might expect that those with the strongest pedophilic desires, who are struggling the hardest to cope, might object the most strenuously to any proposal for a child marriage experiment.
Likewise, if you propose a child marriage social experiment, people might say, "Yeah, a pedophile WOULD propose that," but a pedophile could also oppose such an experiment to deflect any possible suspicion that he's a pedophile, and avoid having to confront his own pedophilic desires.
