Sfdebris.net

But I won't.

Don't you just love that wording: "what in the Western world are now considered child marriages.", as though he doesn't agree with that definition, or thinks that condemnation of such "marriages" (because, let's be honest, a more accurate name for it would be sexual slavery) is somehow wrong? As if their's moral ambiguity about children being forced into sex.

It kind of gives the impression that the society he's describing is less a dystopia for him than a wish list, doesn't it? Yeah, a nuclear apocalypse would really put those uppity women and little girls back in "their place", wouldn't it?

And on that note, has anyone else noticed that, while support for pedophilia sadly is not limited to any one ideology, that among the many other vile qualities of the Alt. Right, their's a creepy undercurrent of apologism for the sexualization of children? Hell, right up to the Big Man himself- we've all doubtless seen the footage of Trump making sexualized comments about his infant daughter.

I suppose its consistent with the general support for oppressing the vulnerable, though. If you want to describe the modern Right, look no further than George Orwell's "boot stamping on a human face, forever."

Edit: Apologies for that rant if its too off-topic, and especially if I have misinterpreted Beastro's (in any case very poor) choice of words. But I don't think that forced marriages of children, or other forms of sexual subjugation, are subject to much in the way of moral ambiguity.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Don't you just love that wording: "what in the Western world are now considered child marriages.", as though he doesn't agree with that definition, or thinks that condemnation of such "marriages" (because, let's be honest, a more accurate name for it would be sexual slavery) is somehow wrong? As if their's moral ambiguity about children being forced into sex.

It kind of gives the impression that the society he's describing is less a dystopia for him than a wish list, doesn't it? Yeah, a nuclear apocalypse would really put those uppity women and little girls back in "their place", wouldn't it?

It does have a disturbing shade of "then everyone will realise the stupidity of liberalism and the virtue of non-liberal "realism" to it, especially with the whole environmentalist misanthropy thing, which suggests he is one of those people who think of environmentalism as being an anti-human movement. At a minimum, Beastro seems to be very Strangelovian in regards to dealing with the prospect of the collapse of civilization. It comes off as very "don't worry about it, we just have to turn the women into sex slaves and our population will recover from the losses in no time at all".

The Romulan Republic wrote:But I won't.

Don't you just love that wording: "what in the Western world are now considered child marriages.", as though he doesn't agree with that definition, or thinks that condemnation of such "marriages" (because, let's be honest, a more accurate name for it would be sexual slavery) is somehow wrong? As if their's moral ambiguity about children being forced into sex.

It kind of gives the impression that the society he's describing is less a dystopia for him than a wish list, doesn't it? Yeah, a nuclear apocalypse would really put those uppity women and little girls back in "their place", wouldn't it?

Yeah that ... that was a little creepy. To say the least. Hopefully just bad wording.

It's not so much that our attitude towards child marriages has changed, it's that our definition of a child has changed. Even in cultures that allow marriage to children, there is usually an understanding that sex won't begin until the younger partner is of a sufficient age (all though of course there's still issues of grooming). It used to be that in most cultures people were considered adults and therefore marriageable as soon as they hit puberty (which, keep in mind, used to be MUCH later on average), and it's only living in a softer age that allowed us to have more concern about children's psychological maturity than physical maturity, and I certainly hope that we never return to that not being the case.

Any Mods out there? it appears this thread has gone completely off the rails. I did indulge with the apocalypse talk my self, but things have gone too far. When someone points out the unfortunate necessity of regimented breeding required to repopulate the planet leads to someone accusing the other of being an alt-right pedophile sexist, this has gone too far.

Antiboyscout wrote:Any Mods out there? it appears this thread has gone completely off the rails. I did indulge with the apocalypse talk my self, but things have gone too far. When someone points out the unfortunate necessity of regimented breeding required to repopulate the planet leads to someone accusing the other of being an alt-right pedophile sexist, this has gone too far.

I think it was the wording that provoked TRR's response, not the actual thoughts behind it. Although TRR is certainly being a bit quick to assume the worst of the poster.

Beastro is right that such a thing would likely be the result. He just didn't say what I think everyone sees as the obvious: that the prospect is fucking horrifying, and shows that we must do everything in our power to prevent that outcome from happening.

And yeah, I'm going to be keeping an eye on this thread now, and making sure nobody's going for cheap shots out of presumptions of another's personal views.

You can't deny that the wording definitely implies, at the various least, an ambiguity, in the poster's view, about "child marriage" (aka sexual slavery of minors), and that he was doing so in the context of basically postulating a society in which women and young girls are reduced to livestock, without (as Steve noted) any indication that he considered that a particularly negative thing. Nor, apparently, am I the only person here to reach that conclusion. And since I did not bring up the topic, but merely called it out once it was already brought up, I don't see how I'm at fault for derailing the thread. Apologies if its too off-topic, or if my conclusions were in error, but if so, it is not a derailment that I started. If you say I shouldn't have responded, well, I don't see that its fair to ask me to muzzle myself if the other side does not.

Nor, to address Antiboyscout's post, was I saying that Beastro is a pedophile, nor would I make such a claim against anyone without strong evidence. But he does appear to be, deliberately or otherwise, expressing a certain amount of sympathy for such acts in at least some circumstances.

TGLS wrote:

Beastro wrote:Not with a nuclear exchange or something equivalent. The World would be pushed back to the 16th Century only with practical knowledge of important, easy to make things surviving, like bolt-action rifles, batteries, radios and such.

I doubt a nuclear exchange would lead to that severe a dieback; true, the period (~20 years) immediately following would see massive death and movement towards a subsistence agricultural economy, but the value of rebuilding advances that were lost (mechanizing agriculture to prevent famines for example) would lead to a push back towards modern technology. The main problem is that key equipment and people may very well be destroyed, and it is probable that the equipment and the people are in the wrong places. But the world wouldn't be knocked back 500 years, especially if it isn't nuclear stupidity (i.e. "FIRE ZE MISSILES AT BRAZIL!" "But Mr. President, we're at war with Russia!")

The targeting of cities woulds result in the complete breakdown in the transport network as they are what ties the entire system connects to. Knock those out and you cannot have massive transportation of food anymore which our modern population relies upon. This also doesn't touch upon the issues around casualties and over overloaded hospitals would be.

I'll hold my tongue here.

Like I said, no one would would like what would happen.

Beastro wrote:Like I said, no one would would like what would happen.

Phew, that's good to hear you say. But there are people who think a massive disaster would be great. You've mentioned environmentalist misanthropy and, while not nearly as significant as some people make it out to be, is endorsed by some people. There's also the end times crowd and there are people in the fringe left who hope for an economic and social collapse because they think it would make people more ready to accept change. You also see people who use utilitarian ethics to justify horrible schemes, like killing this or that percent of the plants population or forceably sterilising certain groups for population control.

Perhaps I'm just unlucky, but I've encountered plenty of instances of people declaring "this horrible thing will happen and it will not be a bad thing, perhaps even helping overall". Sorry for lumping you in with those people.

Yeah, I've had a fair few encounters with that sort of thinking too. The apocalyptic mindset- people hope for a catastrophe which will sweep away the old world and let them live out/impose their personal desires/viewpoint on the world.

They never seem to realize that in this world, 99.9% of them won't be Mad Max. They'll be among the people getting enslaved/raped/tortured/murdered.