Scholar

I have not seen evidence that incest is practiced more prevalently by those on the political rights in rural areas. Individuals who are consanguinamorous seem to skew towards progressives and more well educated individuals, from the online polling I have seen. But that could be a selection bias given that more educated individuals might engage in such online polling. Usually conservative people will be more judgemental towards such relationships for various reasons, I think the clichee attributed to the rural people of the south in the US is largely a myth. It was actually the catholic church which specifically enforced a lot of the moral norms around incest in the past, which is why in france incest has been decriminalized since the revolution, as it was sa rejection of Christian repression of human freedoms. But yes, basically everyone engages in this type of discrimination, including progressives. The way most individuals ethically reason is still significantly underdeveloped. I have seen so many jokes progressies make about inbreeding, mocking the lack of intelligence and the physical appearence of their enemies by comparing them to inbred people. The fact that this is acceptable, while simply using the r-word is considered a grave sin, is obviously absurd. Inbred people genuinely have to fear mockery in our society, they often feel incredible shame given the stigma around the topic. And yet, most progressives will laugh at jokes that will genuinely mock such individuals and their traits, with zero self-reflection for how absurdly cruel this is. Even if you thought incest was immoral and wrong, how can you mock and shame the children who were born of inbreding for that? But this just shows you what incestophobia does to people. You basically get a free pass to mock disabled people, or people with undesirable physical traits, or "genetic inferiority". Ethical reasoning is a very tricky thing, most people don't engage in it full stop, and those who do often do not even have a notion of what bias is. People don't learn that, when you feel a strong emotion of disgust towards something, that maybe you should actually be more careful around how you reason, and question those feelings rather than using them blindly to fuel your reasoning. We are making the same mistakes as we observed homophobes engage in in the past, because there is no fundamental ethical education today. The irony is, you can use your intuition for ethical reasoning, but not if you have spent your entire life informing your intuition through blind adoption of the norms around you, which is what basically everyone does. If you do engage in genuine ethical reasoning, over time your intuition will be a tool that will serve you in this regard, and you will be able to see injustice where others might not.

Age of consent laws are easy to justify because they don't come at a great cost. There is no good reason for someone to not wait until someone is of age, for them to approach them for a sexual relationship. Nothing is truly lost, and a significant protection is given on a societal scale. Additional, when it comes to punishment, there is a clear perpetrator and a clear victim. This is unlike incest laws, which do not offer protection, given that other laws already offer such protections. They also come at a fundamental cost that can be unbearable to individuals, namely to never be able to be with the person one wants to be. There is also no clear prepetrator in cases in which things appear to be consensual, at least in horizontally incestuous cases. To punish individuals (and potential victims, which most jurisdictions do), for such consensual acts is not in line with basic principles of liberal society. The fact that this is even seriously considered to be an option in my view shows just how extensive the bias against such things is. I can see why you might assume that these things are comparable, given that both of them restrict the sexual autonomy of individuals. The protection of individuals of course is important, and sometimes outweighs freedom. But the restrictions here are fundamentally different in kind, and the effects of those restrictions cannot be equated, given that laws around incest might facilitate harm and abuse rather than mitigate it. I don't take any offense.

I do not believe it is acceptable for an adult to have sexual relations with children, given that I consider children incapable of informed consent. Age of consent laws specifically exist to protect children, they are reasonable laws because they do not fundamentally restrict two individuals from being in a relationship, given that it is merely a temporal limitation. My stance on pedophelia is that it is a psychological condition that individuals suffer from. Such individuals should not be stigmatized because they do not choose to be born, or have developed, this way. They ought to be supported by society to process their feelings, to mitigate the likelihood of abuse occuring. Pedophelia does not mean having sexual relations with children, it basically means having an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. A 15 year old can be a pedophile. An adult who violates children is a child predator, and might be a pedophile, although most child predators are not pedophiles, according to experts. https://www.vice.com/en/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says/ This article goes into this. Finkelhor coincidentally also conducted a study in the 80s that showed that most incestuous interactions between underage siblings were non-abusive/-coercive. It was the only study ever conducted to investigate incest outside of the context of incestuous abuse, and given how significant the social and academic backlash was, it might remain such for quite some time. Finkelhor appears to be very objective and non-moralistic in how he conducts his science.

I don't think there is any evidence that non-vegan specific foods somehow give us an intellectual edge that will allow us to produce certain technology that otherwise we could not. Even if it was the case, it's not in line with our basic ethical views to justify atrocities for the greater good. The limitation of utilitarianism is that you can in theory justify any atrocity for some sort of unproven, potential future good or paradise. The problem is you can't know whether or not you actually are achieving any good at all, because in the end reality might not play out the way you want it to at all. The nazis had to learn this the hard way. One of the problems is that we have no healthy stage blue or even orange facilitation in our society. This is the major limitation with the deconstructive approach of stage green, and why stage yellow is the response to it. Every stage needs to be included in the development of a human being, which it currently is not. The only way for people to learn stage blue values, which are essential to human growth, is through conservatives like Jordan Peterson. In essence, we need stage Yellow individuals who facilitate stage Blue values to adolescence, otherwise they will grow dysfunctional and be swept up by whoever else will sell them these values, packaged in a horrifically degenerate ideology. This has basically been the failure of society, and it is a failure that stems from our arrogance and the blind rejection of tradition. But it's a natural part of the process, given that the response to this problem is stage yellow. So, in essence, the reason why stage yellow will emerge is precisely because of this limitation of stage green.

It's possible that for some individuals that are some compromises. In general I think it is hard to justify what we do to animals, even in that context. Not only will he get less laid, he would also not be famous, he wouldn't be rich and he would basically have no status.

This is very comprehensive! I basically did/am aware of most of the concepts here, but I might have to up my iron intake because I take 20-40mg bisglycinate at most. Thank you for this I definitely will take some of the things into account and implement them.

You are buying into gender culture wars.

Women and men seem to experience the same rates of loneliness (with no contextualization of what that loneliness is), but women have more friends and are less likely to have no friends than men. The reason why more women raised their hands might be because women are more willing to admit when they feel lonely.

Probably hormone replacement therapy, given his age.

Yes, it's how people get annoyed at vegans if they talk about the ethics of meat-eating. And if the vegans get frustrated, they will pretend that they would have been far more likely to be convinced if only the vegan wasn't so annoying. The reality is, they just don't want their value system to be challenged because they feel comfortable, and they want the vegan to behave in line with social norms because then they don't annoy them as much with their pesky morality. Though of course stage green doesn't do itself any favor with the way it is enforcing it's value systems. Stage green should learn from stage orange and realize peer pressure is not a great way of convincing people of your cause.

I do use levothyroxine of course but I don't really feel optimal on it.

And Andrew Tate isn't merely attracted, he is a predator, which most pedophiles are not.

They aren't pedophiles, but child predators. Don't tarnish pedophiles by associating them with Tate.

But if you don't take any iodine how will the thyroid function in the first place? I wasn't looking for low dosage ones, they are much less expensive.

Blog post suggestion:

Not really, I'm still working on it. I can feel normal for a week or so if I take low iodine supplements, 25mcg, together with selenium. But then I have to take significant break because symptoms will worsen. That stuff is super expensive.

I'm not going to repeat what I just said, you literally didn't respond to it and pretended like I never corrected you about your bad faith interpretation of what you think I claimed.

Right, so why is this an argument? You said we shouldn't use humans like this because they want to live, but you are okay treating animals and plants this way.

There is no dairy that is sold that doesnt come with killing, and rape is always necessary to keep the cows pregnant. But we could just have milk humans who are raped and then we use their milk. Why would we go extinct if we only eat a special class of humans we breed? Cows aren't going extinct, are they? Why do we not want that?

Lobbyism serves an important function, do you know what it is?

We could drink human milk, that's not cannibalism. All animal agriculture requires rape, so it's not like you are against that if you eat meat or drink milk. Why would we go extinct? We had slave classes in the past, it worked for thousands of years. We don't have to be emotionally invested in the food-human class. Animals want to continue living.

But we aren't talking about what you personally would do, but what should be allowed in society. Why would we have laws against killing and eating humans? We could have a special breed that we can kill and eat, like pigs. Why not?

Why luckily? According to you there is no difference between them and animals. So why not have a human slave class to eat? In the end we have to kill to survive right? I do.

It's not that I understand the topic, I understand how stupid the unreflected assumptions are that go with people who just mindlessly compare animal consciousness to plant consciousness and assume some sort of naive realistic connection between the two, as if an act in itself causes a certain experience. Just because you cut something doesn't mean it will feel pain. The pain in response to being cut, in animals, is a very particular thing. So there should be no problem with creating a human slave food class that we don't emotionally connect to. Then you better get to research it, given that this is a life and death question.

Why does it matter if they are human or not? We could have a class of humans we don't care about that we breed and dehumanize, like we do with animals. That's all animals, because all of them are slaves whose children are stolen. Why do you kill more than you need to? If you kill an animal, you kill the animal and all the plants that had to die to feed it. If you only eat plants, you will kill no animal, and far less plants than the animal would have eaten, to get the same nutrients.