Daily reminder that it's natural to be a bit pedo

Explain this to me.... How are all teens smart enough to choose that they want to have sex with an adult? And I say all because, a potential bill would effect all teenagers

>posting itt

you have been added to the list t. FBI

Reproductive value at 0 years?

Marriage?

No sources?

I mean, I agree that the average peak fertility is before the age of 18, but this graph seems a little wonky.

Well they choose to do it and then they do it. Therefore they are smart enough

Age being a spectrum doesn't mean we should allow kids to vote. That's why we have voting age, which is the average age at which teenagers are said to be considered intelligent and independent

I assume it's because that 0 year old will eventually become an adult.

Freedom of speech is a spectrum

intelligence and independence are spectrums

If your kid tells you that he wants to jump out of the window from the top floor of sky scraper.....would you allow him to do it? He chose that. He's smart enough to do it.

Yes, yes, precisely my point you don't need to point the obvious fucktards - Age is a spectrum, human morality should not be, at some point you draw the line.

That's how the left subverts social values. If everything is relative and there are no absolutes, no clear definitions, morality becomes fuzzy and the law bends as well.

Gender *is* a spectrum as well, that doesn't mean we should treat it as such, because 99.98% of the population is either male or female, not hermaphroditic.

In case you are still not getting the analogy I'll spoon feed it to you:
A 14 year old girl may be mentally mature enough for intercourse, doesn't mean that all of them are, thus we draw a hard line after that, at a defined age point we can all agree 99% of people would be ready.

I wouldn't allow him but he's clearly smart enough to choose to do it

>allow
If some fucker wants to do that, he will do that

Adults choose that too.

Next time on Bill Nye Save The World: Spirit Cooking

Spirit cooking is a spectrum

>girl
Hmm...

Great let's take part in a massive homicide then....let's gather up all the depressed suicidal people on the earth and encourage them to kill themselves

Kids are not mentally capable of rationalising,u idiot. How autistic can you really be to not realise this?

That's a great idea.

>you are not serious
I am

>smart
How is jumping off the balcony a "smart" move user?

>"Kids are not mentally capable of rationalising"
>some creature who spouts this kind of imbecility dares call someone else idiot or autistic
American, probably.

Kids are fully expected to make all kinds of decisions that affect their lives permanently. We tell all school children that their performance in school will determine their future. We also generally allow kids of the same age to have sex which has the same consequences as doing it with an adult

It will depend on the individual's circumstances to be decided if it's a smart move or not.

I didn't say that it was. I said that anyone who chooses something is smart enough to choose it, which is self evident.

i would join

What???? Are u saying that kids are not dumb?

Being dumb does not mean a complete inability to rationalize. There are dumb people that can rationalize to a certain extent.

What I he's depressed? What if his crush just said no to him and so he plans on commiting suicide?

Go back to facebook

>Bernd

Back to KC with you

>>>plebbit.com

You're not understanding that anyone who does anything is smart enough to do whatever they did.

guess I'm a freak then because I'm not even attracted to women in their late teens
I've always gone for early to mid 20s

Are implying that jumping out of the window to commit suicide is a rational choice, especially for a kid who're known to be impulsive and lack wisdom?

And you're not understanding that smartness is synonymous to both wisdom and intelligence, both of which you lack.

my dick is a spectrum

Morality is a spectrum though

If killing a mentally ill kid was the only way to stop him from accidentally killing someone else, would you? How many lives would have to be at stake before you would? Does it matter who he'd kill?

>implying

You are stupid.

>Lack of argument:the post

You never posted any kind of real or worthy argument.

I have said nothing of the sort.

Yup, would 100% kill the kid if he infringes on the rights of other kids and tries to kill them.either that or throw him in the containment

Read my posts again brainlet. That is, if you're IQ is greater than that of even the dumbest nigger to understand the arguments

You are stupid. Try boards on your level.

>Great let's take part in a massive homicide then.
We already do: all people on this planet will die no matter how old they are.

If someone does something, they are smart enough, wise enough, strong enough, etc. By definition. If they weren't, they couldn't have done it. This is really simple stuff, friend.

The law is not a spectrum. If I was a cop, I should restrain the kid rather than kill him, which would be a last resort.

Morality should not be a spectrum either, it should be as clear as real life allows. Moral relativism is a surefire way of creating a hedonistic, pointless, nihilistic, ethically bankrupt society... which seems to be where we are headed with this insane cultural marxist wild ride.

If they are incapable, then we should give up to teach them.

>cultural marxism
go back to /pol/

Nice argument bucko

>Kids are fully expected to make all kinds of decisions that affect their lives permanently.
We only give kids the work they are capable of doing. They are not relied upon to solve complex life situations they are to ignorant to solve.
>We also generally allow kids of the same age to have sex which has the same consequences as doing it with an adult
Nope, sex below the legal age is literally illegal.I suppose you're from burgerland. Kids there, are retards so it is expected of them impregnate their teen companions

>impliying you gave any argument naming some made up bullshit

>go back to /pol/
What? Cultural marxism is real.

If it's not worth to live, it's pretty smart to die, you stupid christfuck.

Where do you live then?

Anyway, obviously we don't only give kids work they're capable of, since some of them fail at it. And when they fail it has real consequences. It will affect them in the long run.

Incapability to rationalise at a certain age isn't permanent. With age your experience as well as your mental maturity increases. Thus we teach kids because they are capable of doing certain things and they grow up they are able to more things

>Has never read Antonio Gramsci
You are the only one being ignorant here

>this guy fucking up his spaces and commas every single post while getting roasted

Grammar is a spectrum

Capability of a kid to do stupid stuff like jumping from the roof of abuilding=/= smartness,wisdom,intelligence

refugees are escaping a war ang going to non-war countrys
>fucking cultural marxism
absolutly everywhere i look there are companys (except the one which are not controlled by them) controlled by the second most extended religion in the world
>fucking cultural marxism
muslims are raping our woman and i cant rape my woman
>fucking cultural marxism
woman are leaving the kitchens
>fucking cultural marxism
anything i desagree with in my closed mind
>fucking cultural marxism

Daily reminder that prehistory is a terrible example of what's scientifically appropriate today

Daily reminder that deaths from childbirth have decreased due to medicine and maternal readiness

Daily reminder to not listen to daily reminder bread.

I didn't say jumping off a building makes you smart. It only makes you smart enough to jump off a building. I really don't see what the problem is

>countrys
>companys

Also, do you define yourself as an sjw, shitskin? Or do you ''desagree'' with this assumption?

That post would hold its ground if I had just blamed cultural Marxism without giving any arguments, but I just explained to you why:
1. Treating everything as a spectrum is wrong. We need points of reference for everything. After all, time is a spectrum, temperature is a spectrum, mass is a spectrum, almost anything could be said to be, but we say water boils at 100° C even though it's almost never exactly that.

2. Cultural Marxism is a real theory started by the Frankfurt School and Marxist theorists like Gramsci, who wanted to fight "cultural hegemony" with their own brand of Marxist culture. It's not a big conspiracy theory but a way of thinking that has influenced modern culture.
3. Fuck off

just typos fucker

>le typos excuse
Sure thing, buddy boy.
You are simply illiterate in the language and in the rules of constructing phrases, hence the many mistakes with commas.

A typo is when you hit the wrong key by accident. Unless you have a keyboard where "i" is next to "e" then you can't really claim "desagree" is a typo.

Childbirth decreased due to contraception, education and hedonism.

I agree with the other 2, no idea what education has to do with it though, because someone well educated would understand the need to have at least 3 children.

okay, i can agree with you that the "companys" and "countrys" might not be called typos and just be plain mistakes even if i know that it is substituted by ie. but "desagree" can perfectly be a typo even if they are far apart.
Also >your arguments are wrong because you wrote incorrectly

How can your aim for the "i" and hit the "e"? Are you typing with a 20 ft pole?

His 'arguments' are wrong by nature of him being a tumblr-like flower.
Identifying his obvious incapacities with English or simply grammar is just fun.
And, come on, how can desagree be a typo? Kid's just stupid.

the thing is th part that says: we are going to shit because [math]cultural\ marxism[/math] and we should never reconsider these boundaries

So 1 kid would die if needed for another.
What if a prestigious scientist would ACCIDENTALLY kill a hobo? The ONLY way to stop the scientist is to kill him.

Obligatory classic:
Your wife is dying of cancer. You cannot afford the only medication available. What's the most moral thing to do?

Key word: accident

Key phrase: only way to stop is to kill

>What's the most moral thing to do?
It depends. Moral is relative

That was my point, but the latter question actually has been thought out by philosophers and sociologists who've mostly decided on a answer for each of the 6 morality levels

>The law is not a spectrum.

On paper it isn't but once the human element is introduce it immediately becomes a spectrum.

>If I was a cop, I should restrain the kid rather than kill him, which would be a last resort.

In a ideal world, Yes, this is what you should do. But in reality as a cop under your own agency and life stresses you will impulsively do whatever the fuck you want to do and retroactively mule over it afterwards.

This is because at the end of the day it's a job that you are making a living out of and 9 times out of 10 you will favor your well-being and general public safety over the target in question always especially if said target is a threat.

You are NOT a Fire Fighter nor a Paramedic, you aren't getting paid to SAVE lives you are getting paid to apprehend and turn in CRIMINALS and keep/defend public order. The act of saving lives is more or less a causality of doing your job well and maintaining the public image of law enforcement. Which in turn makes your job easier when you are trying to catch criminals via help of the public.

>Morality should not be a spectrum either, it should be as clear as real life allows.

Which means it will always be a fog ridden field with only distant blurry lights as your guide.

Moral relativism is and has always been unavoidable specifically because it is a characteristic of a ever changing chaotic system within the domain of a social species.

Which is why curve balls such as Internet and genetics completely throw law and morality for a loop in how to deal with it.

>Age: 0
>Reproductive value ~2
It's awwwwright

It's "call dibs" time, not "start fucking" time.

If you claim an underage girl, she can start having your babies as soon as she's old enough. The risk is that you or she will die (or otherwise become unfit, or separated) before then, so your investment in her (and the opportunity to claim another in her place) will be lost.

Many cultures (including advanced Western ones until recently) arrange marriages in childhood. It doesn't always mean they tolerate child-molestation (although in some cases they do), it just means their partner is settled. Actual sex (at least routine sex, as opposed to ritual deflowerment or adolescent experimentation) can, should, and usually does wait for physical maturity.

Assuming she's healthy, the highest value is when she's barely old enough to start having your babies, however a demonstration of fertility (a first child) can raise the certainty of her value. The downside of that is the potential of your resources being spent raising another man's child.

The average woman is physically mature at 17, with outliers from about 12 to the mid-20s. Physical maturity is the natural time to start having children. It's not any kind of "-philia" to want sex with a physically mature member of the opposite sex. Men mature considerably more slowly than women, so legalisms and mores treating their ages as equivalent tend to result in absurdities like punishing juvenile boys for the statutory rape of grown women.

By the way, I don't think OP's curve is right, due to the high rates of infant mortality (and adult mortality, for that matter).

Age reassignment surgeries when?

The funny thing is that they give child trannies drugs to prevent the onset of puberty and slow growth until they're old enough to consent to hormone replacement therapy.

...which is legal because they've reached the arbitrary chronological age of consent, although the drugs they've already been given prevented their normal mental development.

Rot in hell, degenerate

this
fucking retarded graphic made by towelhead sandnigger """mathematicans"""