What is the liberalist objection to this?

Children can't consent

Oh, liberalist. idk

Children can’t consent and this is brainwashing

His mother is responsible for this

Okay, so a person must consent to undergo such a transforming possibly permanently damaging process

His parents should be arrested for child abuse, any media executive involved with this should be arrested for child grooming.

I agree

I just don't see the justification for this in liberalism

Liberalism doesn’t have to involve everything

This is just a moral outrage

In my opinion at least

The sjws love this kid

well, you might be able to make the case that this violates the child's individual rights

Well i think the ideal is the child have not developed individuality (self autonomy) yet, so there for can not have individual rights.

ultimately I think you must impose a particular moral authority to fully make the case that this is wrong, though

Just look at this Facebook post

https://www.facebook.com/ELLEuk/videos/10154752797466301/

The child has been brainwashed into thinking this is okay

in that case wouldn't he be his parents responsibility? if there is no responsibilty to society as a collective

Yes

That's how grooming works, you convince the child to "give consent".

and it isn't the parent's right to do this because

“This is so angering to me. I'm seeing people say it's "his" choice. When you are a kid, don't know if you remember this, but you were literally an attachment of whatever beliefs and values and thoughts and opinions they had. This has the liberal agenda written all over it. Kids at that age don't have the capacity to know what they want apart from what their parents want. I remember as a kid just saying yes and agreeing to whatever my mom said because I just wanted to do and say things she would like. I'm not an agreeable person. That's just kids! They don't know who they are and don't have the full capacity to delve into that yet so they latch onto whatever the parent feeds them. It's clear that these parents are fueling this. It's also clear that he's mimicking whatever he's seeing on TV. They aren't raising a child, they are raising someone under the name of a political agenda who will spend their life very confused. The fact that the Mom is using feminine pronouns. It's like does she want a transgender child? Boys can like girly things without ever being fed the notion that they must be girls just as girls can like boyish things without ever being fed the notion that they must be boys. The ironic thing is that the entire thing is supposed to be "gender is fluid." If gender is fluid then why on earth whenever a child displays something not typically female or male THEY MUST be the opposite gender? Clearly gender isn't fluid and if a child doesn't act fully male and plays with dolls then he must fully fit into the female category. Or vice versa.”

and I would agree Stargazer, the child must subject to an authority that has his best interests at heart

If it was a straight 8 years old girl giving lap dances to straight old men, people would be outraged.

this is the best thing for society

it would seem the "liberal" thing to do would be to not interfere in the affairs of the parent and child, right?

But instead it’s a 8 year old boy crossdressing giving lap dances to old men

You don’t have to align with everything liberal

Yes. I suppose that is the liberal way but we aren’t right on everything

No Apotheosis, because he will be an individal so parents can do just anything

By that logic, the liberal thing to do would be to not interfere with slave owners' affairs.

good point, it's about the child's liberation

but on what grounds is this bad way of raising the child? Is it more liberating for the parents to be raising them as they see fit, is it more liberating to let the child do what he wants, or is it more liberating for the state to intervene when necessary?

doesn't this entirely depend on a separate moral judgement than what is "liberating"

isn't it what is good for the self, family, and society in a particular balance what is ultimately important??

and wanting to push your idea of "good," instead of leaving people as they are in a state such as this is anything but "liberal" but is the moral thing to do?

What is important is what is liberating for the indidual, while yes kids are not yet individual are there for tecnicly the property of the parents, but since kids eventaly become individals people should not interfer with that procces, killing, abuse, exc.

ah, so it is a particular process of raising children that you want to enforce. at least, it is bounded where this in particular is out of bounds

they must be raised in such a way that they become an "individual"

makes sense

under the classical liberal ideology it makes sense to recommend children be raised in such a way that they become capable members of a classical liberal society and will champion your ideals

but is that not enforcing your values onto a collective?

I don't think rasing children to be free will make them want freedom necessary.

I just don't think you can only take individual rights into some kind of calculus without appealing to some kind of societal (collective) good

tricky situations like this, with families and children, expose this

classical liberalism tends to abstract people away into atomized individuals with no past, group associations (like one's family) and no duties or obligations to those groups

Well, yes. People don't allways follow those groups

but we are all part of families and it's by no means a trivial case

well, we wouldn't want people tyranized by their group, right?

except

this kid could use a little tyranizing don't you think?

in a direction that is positive for his personal growth

rather than the trajectory he is on

Because kids can't make individual judgments, while adults can (some exceptions).

Leave kids to the wolves then?

Their parents as individuals can make those judgments for them? True, but on what grounds is this a bad judgment made for him? What stops his best direction of "personal growth" being becoming the best boy-tranny ever?

He's performing sexualized acts for the enjoyment of adults.

So, it's societal intervention

That's not normal behavior for kids.

Why don't we let pedos have sex with kids?

Why don't we let people have slaves?

You tell me, aren't we violating individual rights here? what if the child consents? (I'm being facetious)

how does individualism address the rights of children

What about the rights of hospitalized people that are unconscious?

huh?

If I take advantage of a person that's unconscious, is that bad?

Say, raping an unconscious person.

That person will never know.

I could answer that, but I don't see the relevance

My point is, we delegate to society the responsibility to defend people that can't defend themselves.

Applies to unconscious people. Mentally ill people that can't make rational decisions. And children.

Yea, we delegate to the goverment the responsibility to defend people's rights

A doctor can convince a patient to do something not in the patient's best interest. That person isn't deficient in any way, other than lacking medical knowledge that the doctor is using to take advantage of the patient.

in the case of the boy becoming a tranny, it is liberal policy then to come his defense

for an adult it's just his responsibility though

The kid is having his sexuality exploited.

That doesn't happen naturally. That's why we derive the conclusion it's the adults around him doing it.

okay so he is still treated as an individual, it's just that his individual rights are being violated because he cannot consent to sexual exploitation as a child

Also keeping in mind that, barring exceptional cases, the child is too young to be self-aware enough to understand sexuality. Think of this as the kid jumping into a hole without seeing what's at the bottom, by trying to transition at this point he's making major life decisions without knowledge of the decision he's making.

Yes, we assume kids don't have autonomy for many decisions. Kids aren't adults.

right

This server should add some political subroles (Liberalist, Libertrain, Progressive, exc.).

If it did, I'd do as best to avoid them as much as I can.
Not that I'm centrist, I doubt it, I just don't want a label slapped on my head.

It's going to leave implications that might be wholly inaccurate.

Yea, unless you let people make their own subrole, well at least mitigate.

Alright how about this: we are still deciding as society what the best course of his life should be and enforcing it if we intervene here

here, we are deciding what this individual should want and should be

it just isn't allowed to be anything sexual since he's a child

but the reasoning for this doesn't have anything to do with violation of individual rights does it?

an outside force is deciding what his well-being should be... because he isn't capable of knowing the right decision?

Children should be left to wolves

would that not apply to people outside of just children, unconscious or disabled?

No cpr for anybody

Mentally incapacitated and uneducated about the relevant topic too.

e.g. women and kids that got lobotomized back when it was cool

It seems that sometimes a societal entity or member of an incapacitated or not-fully-matured individual must make a decision for them, but what is the basis of this moral decision?

what counts as "defense" for a child/incapable person?

The basis is maxisization of individial liberty, that means you make sure they regain their ability to chose if deprived and make sure most if not all choices are reserved when they regain their ability to chose for themself.

Or you leave them for dead

Surely this individual liberty can't come at the expense of that of others, right?

Yes

But also surely, people should be allowed to compete under some conception of a meritocracy. That would result in the meritorious triumphing over not meritorious, at their expense.

However that would be a valid expense, yes?

not everyone can have the "liberty" to be the best

Yes

but some conceptions of competition do not benefit the group, and it is only a tyranny of the strong over the weak by some definition

so then what we really care about is what moral system, what moral principles we should compete under, that benefit the group

did I use any sleight of hand there?

or is it that individual rights and benefits must be balanced with the good of the collective?

what defines that balance?

well, that would be what I suggest as the basis for morality: principles that promote survival and reproduction within the group, that promote power and stability for competition with other groups

and against nature

a balance completely toward individualism would dissolve the group and turn individuals against each other in destructive way

as for a balance skewed completely toward collectivism, it's a bit harder to show why that is not a good idea

I need to introduce a few more things

but the point is... morality is affected by evolutionary forces that act on the survival and reproduction of the group, not necessarily just the individuals

the same morality that we use to make our moral judgements, ostensibly in defense of individual rights, is grounded in a balanced individualist/collectivist morality

and you can call that "individualism" but really this is a misnomer

at least for the principles that allow for moral intervention of children/incapacitated etc.

Yes I want the person/s in power to share my morals. What is good for everyone is their individual rights. Why limit ur thinking of a princepels with in a gentic group. You say reproducion but that does not pass down belifs, insted think about converting people too ur ideaology as that, not reproduction spreads ideals. Which can contain ideals to protect those also in ur group.

reproduction does in fact spread ideals, allow me to explain

first of all, many traits like personality and IQ are partially heritable

Islam spreads through breeding.

The yearly number of converts and apostates are pretty much the same.

secondly, those who get to breed are those at the top of social hierarchies

Yes IQ and Personality are partally heritable, but its not 100%.

third, the people at the top of social hierarchies are those that most embody the ideals of the group

those that embody those ideals have traits that allow for it

they get to breed

and pass on those traits

oh and those traits affect what one's principles are

I did not inhert my parents ideals, and those far from my gentic pool share my ideals.

so, the principles are then passed on

the ideals are then protected by them for the sake of retaining the position of themselves and their progeny in the social hierarchy

of course, these actually need to be effective principles or else the group perishes against nature

or other groups

But its better to pass it on orally insted of genticly. As gentics only passes ideals to a fraction (also only one chance, while you can talk to someone many times).

yes, without that it only passes them on insofar as personality and IQ traits are passed down. These traits would need to give rise to values all over again if nothing were passed down orally

however, as it is effective, passing down the principles, the tradition, becomes part of an effective culture

this causes the following feedback loop:

environment -> traits give rise to principles/culture -> cultural development affects environment -> repeat

If people holding one ideology outbreed other people, it can create bubbles, societal pressure to maintain the ideology.

yes. however it is also an effective aspect of a culture to allow for adaptation

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that ideologies are passed on through your genes?

not entirely

As far as I know, personalities can which then affect which idelogies your likly to pick

yes

I don't think genetics is involved. Bring 10 minions to this world, force them to be drones to your ideology, done it's spreading.

You do realise that you are not going to be able to selectively breed personalities right?

The way Islam spreads isn't through personalities.

this will then cause certain personalities to be favored and they will reach greater heights of the social hierarchy which will cause them to reproduce

It forces itself onto children.

And indoctrinates them.

over the less favore personalities

And also, why intervene in the natural mating process?

hm? that is the natural mating process. have good traits that are suited for the social group's ideals, reach high in the hierarchy, get laid

Not really.

Natural mating is not about reaching high in a hierarchy.

that's the way it's *intended* to work, let's say it like that

status helps you get good mates. following the group's ideals gets you status. having traits suitable for those ideals lets you follow those ideals

ultimately that's not how it does these days, but anyhow

You are thinking abotu status the wrong way around.

Both in natural society and in modern society status gives you access to mates. It's nothing to do with having the right personality.

I'd contest that, to an extent

Ok say you have a population A whose gene pool favors personality A that favors principles A, and population B geen pool does not favor peronality A, but they follow prinicples A. Would population B then independly developed gene pool that favors personality A. Therefore you don't need to be conserned of the gene's of the population and only the principles.

Personality can aid or hamper your attempts to gain status

status may be retained by some other means, but that must be attained at some point

Of course it fucking can @Smak64

Okay, so maybe I just misunderstood what you meant then

I'm just trying to understand why this matters?

What would you be aiming to accomplish?

A completely descriptive morality based on evolution

bypassing the is/ought problem

probably well out of my ballpark then, I'm gonna fuck off

and also reframing our idea of "individualism"

So you are trying to create a morality based on the evolutionary preferences of humans?

yeah basically

I wouldn't say "create" but yeah

Discover perhaps then

derive from evolutionary principles

theory, rather

@Apotheosis so what do you think would happen in the hypothetical I propose?

Well I would ask you two things:
1. Is it practicable? would this morality actually be able to hold sway against those created by society rather than theory?
2. Is it intended to be so? because its always interesting to muse on things but replacing the individual morality of all the people in society is nigh impossible. You can at best manipulate it.

I think it is "practicable" in the sense that it can provide a better perspective on moral issues especially to handle moral "relativism" between groups, to justify and work with our tribalistic tendencies

as for replacing people's morality... I think it may instead reframe and complete the moral conceptions of others

to understand our moral instincts and intuitions

Okay, I think I understand it a bit better now. Well I hope you're writing your thoughts down somewhere other than here, it might be something worth posting somewhere.

yeah I'm just bouncing ideas of off people

seeing what holds water

but a lot of this system is based on what Jordan Peterson says

I'm just not sure if he's truly followed through with the implications of what he says

he?

Jordan Peterson. I'd expect Sargon fans to be aware of him

Jordan Peterson uses our natural biological urges as a lense through which to see why people don't mesh with acting in the PC way.

I'm not sure he advocates biologicalism just points out that trying to socially engineer people to act a different way than is natural is a bad idea.

Well, I believe he does hold that IQ is partially heritable

and that social hierarchies are based on principles, that those who embody those ideals reach the top, and those near the top are more likely to reproduce and survive

I'm connecting some of the dots though

surely some cultures cannot be developed or adopted by a group of people of just any IQ

and that personality surely affects ones values

openness, conscientiousness, extravertedness, agreeableness, neuroticism

You're interpretting IQ very interestingly here

IQ hasn't really changed for humans for the entirety of history

IQ is a proxy for G, general intelligence

Just the ability to maximise its use

are you sure about that?

Well of course it doesn't change a 100 IQ is fixed to the avrage

Completely, unless you want to go back to pre-human beings

how about pre-history? in our evolutionary development, surely our G factor increased from our ape-like ancestors

as soon as we became "human," we all stopped?

what of the difference in IQ after the divergence of the races?

different environments caused a divergence of development in human beings

it would be surprising if everyone's IQ ended up being the same through their long period of separated development

Oh there's probably divergence

different environments resulted in different challenges to survival and different optimal social orders

but not enough to matter

resulting in different cultures

IQ is best considered on an individual basis really

does anyone have data on racial iq diffrences over time?

I disagree. Groups behave a bit more deterministically based on IQ

over recent history, maybe

Well let me ask you a question

look up the Flynn effect

Is IQ all that matters to a society's direction and decisions?

nope

no, I think personality is a factor as well

as well as a host of other things, like the historical narrative and philosophy which may form the basis of those decisions

however those two not necessarily independent of those traits

Yeah so they are factors

But how big a factor?

well, for example, Asians have higher IQ than Caucasians, but they are likely more collectivist due to a personality difference

because I'm pretty sure that the existing environment (society, economy, local land's resources) are bigger

well... the existing the environment was developed to a great extent by the people that live in it

that's a unique aspect of humans, we affect our own environment

to such a degree that it affects our evolutionary direction

what about the fact the communism is wide spread in Asia while orginating from eroupe.

it did not originate from Europeans.

It did

marxs?

but that's a side point

Marx was Jewish

wew

lad

but did the jews not inhrate a lot of europen genes by being there for a longtime.

The Ashkenazi Jews kept to themselves mostly

within other societies

to preserve their ethnicity and culture

k