The social liberal’s fallacy

“{1} Children [age group defined by the speaker] shouldn’t be allowed to do [thing the speaker thinks adults should be allowed to do]” without “{2} because it’s net harmful as evidenced by [firm evidence]” is the Social Liberal’s Fallacy. “Harmful” is open to interpretation because this is not about ethics and as long as the speaker believes there to be harmfulness based on good evidence, there ceases to be the Social Liberal’s Fallacy among that speaker’s thought. In the wild, things are usually very implicit and the fallacy is expressed simply as “Children shouldn’t be allowed to do [thing]” by a speaker who thinks adults should be allowed to do [thing]. But {2} may only be absent for brevity’s sake. Therefore let us call the Hard version any time when {2} does not accompany {1} and the Soft version any time where {2} does not exist for the speaker, i.e., the speaker is unaware of any {2} for their {1} and cannot give it on demand.

This tool allows us to detect inconsistencies in normative beliefs when they are applied to different groups. It does not demand, “You must let children do that now.” It can alternatively imply that “adults shouldn’t be allowed to do that thing.” I firmly believe all types of fornication are wrong, so I do not commit the Social Liberal’s Fallacy in my opposition to pedophilia. Of course, I could be wrong about fornication, but elsewhere I show what I believe to be firm evidence that it is not the case that I am wrong. And in addition for any {1} there can be a {2}, and while I think sodomy is net harmful in general, child-rape is certainly worse.

Contemporary parenting norms and most age restrictions are prime examples of this fallacy in action. (This does not mean those actions-as-conclusions are wrong, that would be the fallacy fallacy.) Ask the average person, a social liberal, why children shouldn’t be allowed to curse or why 17 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to drink, and they’ll either short-circuit or repeat mindless platitudes that don’t qualify as {2}.

People do this when their beliefs unreasonable, i.e. fallacious. The conclusion is for some reason so important to them that they don’t care that they literally believe mutually exclusive things or believe complicated empirical things for no reason. With the average person, I find in life that their beliefs are just post-hoc rationalizations of their actions to give when asked, and their actions in domains like this one are mostly a function of obeying power.

Why, then, does power “promote” the Social Liberal’s Fallacy? Possibly because Social Liberalism is untenable in the long run and things would have already collapsed if we didn’t have a weird dualism where children live under extreme Social Conservatism while adults totally abandon all morals. This is implied if most views nonjustified by the Social Liberal’s Fallacy have the correct solution that [thing] universally should NOT be allowed, because if this is the case Social Liberalism is generally harmful.

I do believe that social liberalism is generally flawed and used to destroy our civilization. Tradition is a high-powered longitudinal experiment as the sample size is in the billions or more and the time range is literal millennia. And up until about 200 or 100 years ago surviving was much harder due to vastly inferior energy harvesting methods. People who believe in “progress” are therefore naïve; technological progress implies forgiveness towards negative mutation away from a delicate equilibrium because technology makes it appear like we can afford all the harms that come with, say, the destruction of traditional gender roles. It’s obvious and confirmed in many of my essays that social liberalism is a waste of energy and therefore is morally wrong.

For example, women objectively make a worse choice then men on the aggregate when it comes time for election, as white women vote way more for the party that openly aims for white genocide as opposed to the other party that at least pretends to be against it. Women being in the work force en masse is also wasteful because they’re worse workers on the aggregate (people are reading Sexy and Smart by Roderick Kaine), most jobs are BS and there’s enough men to do the real ones (read: Bullshit Jobs), and smart/white women aren’t having enough kids, causing a dysgenic trend/white endangerment.

So why have feminism? There’s no truly ethical reason. Sadly, however, most people today are hedonists and the answer is because “feminism makes women feel good.” Silly social liberal! Childism would also make children feel good. Why then do children still have bedtimes? Let them eat cookies for dinner if they want. YOU DO YOO! The Social Liberal short circuits and shrinks back; his control scheme has been found out. Childism would not help the Social Liberal puppet masters who own the Means of Propaganda control the world. For this same reason, I can’t just do whatever I want. How can there be laws when they make me feel bad? Oh? It’s about collective pleasure? Why are we all equal then? I suppose farming has to stop. It’s absurd to say all humans are morally equal but not all mammals or animals or life. Wait no, maybe it’s intelligent egoism. Laws are ultimately better for you because YOU don’t want to be victimized. This is the closest to the truth we’ve gotten. Why then should there be feminism if you are a man? He shrinks back to imaginary veils in the sky whereupon preexistent souls vote on what is ethical (unironically the absolute state of modern ethics).

I lied when I said this wouldn’t be an ethics post. Are you mad? The answer is: your feelings don’t matter. What does matter is the existence of our consciousness. Good is an idea that exists within the observer, and so what is good is the existence of that quality observation. Anything but the goal of maximizing intelligent life’s continuance is a distraction and a road to death. Those who preach those things in a way do not even exist, for the end of their philosophy is destruction.

Which is better for continuance? Hyper-trad racist sexist misogynist national IQism or the garbage that is wokeism? Under the former Star Wars and anime would be real already, while under the latter white people are transitioning to Endangered Species status in our own countries, we’re distracting ourselves to death with fake divide and conquer astroturfed “issues,” and the average IQ is going back down to gorilla level at a rate of about 4 points per century.

2 thoughts on “The social liberal’s fallacy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s