Young people are smarter than old people


The notion that teens in general are incapable of making their own decisions isn't based on evidence.

The real reason people push for restrictions targeting teens is that they have some ideology and then use "teens are stupid" as an excuse (only applies to things they dislike).

Of course a lot of people are not capable of proper decision-making but that applies to people of all ages, 74 million people voted for Trump something most "minors" would never do.

People generally do not get smarter as they age, instead the opposite happens, mental abilities typically decline as you age. You can get more experience over time but you can also become increasingly brainwashed and then you will think "i was stupid as a teen" even though you were actually smarter when you were younger.

A lot of adults (especially Trump supporters) died from covid-19 becuase they trusted Trump and rightwing 'media' telling them "It's just a flu" (darwin award).
People of all ages do fall victim to brain-pollution, people in general believe a lot of things which are not true.

Except for the state itself the ones most able to brain-pollute children/teens are parents. The solution to this is not to give even more power to state/parents over the child, the solution is to have a good government that teach children values good for society.

When people are older they are no longer required to attend school and often they do not live with parents making it far easier for other actors to indoctrinate them. As people become indoctrinated they will often change media consumption based on said indoctrination thinking the media explaining how they are being mislead is lying to them and thus there will be a feed-back loop resulting in people becoming increasingly detached from reality.


Age of Consent laws
Young people supposedly being unable to make their own decisions regarding sex is used as a justification to push for very harmful laws making it more difficult for young females to find good partners.

Of course Age of Consent laws do not stop young girls from having sex, the males you do not want them to have sex are not going to discouraged by these laws, in addition it means that actual rape of young girls is trivalized since their consent is less meaningful if its meaningful at all. AoC laws take power away from girls and instead give power to courts to retroactively decide which males to punish.

These laws are sometimes motivated that in retrosepct it can be difficult to know if consent was given but often this is not even an issue, if they had text communication before we can see if she did indeed consent to the sexual activity. Requirering consent to in some ways be recorded would of course not be ideal since it would interfere with sexual relationships but it's still far better than the current system.

If females were actually incapable of making their own decisions regarding sex that could also be used to justify forcing them to participate in sexual activities "for their own good".

A compromise is to lower the AoC to 13 since girls younger than that are typically not fertile anyway and often look to young to be appealing to most men


Beneficial teen pregnancies can of course occur before 13 but there are ways to resolve this issues without further lowering the AoC such as allowing something like child marriages or child partnership with court approval, since this probably wouldn't be too common courts should be able to resolve these issues without being overwhelmed.

But with higher AoC (such as 15) courts would not be able to resolve all these cases (pre-approving teen). Having courts only look into sex that has already happened would be problematic since then teen sex would become legally dangerous for the partners so pre-approval is very much preferable.

It is worth noting that teens being stupid would not imply they shouldn't have sex, it would just imply that maybe we should let other people make these decisions for that. The issue with letting other people make these decisions is that they are not really the ones having to face the consequences (such being forced to have sex and get pregnant at 12).


Teen pregnancies
One prominent feminist goal is to reduce teen pregnancies as if that would be a good thing. The current dogma is to put females in schools (where they do not learn much if anything of value) instead of being able to become mothers early. Young teens are brainwashed into thinking it's somehow bad to be a teen parent.

On "I would encourage other teens to have children" they all strongly disagreed.

On "Having a baby changed my life for the better" they all strongly agreed.

This illustrates how strong the brainwashing has been, they do not recommend it to other people even though for all of them it improved their lives. It's possible they were virtue signaling giving the politically correct answer "no we do not encourage other teens to become pregnant".

It's not just them that had a good experience with teen pregnancy.

Motherhood can be a positive experience that makes sense in the lives of young women from disadvantaged backgrounds. To be effective, policy must recognize the valued social role motherhood provides for these young women. The negative long-term outcomes observed may largely be a result of their disadvantaged position within society and this should be the focus of interventions.

Girls from a young age often want to become mothers, taking care of babies. By supporting them we can make that dream a reality. Instead of dolls they will now take care of their own baby after carrying and giving birth. Having children early will allow for better bond between parent and child since the difference in age will be smaller, it will be more like a friendship relationship and better for everyone.

Early pregnancy reduces breast-cancer risk

By becoming pregnant and having children early in life you will be able to focus on your career later, wasting your most fertile years as a female just studying things at school you will rarely/never use besides to pass tests is insanity.

In most regions, the age distribution of maternal mortality follows a J-shaped curve, with a slightly increased risk of death in adolescents as compared to women between 20 and 24 years old

In addition, adolescents in some countries were found to be at lower risk of death than women in their early 20s and even than women in all other age groups

In contrast to the overall results, the MMR for 15-19 year-olds in Tanzania was the same as for women aged 20-24, and much lower than for women aged 25 and over, indicating that there is no excess risk of maternal death associated with adolescent pregnancy.

When no other factors are taken into account, children of teenage mothers have significantly higher odds of placement in certain special education classes and significantly higher occurrence of milder education problems, but when maternal education, marital status, poverty level, and race are controlled, the detrimental effects disappear and even some protective effects are observed.

Hence, the increased risk for educational problems and disabilities among children of teenage mothers is attributed not to the effect of young age but to the confounding influences of associated sociodemographic factors. In contrast to teen age, older maternal age has an adverse effect on a child's educational outcome regardless of whether other factors are controlled for or not.

The following french study had a similar result

After adjustment for confounding factors, RRs (95% confidence interval) of fetal death and anaemia were respectively 1.37 (1.09-1.70) and 1.27 (1.15-1.40) for a 16-year-old compared to a 20-year-old mother. Younger mothers had significantly decreased risks of obstetric complications (preeclampsia, caesarean section, operative vaginal delivery and post-partum haemorrhage). Higher prevalence of prematurity and low birth weight in infants born to teenagers were not attributable to young maternal age after adjustment for confounding factors.

In they mention:

In a study conducted in Mexico by [37] , complications during pregnancy were estimated to be at 26 percent (%) in adult women and 10 percent (%) in adolescents (p = 0.04). However, the gestational age and birth-weight were similar in both groups. The study further revealed that birth by cesarean section was more frequent among the offspring of adult women (65% compared to 48%, p = 0.015) than in adolescents.

It is sometimes stated teen pregnancies would somehow be bad for the career, the reality is of course the opposite of that. By having children early you will be able to have your career later without interruption to have children.

The research suggests that the age at which childbearing begins is not as important as the length of time since the (most recent) birth in influencing whether or not a woman works. Having a young child consistently lowers labor force participation, whereas an early birth does not.

Of the three studies that have specifically addressed this issue, one (Koo and Bilsborrow, 1980) finds no effect of early childbearing while two studies find a weak positive effect of early childbearing on labor force participation (Hofferth et al., 1978; Card, 1979). In these studies early childbearers (female) appear to be somewhat more likely to be in the labor force 10 years after high school than later childbearers. This is probably due to several factors:

0. Since early childbearers start their families early, at 1 and 5 years after high school fewer early than later childbearers are working (Card, 1977). Ten years after high school, however, their children are older while later childbearers have just begun their families and have young children in the home. Thus the early childbearers were more likely to be working 10 years after high school in the Card study and at age 24 in the Hofferth et al. study.

1. Early childbearers may have a greater economic need to work. Never married mothers who had an early birth have a high likelihood of being employed (Haggstrom et al., 1981). In a related study Trussell and Abowd (1979) also found that among whites increasing age at first birth lowers the propensity to work by raising the wage required to attract them into the work-force.

There are sex differences in the association between early childbearing and employment. At 1 and 5 years out of high school more males in the adolescent childbearer group were working, compared to their classmates (Card, 1977). Thus for males, each parenthood leads to entrance into the labor force. However, by 11 years out, these differences had disappeared. By 11 years after high-school most non-parenting males had also completed their schooling and entered the work force so the difference disappears.

Females, in contrast, work less while they have young children in the home, but as their children mature, they return to work. Thus the timing of the birth affects when that hiatus will occur. By the mid twenties, the later childbearers are beginning their families and dropping out of the work-force while the early childbearers are reentering.



I was unable to find the original source for the following:


BunnyEntendre10 wrote:

You are 100% correct. A woman’s best childbearing years are what we nowadays consider her teens. Although a mans best providing age is in his 30s. We live in a patriarchal society where our lives will be based off an average day of a man. This means we are all programmed to be providers and less nurturers (this will bite us in the ass later). Because men take so long in this modern society to become providers due to financial reasons or housing we have a set amount of time before we can make our own decisions. The problem is that males and females don’t biologically mature at the same rate when it comes to societies expectations. So while scientifically the best heterosexual relationship would be a 15 year old female and a 30 year old male, it would be INSANE in this society.


Refuting arguments used to push for AoC > 13
Currently the philippines plans to introduce very bad AoC legislation. The reason reason for this is that they are against teen pregnancies, they are raising the AoC in an attempt to fix the mess caused by catholicism.
Rose, who became pregnant when she was 14, says she now realises she had been too young for a sexual relationship and the demands of motherhood.

"I was still a child then, I didn't know anything about sex," Rose, now 16, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) at a clinic run by the Likhaan Centre for Women's Health in Navotas, one of the poorest areas of Manila.
Which could be easily fixed by early sex-education and more support for teen mothers.
But prosecuting adult perpetrators in rape cases involving children has been difficult because they can argue the sex was consensual, said Ms Rowena Legaspi, executive director of the Children's Legal Rights and Development Centre.
So why not just make all sex illegal then? that way no rapist can get away with claiming "she agreed to it".

Of course this issue can be resolved without making sex illegal automatically. One solution is to require some form of partnership (she will also be able to retroactively enter that).

Unsafe teen abortions is an issue in philipinnes due to abortion being completely banned there and due to lack of social spending towards young people.


We need to invest in the young, not the old & dying
One big issue with most societies is that instead of actually properly supporting young people (especially young parents) money is poured on the elderly which will never pay that back.

Social spending aka welfare does make sense if it is towards for society valuable individual, wasting money on healthcare for the old however generally doesn't make sense.

The issue is that in the case of young people instead of direct financial support a lot of money go towards questionable university education.

Of course many (most probably) young people probably think education which is true but that does not justify spending all that money on parasitic organisations and having young people take on debt.


Childporn laws
Currently there are very strict laws against child-porn, this is to a large extent justified but it's not really ideal. Should we really make it against the law to send or take nudes of yourself when you are below 18?

The bigger issue is how easy unwanted data of you can spread online. You might send a nude to someone that then end up spreading it online as revenge.

We may still want to allow people below 18 to exchange nudes but then they would need to delete these pictures/videos if requested. We may also allow people to share nudes/videos of themselves once they are old enough to consent to that and this could include nudes/videos of them when they were younger than 18 (would have to be stored security).

It's unfortunatily a fact that if you give a teen a phone with camera he/she might take pictures of himself/herself, by defualt these pictures will not be encrypted in any way and a teen may accidentally share them.


The left often justify totalitarian control by the supposed evils of exploitation but it's not clear what exploitation even is.

Let's say i work for a company adding 500000$ in value each year but the company only pays me 300000$

is that exploitation?

Would that justify giving the government full control over the economy?

Well not really.

In any mutually beneficial exchange/relationship you can expect one party to benefit more from it than the other. It's up to each individual to push for getting good deals. Similarly it should be the responsibility of each teen to make sure he/she actually benefit from the sexual relationship and to actually find the most suitable partner(s) for him/her.

Of course young people may not always make the best decisions but that is a part of growing up, learning how to look out for your own self-interest, people will try to take advantage of you and you will have to prevent that.

Scammers generally do not target young people, instead they tend to go after the elderly since old people tend to be less skilled at handling technology.


Teens: the most oppressed group?
Everyone is obsessed with oppression, but nobody cares about the most oppressed class in the modern West. Why is this? I seek to answer this question, but it’s too much for a single blog post.

Racism. Sexism. Even homophobia. Transphobia. We are told these things matter. That women and minorities are oppressed in a world where the N word is the worst thing you can say, where being black is worth 230 SAT points, where every Engineering department wants to increase “gender diversity.” Maybe this is what oppression looks like. Who’s to say? I wouldn’t. Maybe it’s decentralized now. I’m not an expert in this, I don't know.
But I do believe that 17 year olds are the most oppressed group in the West. Not only is ageism everywhere, permeating every space, infesting every mind, even those of the oppressed — this oppression is still enforced by the State. Imagine if we still had forced racial segregation. What teens face from the State every day is similar. I know many might say it’s not as bad, but I have philosophical reason to disagree. More on that later.

You have to understand that laws are ultimately enforced with the threat of death. The government will murder you if you are serious about disobeying a law. That is, if you refuse to obey, and you refuse to accept the invalid actions of the State in response, they will kill you. Let me provide a concrete example. You know that being forced to go to a facility against your will simply for being, say, 17 years old, for 40 hours a week is an extreme violation of your civil liberties. Therefore, you don’t go. The government sends people whose job is to commit violence on behalf of the State, to commit violence on you. At first they will try to restrain you. You’re probably not strong enough to resist, but say you can knock these people out. They’ll shoot you. Their protocol says to spray you with the whole magazine-worth of ammunition. That’s what they’ll do. Maybe if you’re lucky, you knock one out for laying hands on you for illegitimate reasons, the others (they always come in packs) will aim their guns at you because you’re dangerous to them with just your hands. Most will probably just kill you right then and there. They have “qualified immunity” and won’t face any repercussions, because you were “belligerent” and “dangerous.” Maybe they’ll yell at you to get down. They won’t go away though. They’ll probably surround you and if you try to leave they’ll get “scared” and boom you’re dead. The point is they will escalate violence until it’s life or death. They ultimately enforce the law with the threat of murder.

To my knowledge, this is the only way a State can have laws. Hell, advanced restraining sounds more nightmarish than this. The point is that State enforced oppression is a big deal. If you are a 16 year old who decides that it’s your moral right to be able to travel as you please, and you try to use this right, the state will ultimately escalate violence until you are dead. They will lynch you like for exercising your civil rights. In contrast, the most decentralized oppressors can do is refuse to associate with you under various conditions. Sometimes it’s unfair, but it’s a lot different than the State sending a death squad after you for minding your own business.

So. Are teens the most oppressed? Yes. Teens are virtually treated like criminals on account of their age, similar to black people before 1960. They are treated like children, similar to women before feminism. Yet unlike criminals and children, teens don’t deserve it. Oppression is unjust subordination.

If you think they do deserve it, you’ve fallen prey to harmful, pseudo-scientific narratives that should make old-fashioned racial phrenologists blush. I debunk these narratives in my book, An Empirical Introduction to Youth. The gist is that all of the data agrees that the brain is developed by the age of 15. Even 13 and 14 year olds have judgment capacities that rival certain adult demographics. This makes sense because it would be weird for evolution to make people idiots until the age of 25 with mature, dangerous bodies. The "scientists" and the media who talk about these studies lie about their findings, similar to how 9/10 doctors used to recommend cigarettes. They do this because of who pays them: foundations like MacArthur and Johnson which are run by the owner class and their hired-brains, the PMC. The owner class set up the education system in order to offload corporate overhead, such as cost of training, onto tax-payers. The PMC were and are hired to improve this system using their brains, among other things. In the process of doing so, they inject their own desires and attempt to reduce teens and young adults to something like their servant-class, which exists to make them look important, to pay them tuition, low level work for them, and so on.

If this sounds extreme, just read Foucault! Power corrupts knowledge, and deceit is a fundamental tool of power. The point is to manage your opinions and to manufacture your consent. The :”default” view on this issue, like many issues in fact, is not to be trusted. Said view only benefits a small class of masters, and is extremely harmful to teens.