The fucking table really got me, like, what an absolutely mad idiot.
And then I see this reply.
I notice you have a table collecting and assessing possible harms from the practice but no similar table collecting and assessing possible benefits. In deciding whether to fight against some practice shouldn’t we want to figure out the net effect - benefits minus costs - rather than just costs?
Given how widespread the social phenomenon is, surely there must be some benefits?
( Something something Chesterton’s fence…)
Near as I can tell, the people who think it’s terrible are in large part motivated by largely-false quasi-Mathusian claims related to “overpopulation”. If we set those aside, younger brides tend to have more kids; all else being equal we should assume those kids have lots of extra QALYs (that wouldn’t otherwise exist) and also presumably make their parents happy. Are those married as children happier adults on average than those not? How do we balance a claimed higher risk of physical abuse against, say, a lower risk of ending up childless or alone or financially insecure?
Y’know I wasn’t expecting to see any award-winning arguments when I clicked the link to see the ‘full’ version of their post, but I’m still a little surprised that literally all the reason they gave was “something something Chesterton’s fence.” That’s just pathetic.
One of the least studied rationalist tics is “as far as I can tell, most people who believe X is bad think so because Y reason which nobody has ever brought up, but which I find easy to disregard”
Near as I can tell, the people who think it’s terrible are in large part motivated by largely-false quasi-Mathusian claims related to “overpopulation”.
somehow this person has gone their entire life without ever hearing about the concept of “conesnt”
The opening line is… certainly a phrase.
Later:
Ummmmmmmmmm
The fucking table really got me, like, what an absolutely mad idiot.
And then I see this reply.
Food for thought.
Y’know I wasn’t expecting to see any award-winning arguments when I clicked the link to see the ‘full’ version of their post, but I’m still a little surprised that literally all the reason they gave was “something something Chesterton’s fence.” That’s just pathetic.
One of the least studied rationalist tics is “as far as I can tell, most people who believe X is bad think so because Y reason which nobody has ever brought up, but which I find easy to disregard”
somehow this person has gone their entire life without ever hearing about the concept of “conesnt”