How Young Does Someone Have to be to Choose Their Sexuality?

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 103
#61
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Best.Korea

"Any parent can tell you that what a child wants at age nine isn't what they wanted at eight"

You dont understand the basic principle of individual sovereignty.

It is not about fullfilling every desire an individual has.

If child wants money to buy an iphone, parents have no obligation to provide the money.

If child has money to buy an iphone, parents have no right to force a child not to buy.

They can only talk with a child, assuming child wants to talk, until child changes opinion without force or violation of sovereignty.

Individual sovereignty is not about "you deciding who has sovereignty". It is about "you realizing that everyone has sovereignty".

So you disagree with government taking away your choice?

But you agree that choices should be taken away from young people by using the same justification as the government does when taking choice away from you?

Government thinks that you are too immature and uses that thinking to take away your choices from you.

So government uses your thinking.

Also, some young people of today will be members of the government in the future when they are older.
Since you taught them that its okay to take away choices from others if you find them immature, it is really just a wonderful cycle closing in on your people.

Can government use the same logic and think that you have no ability to comprehend important decisions and situations?

You want to take away choice from young people because you think you know better, so do you agree that government should be able to take away your choice if government thinks that it knows better than you?

Is the comparison wrong, and why?

Both government and parenting are based upon choices being taken away because someone thinks he knows better than others.
Great points.
#62
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Best.Korea
No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.

The argument that was made is that the justification for taking away choices is the same, which you failed to refute since you didnt find a difference in justification of each case.

What justification can you use to take away choices from young people, but that the government cant use to take away choices from you?
Well stated.

#63
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
So we should let kids cut off their arm if they want? Is this the hill you really want to die on?
To whom does said kid's arm belong? Who has more priority over how its treated than the one to whom it belongs? And you don't just have to "let" kids cut their arms off; as I stated, parents can exhaust every measure possible to persuade their kids as long as it does not involve coercion or violence.

The hill on which I'm willing to die, ILikePie5, is that no one dictates how I--or anyone else--behave my body other than I, whether I'm nine years-old, or ninety. If you have a contention, state it clearly, and provide your reasoning.
#64
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Athias
Well, I certainly think what you say, is worth thinking on,
Though I can't say I agree with 'all the implications or direction, that I think I see.
#65
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Athias
To whom does said kid's arm belong? Who has more priority over how it’s treated than the one to whom it belongs? And you don't just have to "let" kids cut their arms off; as I stated, parents can exhaust every measure possible to persuade their kids as long as it does not involve coercion or violence.
Why should a parent stop at coercion or violence? Is spanking really that bad? Is taking away toys videogames not a use of coercion. Your premise is inherently flawed.

The hill on which I'm willing to die, ILikePie5, is that no one dictates how I--or anyone else--behave my body other than I, whether I'm nine years-old, or ninety. If you have a contention, state it clearly, and provide your reasoning.
It’s pretty clear. A 9-year old should not be able to make a life altering decision such as chopping their arm off or getting their genitalia cut off when they are scientifically unable to gauge the consequences of their decisions. 
#66
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Why should a parent stop at coercion or violence?
Because applying coercion or violence both violates and harms the child, the very prospect which their "parenting" alleges it's preventing.

Is spanking really that bad?
Yes.

Is taking away toys videogames not a use of coercion.
If it was gifted to the child, then its theft.

Your premise is inherently flawed.
No, it isn't. If you have a contention, state it clearly, and provide your reasoning.

It’s pretty clear. A 9-year old should not be able to make a life altering decision such as chopping their arm off or getting their genitalia cut off when they are scientifically unable to gauge the consequences of their decisions. 
"Scientifically" gauging the consequences of one's decision is by no means a benchmark for one's capacity to act in accordance to one's own interests as it concerns one's own body--the only interests which matter when exercising discretion over one's possessions and belongings. I ask you again, "to whom does said kid's arm belong? Who has more priority over how its treated than the one to whom it belongs?" There's only one answer to these questions, ILikePie5. And if you're not conceding that the kid's arm belongs to said kid, then you're are tacitly suggesting that the kid's body belongs to his parents or the State. And if that's the case, you are applying the same flawed reasoning as YouFound_Lxam. Because if the parents' or State's interests over an individual's body matter more or take priority, then you have no choice but to accept the logical extension of your premise which would even be maintained under circumstances where the State coerces these children or parents coerce their children into physical transitions.

Your reasoning, ILikePie5, is not sound. Your reasoning is tantamount to, "coercion is fine, so long as it's being applied in service to my interests." What happens when it's not? Why do your interests matter at all as it concerns someone else's property--in this case, one's own body?
#67
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Athias
Because applying coercion or violence both violates and harms the child, the very prospect which their "parenting" alleges it's preventing.
So you are a pacifist? You’re clearly someone who does not believe in punishment 

Yes
Scientifically not really.

If it was gifted to the child, then its theft.
So if I buy a PS5 for my kid and then take it away, it’s theft? Lmfaoooo. What if I threaten to kick my child out of the house? More coercion? So what punishment would be fine. None according to you. Essentially, you believe kids shouldn’t be disciplined

No, it isn't. If you have a contention, state it clearly, and provide your reasoning.
It’s very clearly: children should not allowed to make life altering decisions like chopping off their genitalia or their arm 

"Scientifically" gauging the consequences of one's decision is by no means a benchmark for one's capacity to act in accordance to one's own interests as it concerns one's own body
False. Making a life altering decision like chopping your arm off as a 9 year old is wrong and goes against the concept of not just humanity, but life and nature itself from a moral standpoint. A 9 year old cannot make the best decision for themselves.

If a child is not susceptible to a parents punishment, the parent becomes the slave, no?

--the only interests which matter when exercising discretion over one's possessions and belongings. I ask you again, "to whom does said kid's arm belong?
That’s a red herring. Of course the kid operates his own arm. You wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden with your philosophy. Hell your philosophy wouldn’t allow handcuffs because it causes “harm”

Who has more priority over how its treated than the one to whom it belongs?"
Your perspective neglects every other, theory. Freedom theory does not overwhelm utilitarianism or virtue ethics in this scenario. To say it does means you’re lying to yourself.

There's only one answer to these questions, ILikePie5. And if you're not conceding that the kid's arm belongs to said kid, then you're are tacitly suggesting that the kid's body belongs to his parents or the State.
False. I am stating that it’s in the kids own self interest objectively not to chop off their harm. The fact that you disagree with this objective premise shows how far you are willing to go to defend your inherently flawed moral view on this subject.

And if that's the case, you are applying the same flawed reasoning as YouFound_Lxam. Because if the parents' or State's interests over an individual's body matter more or take priority, then you have no choice but to accept the logical extension of your premise which would even be maintained under circumstances where the State coerces these children or parents coerce their children into physical transitions.
Your freedom theory viewpoint holds no weight here in an objective realm. Objectively it’s wrong for a parent to let his or her child chop their arm off.

Your reasoning, ILikePie5, is not sound. Your reasoning is tantamount to, "coercion is fine, so long as it's being applied in service to my interests."
And that’s where you’re wrong. It’s not in my best interest. It’s in the best interest of the child objectively to not chop off their arm lol. 

What happens when it's not? Why do your interests matter at all as it concerns someone else's property--in this case, one's own body?
They’re not my interests. As a parent I would never let my child chop off their genitalia or their arm period until they’re 18.

The fact that you would be fine with this scares me. There’s no scenario here where we’d agree, so I am just going to end it here. Have a nice day
#68
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
So you are a pacifist?
In accordance to its strictest definition, no.

You’re clearly someone who does not believe in punishment 
How do you figure?

Scientifically not really.
Please explain how Science qualifies spanking.

So if I buy a PS5 for my kid and then take it away, it’s theft?
Yes.

What if I threaten to kick my child out of the house?
No. Your house belongs to you or the bank from which you mortgage it.

So what punishment would be fine. None according to you. Essentially, you believe kids shouldn’t be disciplined
I believe children should be instructed, which can involve punishment as long as it does not involve coercion or violence.

It’s very clearly: children should not allowed to make life altering decisions like chopping off their genitalia or their arm 
Why does anyone's interests over their arm or genitalia matter more  than the children to whom they belong?

False. Making a life altering decision like chopping your arm off as a 9 year old is wrong and goes against the concept of not just humanity, but life and nature itself from a moral standpoint.
First, how is any of this "scientific"? What tenets or items in the concept of humanity, life, or nature expressly condemns one's chopping one's arm off if one chooses to do so? Case in point: Aron Ralston is completely justified in amputating his own arm, but if a nine year-old were facing the same circumstances, it would be against humanity, life, nature, and all moral codes for said nine year-old to cut off his or her own arm?

If a child is not susceptible to a parents punishment, the parent becomes the slave, no?
Yes. (And this is your better contention.) Because parents have plenary responsibility, it would only make sense that they have plenary authority. I'm not at all suggesting that parents should be legally responsible for their children. In fact, I've always argued against it.

That’s a red herring.
No, it's not.

Of course the kid operates his own arm.
This is the red herring. There's no dispute over a child operating his or her own arm. The dispute is over the person to whom that arm BELONGS, and the implications of possessing one's own body.

You wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden with your philosophy
Why would I kill Osama Bin Laden?

Hell your philosophy wouldn’t allow handcuffs because it causes “harm”
Okay. And?

Your perspective neglects every other, theory. Freedom theory does not overwhelm utilitarianism or virtue ethics in this scenario.
Please cite which tenet of Utilitarian theory, or Virtue Ethics is being neglected?

False. I am stating that it’s in the kids own self interest objectively not to chop off their harm.
Nonsense. First, objectivity is irrational. Second, self-interests can only be gauged by the self. What you have stated here is nothing more than a platitude you and others use to justify forcing your own "subjective" interests on someone else--in this case, kids.

The fact that you disagree with this objective premise...
Again, objectivity is irrational. There's no observation you can exhibit or represent that isn't subject to the bias of yourself.

Your freedom theory viewpoint holds no weight here in an objective realm
Of course it doesn't; because, unlike objectivity, Freedom theory is rational.

They’re not my interests.
Of course they are. If your child states to you his or her intentions to cut his or her arm off, and you don't want that child to cut his or her arm off, then whose interest are they?

As a parent I would never let my child chop off their genitalia or their arm period until they’re 18.
What's the difference? Aren't the consequences the same?

The fact that you would be fine with this scares me.
No offense, but I'm not particularly interested in how others "feel" when it concerns one's propriety discretion over one's body.

Have a nice day
Your call.
Topic's author
#69
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
If it was gifted to the child, then its theft.
Legal definition of theft: Theft is the taking of another person's personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. Also referred to as larceny.

Legal definition of property: property. n. anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: "real property," which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and "personal property" (sometimes called "personality"), which is everything else.

The child was gifted this item. It was bought and given by the parent. If you really think it is theft to punish your kids by taking away things you gave them, then I suggest you take it up with the law. 

Kids can't and don't legally own anything without legal documentation of the parents saying they do. 
Laws and regulations don't even let kids have their parents' inheritance until they are 18 years of age.

 I ask you again, "to whom does said kid's arm belong? Who has more priority over how its treated than the one to whom it belongs?
Yes, the arm does belong to the kid, but you don't want to use that argument, because I could say the same about the kid's life. So is it morally right, and does the kid have the right to take his own life.

Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't argue that suicide is morally ok.

And if that's the case, you are applying the same flawed reasoning as YouFound_Lxam.
What flawed reasoning?


Topic's author
#70
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Then the parent(s) can do everything within their capacity to persuade the child so long as it does not involve coercion or violence.
Yes, this is exactly what parents can do. This is why we need good parents to RAISE good kids.
Topic's author
#71
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
I would presume virtually everyone has made a decision that they've later regretted; it wouldn't have made it any less their decision to have made. It's a slippery slope: if you're going to argue that how one behave one's body is subject to the discretion of those who have different interests, e.g. parents, custodians, the State, etc., then as my hypothetical above demonstrates, the child's body is the within domain of someone else's whim whether it's to the child's presumed benefit or harm.
This is wrong. This exact thinking is why our society is declining. People are thinking too hard into argument about why it's right for a kid to do what they want with their body, BUT ITS NOT. There is a reason that kids aren't allowed to drink, get tattoos, own guns, own property or businesses, or make medically life changing decisions, because if that was all legal, then most of the kids in the world, who have parents that don't care for or love them will not make it.
Topic's author
#72
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Aron Ralston is completely justified in amputating his own arm, but if a nine year-old were facing the same circumstances, it would be against humanity, life, nature, and all moral codes for said nine year-old to cut off his or her own arm?
Yes, THAT IS MY EXACT POINT. 
Topic's author
#73
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Yes. (And this is your better contention.) Because parents have plenary responsibility, it would only make sense that they have plenary authority. I'm not at all suggesting that parents should be legally responsible for their children. In fact, I've always argued against it.
I believe children should be instructed, which can involve punishment as long as it does not involve coercion or violence.

If parents weren't legally responsible for their children, there would be a lot more child abuse than if they weren't your contradicting yourself. 


"statistics show that women-only households are more likely to live below the poverty line. In 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that these types of families increased to 28 percent. This leaves children vulnerable to a variety of social hardships throughout their lives.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) notes that 1 in 5 children (more than 40 percent) of children in the U.S. fall into the category of "poor or near-poor." While this includes families with two parents as well, the study shows the disadvantages these children face."

This is just what happens when one parent is gone from the household. 


Topic's author
#74
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
What's the difference? Aren't the consequences the same?
Yes, they are different, because if you have a kid who wants to chop off their limb when they are a child, then they are too scientifically immature to see the consequences, but if they are persistent, then you tell them to wait until they are an adult. By the time that comes around, they will have learned years more experience about the world. If they don't learn, that's on either you the parent, or their ignorance. But there is a huge chance they will just laugh off how stupid they were when they were a child. 
Topic's author
#75
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Of course they are. If your child states to you his or her intentions to cut his or her arm off, and you don't want that child to cut his or her arm off, then whose interest are they?
Of course, your child is allowed to have interests but since you as the parent love your child, you don't want them to hurt themselves, and it is LITERALLY AGAINST HUMAN AND BIOLOGICAL NATURE TO CUT OFF ONE OF YOUR LIMBS JUST BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE IT. So, if your child's interests are to cut off their limbs, then you need to take them into therapy and get them help.
Topic's author
#76
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Aron Ralston is completely justified in amputating his own arm, but if a nine year-old were facing the same circumstances, it would be against humanity, life, nature, and all moral codes for said nine year-old to cut off his or her own arm?
Aron Ralston had to cut off his arm, because he would have died if he hadn't. He didn't just feel like doing that, he had to sacrifice his body part to save something more important, his life. If you're going to use Aron Ralston to argue this, then that's a bad example.
Topic's author
#77
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
First, how is any of this "scientific"?

"During adolescence, brains undergo continued growth, and different sections of the brain develop at different rates. The emotional centers of the brain, towards the middle and back, develop first. Maybe you’ve heard of the amygdala or hippocampus before — these are the areas of the brain that play a big part in how people feel and react. On the other hand, the front part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, is involved in reasoning and weighing decisions. Adolescents’ emotional centers mature before their decision-making centers. In other words, teen brains are programmed to have strongly developed emotional responses even as the part of the brain that interprets and calms those emotions is still actively developing."
#78
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"you as the parent love your child, you don't want them to hurt themselves"

I was waiting for someone to make this mistake.

Your society hurts children every day. Parents hurt children every day. Cars hurt children every day. Pollution hurts children every day. Meat hurts children every day. Junk food hurts children every day. Porn hurts children every day. Religion hurts children every day.

If you and your society had kid's best interests in mind, you would ban these things.

You are a denier of your own moral system.

What this proves is that you and your society do not have kid's best interests as your main interests. Society has its own interests that often conflict with child's best interests, proving that almost no one in your society will place greatest importance on kids.

Since you cannot guarantee that you have kid's best interests in mind when taking away their choice, it follows that you base your viewpoint on an assumption.

This makes your argument useless, since you based it on a fairy tale of a heroic individual who cares about others more than himself. The fact that you are not even able to identify such an individual in your society, let alone to give him the task of taking care of all children, proves that your entire argument relies upon an assumption that some random people you never even met are actually 100% good and caring.

You cant even explain what best interests are, because everyone has different version of best interests.

You didnt explain which individual in your society will place greatest importance on kid's interests.

If you cannot find such an individual, then your system of "best interests" is impossible to implement and remains only a dream that cannot be effectively realized.

How do you know who has kid's best interests in mind? Is it the government? The majority? Who?

You cant even prove that you have their best interests in mind.

People dont even agree on what best interests are. They keep changing opinions all the time.

And your counter argument was based on an even greater fairy tale of kids wanting to cut off their arms, which if true still wouldnt cause as much harm as you claim, since you didnt understand this line: "Parents can use punishments, but not coercion or violence".

The fact that you assume how you need to use violence to prevent a kid from cutting off his own arm shows that your thinking is limited to threats and violence.

Do you admit that you cannot raise kids without using violence?

The system of individuals owning their bodies works.

Why?

If others cant use my body without my will, then I have something in this world that is mine.

If a person has to be a property for his whole life, then a person has nothing. And your system, by making everyone under 18 a property, condemns everyone who lives less than 18 years to be a property their entire life.
Topic's author
#79
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Your society hurts children every day. Parents hurt children every day. Cars hurt children every day. Pollution hurts children every day. Meat hurts children every day. Junk food hurts children every day. Porn hurts children every day. Religion hurts children every day.
Yes, this is true, but not my society, every society does, and yes it does happen. I was not saying that loving your kid goes for all parents, but I was saying that as a good parent, you should love your kids in that way.

If you and your society had kid's best interests in mind, you would ban these things.
If our society banned all these things, then it wouldn't be a free country now would it. 

What this proves is that you and your society do not have kid's best interests as your main interests. Society has its own interests that often conflict with child's best interests, proving that almost no one in your society will place greatest importance on kids.
First of all, who are you to say that I don't have kids' best interests as my main interest. You barely know anything about me. Yes, society definitely doesn't have kids' best interest at heart. What are you trying to prove by saying that? Are you trying to say that since society as a whole doesn't put kids first, means that no one puts kids first?

Since you cannot guarantee that you have kid's best interests in mind when taking away their choice, it follows that you base your viewpoint on an assumption.
Again, you can't take away a kid's choice, when they don't have it in the first place. And they shouldn't give that they are kids. This doesn't mean you should treat your kids as slaves taking away choices from them, but you as an adult are scientifically more mature, and if we are assuming that you love your kids, which a lot of family's do, then you will do anything in your power to help them and teach them to grow up the best life they can. 

You cant even explain what best interests are, because everyone has different version of best interests.
This isn't even an argument because you are trying to get me to specify what best interests are. There are different best interests that families have, but I think we can all agree that loving families are trying to improve their kids' lives to a better extent from their own lives. Now is that so bad. I'm not talking about interests like what you're interested in. I'm talking about best interests as in doing things that can better any child's life not a specific one.

You didnt explain which individual in your society will place greatest importance on kid's interests.
Ok and?

How do you know who has kid's best interests in mind? 
Because given not people, but most people want society to progress, and you can't do that unless you raise your kids right, put their best interests at heart.

The fact that you assume how you need to use violence to prevent a kid from cutting off his own arm shows that your thinking is limited to threats and violence.
When did I ever say we need to use violence. I said discipline, two different things.

Violence: "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
Discipline: "the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience."

The system of individuals owning their bodies works. Why? If others cant use my body without my will, then I have something in this world that is mine.
YES. I totally agree with this statement. But not when it comes to kids, who DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN BODYS YET.

If a person has to be a property for his whole life, then a person has nothing. And your system, by making everyone under 18 a property, condemns everyone who lives less than 18 years to be a property their entire life.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth that I hadn't even said. You are using words, that are completely different from what I'm saying. Get a better vocabulary.

You are taking the fact of a lot of people don't care about kids, and turning it into, no one cares about kids, and you just want to hurt kids. If you want to actually win a debate, then I suggest listening to other arguments, before assuming.
#80
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Their argument is so far fetched. They’re literally arguing you can’t punish your child. No objective person would think kids should be allowed to chop off their arms if they choose without parental consent.
Topic's author
#81
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Your society hurts children every day. Parents hurt children every day. Cars hurt children every day. Pollution hurts children every day. Meat hurts children every day. Junk food hurts children every day. Porn hurts children every day. Religion hurts children every day.
You need to learn the difference between intentionally hurting someone and unintentionally hurting someone. 
Like yea, junk food hurts people, but people don't intentionally feed their kids junk food just to hurt them, usually in fact it's the opposite.
#82
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Yes, this is true, but not my society, every society does"

You concede that your society doesnt have kid's best interests in mind.

"If our society banned all these things, then it wouldn't be a free country now would it."

Do you want freedom or best interests? And no, you cant have both, as confirmed by your own sentence.

"First of all, who are you to say that I don't have kids' best interests as my main interest."

Why would I think that you have kid's best interests in mind? Just one line ago, you were justifying things that arent in kid's best interest.

"Again, you can't take away a kid's choice, when they don't have it in the first place"

You concede that children are property.

"This isn't even an argument because you are trying to get me to specify what best interests are."

Which you cannot do, because:

"There are different best interests"

"We can all agree that loving families are trying to improve their kids' lives"

So now we have moved from "best interests" to "loving"

This is what happens when you cannot define your own moral system.

"I'm talking about best interests as in doing things that can better any child's life not a specific one."

You defined best as something that improves life? But you already admitted that you dont want to improve life by banning junk food and cars, so you have some of your version of "improving" that has nothing to do with best intetests.

"Ok and?"

You concede that you cannot know who has your version of "best interests" in their  mind. You concede that even you dont completely believe in best interests, making the system of best interests merely your excuse to use when you see fit and to discard when you see fit.

"most people want society to progress"
"put their best interests at heart"

At start, you conceded that society hurts kids.
Now you switch story again and say that society has best interests in mind.

Which is it?

"When did I ever say we need to use violence. I said discipline"

Do you approve the corporal punishment? Just answer, simple yes or no.

If yes, then answer this:

Does corporal punishment involve painful involuntary contact on someone's body?

A simple yes or no.

"YES. I totally agree with this statement. But not when it comes to kids, who DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN BODYS YET."

Since you conceded that children are property, why do you oppose to how people treat their property?

"Again, you are putting words into my mouth that I hadn't even said"

You clearly stated in this forum that children are property of their parents. Do you need to be reminded?

"You are taking the fact of a lot of people don't care about kids"

You are contradicting yourself. First you conceded that most people dont care about kids, then you changed your mind and said that most people do care, now you claim again that most people dont care about kids.

You changed your mind 3 times in one comment?

"and turning it into, no one cares about kids"

Do you care about kids and do you agree to  ban cars and all the other things I listed as "kid's best interests"? Or do you not care about kid's best interests when it doesnt suit you, making your moral system inconsistent?

"You need to learn the difference between intentionally hurting someone and unintentionally hurting someone."

Lets proceed to your explanation.

"people don't intentionally feed their kids junk food just to hurt them"

Are you conceding that people dont know that junk food is harmful? 

In that case, their lack of knowledge makes "best interests" unachivable.

If people do know that junk food is harmful and they care about kid's best interests, why do they give junk food to kids?

The answer is simple. You cant define best interests. Your system is a moral perversion where you sometimes care, sometimes dont. No one knows exactly what you mean when you say best interests, because your definition changes all the time.

Since you failed to define best interests, and failed to stick to your own definitions, we can safely say that you dont know what best interests are.
#83
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ILikePie5
"Their argument is so far fetched."

Can you or can you not explain what best interests are?

"They’re literally arguing you can’t punish your child."

No one argued this in this forum.

What was argued is that you cant violate child's body or property.

So you are free to use your property as means of punishment.

"No objective person would think kids should be allowed to chop off their arms if they choose"

We have already seen that you are unable to define what is "objective".

So go ahead, define what do you mean by "objective".

"without parental consent"

You concede that children are property of their parents. So why do you object to what people do with their property?
#84
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
"it is LITERALLY AGAINST HUMAN AND BIOLOGICAL NATURE TO CUT OFF ONE OF YOUR LIMBS JUST BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE IT"

What is human nature? Opinion of majority?

What is biological nature? Opinion of majority?

Go ahead now, give us your answer so that we see why you are wrong.
Topic's author
#85
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Can you or can you not explain what best interests are?

You concede that your society doesnt have kid's best interests in mind.
Yes, no society as a whole has kid's best interests at mind, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there are still a lot of people with kids' best interests at mind. 

Do you want freedom or best interests? And no, you cant have both, as confirmed by your own sentence.
Yes, you can have both. Thats stupid to say you can't. Interests aren't something that people always act on, it's something that people want. So, if there is freedom, people can't choose what they want to do? 

Just one line ago, you were justifying things that arent in kid's best interest.
No, I wasn't quote it then. 

You concede that children are property.
In a way children are property; they are in the care of their parents until they are 18. Now not property as in slaves, but property as in how the specific parents treat them. I will say there are a lot of parents who treat their kids like crap, but that's why we have social services.

So now we have moved from "best interests" to "loving"
You are taking pieces from different parts of the argument and connecting them in ways that they don't connect. You can't have someone's best interest unless you love them to an extent. Otherwise, they wouldn't care.

You defined best as something that improves life? But you already admitted that you dont want to improve life by banning junk food and cars, so you have some of your version of "improving" that has nothing to do with best intetests.
Well, why would you want to ban those things, it's a complicated thing. Yes, you want the best for your kids and everyone else, but again if you want everyone to be happy, you have to have some freedoms to an extent. This is why parents tell their kids to eat their vegetables, look both ways before crossing the street, and to stay away from drugs. Those things have to exist to keep society (adults who understand what they are doing) happy. But that doesn't mean you can't help your kids to learn.

At start, you conceded that society hurts kids.
Now you switch story again and say that society has best interests in mind.
Again, I said society as a whole doesn't have kid's best interests, but loving parents do, and there are a lot of those.

Do you approve the corporal punishment? Just answer, simple yes or no. If yes, then answer this: Does corporal punishment involve painful involuntary contact on someone's body?
I do to an extent. Spanking for instance can cause pain to the child, but it teaches them. It doesn't hurt the child to a point where they need medical attention, it only hurts them for a second. I personally like the Idea of spanking the child, and after telling them why they did it, and that they still love them. Thats what my parents did to me, and it worked out pretty well. Now if you're talking about torture, then I completely disagree with that. And if you say spanking a child is torture, then that is just plain stupid.

Since you conceded that children are property, why do you oppose to how people treat their property?
This has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. And has nothing to do with the argument.

You are contradicting yourself. First you conceded that most people dont care about kids, then you changed your mind and said that most people do care, now you claim again that most people dont care about kids.
Yes, I did say that most people don't care about kids, but a lot of people do. Now if I were to say that no one cares about kids, then say a lot of people do, then that would be a contradiction.

"You need to learn the difference between intentionally hurting someone and unintentionally hurting someone." Lets proceed to your explanation.
Why quote me and then just not reply to it.

Are you conceding that people dont know that junk food is harmful? 
Junk food isn't harmful, unless eaten in big quantities for a long time. Yes, is unhealthy but not harmful for just a meal. And some people surprisingly don't, given they were grown up eating only that. 

What is human nature? Opinion of majority? What is biological nature? Opinion of majority?

Human Nature: the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans.

Biological Nature: of or connected with biology; of plants and animals. 2. of the nature of living matter.

Now if you want to get into a moral argument, I will happily do so.

I have told you all my answers, and you are throwing up red herrings, and switching up words.

I will say this only one more time. 

I believe that children should not be allowed to make life changing decisions, because they are not fully developed, and not fully mature yet. If they were allowed to, it would be morally wrong and their would-be big consequences. Like they say, you give them an edge, they take it all. 

I believe that kids should be disciplined, not violently hurt intentionally. I believe they should be intentionally disciplined, but not violently hurt.

#86
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You gave a long definition of best interests.

Since the definition includes "capacity to provide love", we will work with that.

"I'm arguing that there are still a lot of people with kids' best interests at mind."

And you assume you are one of them.

"Interests aren't something that people always act on, it's something that people want. So, if there is freedom, people can't choose what they want to do?"

So should people have freedom not to act in kid's best interest?

"In a way children are property"

Since you clearly confirmed that children are property, here is the question:

Who should be able to make decisions related to child's body?

Society? Government? You? Scientists? Parents?

Who gets the final say?

"You can't have someone's best interest unless you love them"

Since you defined best interests as having capacity to provide love, we will work with this.

"Yes, you want the best for your kids and everyone else, but again if you want everyone to be happy, you have to have some freedoms to an extent."

So are you willing to sacrifice best interests and let children ruin their health with junk food or die in car accidents for the sake of freedom?

"Those things have to exist to keep society happy."

You claim that you cant be happy without junk food and cars.

Are you willing to sacrifice your happiness for kid's best interests?

Or will you sacrifice kids for your happiness?

"I said society as a whole doesn't have kid's best interests, but loving parents do"

Do you have kid's best interests in mind?

"it only hurts them for a second. I personally like the Idea of spanking the child, and after telling them why they did it, and that they still love them."

How much harm is prevented by spanking? Will spanking make children less violent?

"it teaches them"

What does it teach them? What do you teach a child when you hurt him?

"Junk food isn't harmful"

So why do people get cavities?

"Human Nature: the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans."

You concede that human nature is something shared by all humans.

Do you think that we should oppose to all behaviour and all feelings that are not shared by all humans?

"Biological Nature: of or connected with biology; of plants and animals"

Are we supposed to copy the  behavior of plants and animals, and behave like plants and animals?

"I have told you all my answers, and you are throwing up red herrings, and switching up words."

You conceded that you consider children property.

Now I am waiting for you to answer: who owns children?

"I believe that children should not be allowed to make life changing decisions"

After you answer who should make decisions about child's body, you will have the answer to who can decide if they can transition or not.
Topic's author
#87
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Since you clearly confirmed that children are property, here is the question: Who should be able to make decisions related to child's body?  Society? Government? You? Scientists? Parents? Who gets the final say?
This is a very good question. I believe that parents should make decisions related to the child's body, as long as it stays within legal standards. If just the parents made those decisions, then the parents could decide to do morally wrong things to the kid. Thats why it should be shared with the law, and the parents. The parents should be able to make decisions as far as, what treatments to do when they get sick, what schools they go to, where and when they go places, etc. The law should be in control of the extent of the parents making those decisions, for example: Life altering decisions, should not be made by the parent unless the child is already in a life-or-death situation. Again, I bring up social services to make sure kids aren't being mistreated. Of course, it won't catch all the cases, but it's better than having no prevention at all. 

"I'm arguing that there are still a lot of people with kids' best interests at mind." And you assume you are one of them.
Yes, I do care about kids. I do not assume I know. 

So should people have freedom not to act in kid's best interest?
Yes, they should. I personally don't agree with it, but just because you don't agree with other adults' decision of not caring about kids, doesn't mean you should force them to care about kids. Thats them as a person. You can't force that change. Now of course that doesn't go for all decision adults make.

You claim that you cant be happy without junk food and cars.
This is a false statement, I said that society will not be comfortable without rights, not me as a person will not be comfortable without junk food or cars. Again, it's not right for society to have these greedy feelings, but you can't make changes on those types of rights without having major backlash.

Are you willing to sacrifice your happiness for kid's best interests?
Yes. 

How much harm is prevented by spanking? Will spanking make children less violent?
I'm not saying spanking is the only discipline you should use to discipline your children, but it is one of the effective ways of doing it. I believe that you should spank your children at a certain age, so it teaches them to listen, not get caught, and be fearful of their parents. But as they get older, you should approach them more differently, like time out, and taking away their privileges, and teaching them what's wrong.

"Explain to kids what you expect of them before you punish them for a behavior. The first time your 3-year-old uses crayons to decorate the living room wall, discuss why that's not allowed and what will happen if your child does it again (for instance, your child will have to help clean the wall and will not be able to use the crayons for the rest of the day). If the wall gets decorated again a few days later, issue a reminder that crayons are for paper only and then enforce the consequences."

This is one of the examples of a way to punish your child without spanking, but spanking is still effective.

"Junk food isn't harmful" So why do people get cavities?
Don't cut off pieces of my quote to make a point read the whole thing next time. 

You concede that human nature is something shared by all humans.
Yes......given that it's called human nature I would assume it is shared by all humans.

you will have the answer to who can decide if they can transition or not.
I believe that children should not be allowed to transition at all, because though adults are smarter than them, there are some adults, especially now a days, that will do anything to kids just to push their own political agenda. I don't believe that kids should be able to make any life altering decisions like that and no one should be allowed to make those life altering decisions for them except for parents, and only when it is a life-or-death situation. Otherwise, they will have to wait until they are 18 years of age to make whatever decisions they want. 






#88
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Thats why it should be shared with the law, and the parents."

You agree that government and parents should make decisions about child's body according to their will.

If government decides that child should transition, then child will transition.

Simple, really. Now you have to convince the government as to why transition is bad.

"I said that society will not be comfortable without rights, not me as a person will not be comfortable without junk food or cars. Again, it's not right for society to have these greedy feelings, but you can't make changes on those types of rights without having major backlash."

You agree that its not right for society to hurt children, but you claim that you cant do anything about it.
Would you agree that you cant do anything about child transitioning?

"I believe that you should spank your children at a certain age, so it teaches them to listen, not get caught, and be fearful of their parents."

Not getting caught, being fearful and obedient - are these good characteristics for a person to have?

"Don't cut off pieces of my quote to make a point read the whole thing next time."

Your whole line was about junk food not being harmful if consumed only in small quantities. So I ask: why do people get cavities? Do you think that people can control themselves and only eat small quantities? If not, then existence of junk food results in harm.

"Yes......given that it's called human nature I would assume it is shared by all humans."

So is the behavior wrong if it is not shared by all humans?
And what behavior is shared by all humans?

"I believe that children should not be allowed to transition at all"
Because:
"there are some adults, especially now a days, that will do anything to kids just to push their own political agenda"

Would you do anything to kids to push your own political agenda? Didnt you label kids as property? Didnt you say that they shouldnt have a choice just to push the anti-transition politics? Didnt you say they need to be spanked to be obedient?

"I don't believe that kids should be able to make any life altering decisions like that and no one should be allowed to make those life altering decisions for them except for parents, and only when it is a life-or-death situation."

So your objection is that their decision alters their life, so you want to alter their decision so it suits your world views.

Why does it bother you if someone wants to alter their life?

Instead of allowing a child to decide about their body and property, you want to take that decision to the future adult they may be.

We have already seen that you cannot even guarantee that the child will become an adult, let alone what decisions will he regret or not.

Your moral system is based on a chance. Its not "children will regret". Its "children could regret". This "could regret" does not apply same to all transitioning proceedures, nor it applies same to any decisions in general.

Do you know what percentage of them regret transition, and do you know what percentage of trans adults wishes they had transition as children?

Despite me saying that if children have money and doctor is willing to perform, then they should be able to transition, you still misunderstood it.

You misunderstood it simply because you assumed "child controls his own body = child has money for surgery and adult consents to perform it".

I am saying again: if child has money and manages to convince a doctor to perform surgery, why should parents get a say or the government?

Why does "future adult could want" matter more than what child wants now?

Are decisions negated by the chance of regret? What chance of regret negates a decision?
Topic's author
#89
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
You agree that government and parents should make decisions about child's body according to their will.
No, they, should make decisions for children for their best interest.

If government decides that child should transition, then child will transition.
No, because it is the people's/parent's decision as well.

You agree that it's not right for society to hurt children, but you claim that you can't do anything about it.
.... Yes......that is exactly what I agree with.

Would you agree that you cant do anything about child transitioning?
I agree that I'm not in a position of power to make that kind of decision, but as a US citizen, I have a voice to express what should be done.

Not getting caught, being fearful and obedient - are these good characteristics for a person to have?
Ok I mistyped. I meant to say not getting into trouble, instead of not getting caught. And when I say fearful, I mean respectfully fearful of their parents, but besides that yes those are good characteristics for a person to have.

So, is the behavior wrong if it is not shared by all humans?
No, human nature is not always good, it is both good and bad things. But cutting your limbs and organs out is certainly not a part of human nature. 

And what behavior is shared by all humans?
Human behavior?......

Would you do anything to kids to push your own political agenda? Didnt you label kids as property? Didnt you say that they shouldnt have a choice just to push the anti-transition politics? Didnt you say they need to be spanked to be obedient?
No, I would not do anything to my kids to push my own political agenda. And in a way, yes, they are property, for you to mold into a good and successful person, but that doesn't mean they aren't humans with feelings and emotions. You just have to be careful about disciplining your parents. Yes, they do need to be spanked and to be obedient, because if they just grew up as kids with no obedience, then they wouldn't' t be able to survive the world. By disciplining them, you are setting them up for success.

So, your objection is that their decision alters their life, so you want to alter their decision, so it suits your world views.
YES, IT DOES! Their decision does alter their life. It would be stupid to think it doesn't. 

No, I do not want to alter their decisions, I want to persuade them to make the right decisions.

In the end your children are yours to shape and mold, but once they leave, it's up to them to make their own decisions.

Why does it bother you if someone wants to alter their life?
It doesn't when it is an adult, but when it is a child, then it bothers me, because of basic morals. The child is not smart enough, and could hurt themselves, or ruin their body's, without realizing it.

Instead of allowing a child to decide about their body and property, you want to take that decision to the future adult they may be.
Yes....that is exactly my point.

Your moral system is based on a chance. Its not "children will regret". Its "children could regret". This "could regret" does not apply same to all transitioning proceedures, nor it applies same to any decisions in general.

Ok and? The reason we haven't seen studies on people regretting these things, is because it has just started right now. There have been a couple of cases of people regretting it. This next generation will show the rest of them.

Despite me saying that if children have money and doctor is willing to perform, then they should be able to transition, you still misunderstood it.
How would a child go about getting these types of surgeries to change their bodies without money?

I am saying again: if child has money and manages to convince a doctor to perform surgery, why should parents get a say or the government?
Because that child is too immature to understand the consequences of their actions.

Why does "future adult could want" matter more than what child wants now?
Because they are more mature and educated to make that decision.

#90
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
"Because that child is too immature to understand the consequences of their actions."

Can children understand the consequences of your actions? If not, then why are your actions towards them better than their own actions?

Why is your action to forbid transition better than child's action of seeking transition?

"Future adult" gets to choose because:

"Because they are more mature and educated to make that decision."

We have already seen that you cannot even guarantee that the child will become an adult in the future, let alone what decisions will he regret or not.

Since you dont know if future adult will regret a decision or agree with it, then your argument is worthless.

When you make a decision instead of a child, you have to be at least 50% certain that future adult will agree with you.

If the future adult doesnt agree with you, then your argument fails.

"There have been a couple of cases of people regretting it"

A couple of cases? So you base your decision on 2 out of 1000 cases? You admit that you would be right only in 0.2% of cases, and wrong in 99.8% of cases? You admit that child's decision would be right 99.8% of the time? What?

"This next generation will show the rest of them"

What percentage of them will regret it? You havent answered.