It's self evident and part of civilized society that minors dont always have the same rights and privileges and abilities as adults
Unless you can solve the contradiction which comes with giving one part of population ability to deny other of body autonomy, I am afraid nothing is self-evident. Also, UN declaration of rights says children get a choice, so I am not sure what "self evident" thing are you talking about. You are supposed to make arguments.
Here is the best test of your philosophy. If you have xx chromosomes, have a baby without sperm.
You can with AI, but I never claimed to be able to have baby without sperm, so its irrelevant to anything ever.
It wasn't a concession genius
I dont know what mental illness do you suffer from, but its funny.
If you assert all have ability, then you must assert all have inability
Ability of A cannot at the same time be inability of A.
If you have ability to make a child, you have inability to do it with your own body alone
And?
If you have ability to identify self, then you have inability to define what isnt self outside of self
So if people dont have ability to define others, that doesnt even disprove my argument. But nowhere did I make the claim that people cannot define things outside themselves. I merely stated that people claiming ownership of others results in contradiction. What you are saying has nothing to do with any of my arguments.
If you have ability to determine what is true, then you must acknowledge your inability to know all truths,
Each person can determine truth regarding their own body. Other option is that no one can determine truth, which is self defeating. So if your claim is that no one can determine truth, such claim likewise wouldnt be true by your own logic.
you are unable to ascertain or verify self and truth outside yourself.
I am sure people have eyes and senses and logic which are used to verify truth outside themselves. But again, I dont see what does that have to do with my arguments. People cannot impose their truth on others, and that argument still remains true. So instead of saying irrelevant things, maybe you can try solving the contradiction:
Because 1 would enable anyone to impose truth on anyone and negate anyone's truth, it is self contradicting.
So it is either 1 or 2, and 1 is self contradictive.
So unless you can provide explanation how 1 isnt contradictive, the only thing remaining is 2.
Because 1 obviously requires that certain person or group is "superior" in justification in order to be justified imposing, and justification itself requires ability to determine justification as valid, and this ability likewise cannot be decided to belong to any specific group alone.
So if no specific group holds "special power" to make valid justification, no valid justification can be made by any group.
Arbitrary justifications are not enough and these can be made by anyone, thus useful to no one.
Sure, if person wants to be called that.
The principal is inherently false, it attempts to insinuate knowledge of truth.
It is false because it attempts to be true?
Your principal of powers is also false. Not only do you undermine free will as to attain to what powers you desire, you also actively disregard the natural and inherit inabilities that are in similar nature of that power.
I suggest writing your counter argument in a more logical form. Free will wasnt even mentioned by me. Also, ability to determine who has no ability is self contradictive, because you cant decide who has that ability.
This should cover my position on many issues without me directly arguing for anything too sensitive. So if this open forum has a response, they are welcome to give it.
Theorem: Body Ownership is Inalienable
Axioms / Principles
Principle of Equal Powers (PEP): Any ability given to one person must, by fairness, be given to all.
Types of Abilities:
Among the abilities covered by PEP are:
a. The ability to determine truth.
b. The ability to determine moral truth.
c. The ability to determine what counts as sufficient justification.
Definition of Ownership: To own X means no one else may rightfully remove X from the owner.
Proof Step 1. Consider body ownership.
There are two possible assignments of ability:
Case A: A person has the ability to decide when others lose body ownership.
Case B: A person does not have that ability.
Step 2. Suppose Case A is true.
Then, by PEP, if one person can decide a justification for stripping body ownership, all people must have the same ability.
Step 3. If all people can decide what counts as sufficient justification, then:
For any reason whatsoever, anyone could declare another person’s body ownership void.
Since this ability is universal, everyone can simultaneously void everyone else’s ownership.
Step 4. If everyone can void everyone else’s ownership, then secure body ownership does not exist.
Contradiction: “ownership” cannot exist if no one can securely hold it (by Axiom 3).
Step 5. Therefore, Case A is impossible.
Step 6. By elimination, only Case B remains: no one has the ability to decide when others lose body ownership.
Step 7. From Case B, it follows that body ownership is inalienable: each person necessarily owns their own body, and this cannot be revoked by others.
Corollary: Application to Trans Kids
Ownership of one’s body includes authority to decide what to do with it, including medical choices. Denying a trans child the right to make medical decisions about their body would mean granting others the ability to decide when body ownership can be overridden. By the proof above, such a power cannot be selectively granted; if granted at all, it must be universal, which destroys ownership. Therefore, denying trans kids’ medical decisions on body ownership grounds is logically impossible.
Lex Talionis is a principle which says that any ability given to one person must be given to all.
What does this mean?
Abilities such as:
Think about what this means in case of body ownership.
There are only two options:
Should 2 be given to one person, it would be given to all, and no contradiction would follow.
But if 1 were to be given to one person, per Lex Talionis, it would be given to all. But then, a contradiction follows. If everyone has ability to deny everyone of body ownership, then no one can have body ownership.
Likewise, it doesnt matter which justification person uses to deny body ownership. The ability to determine sufficient justification would per Lex Talionis likewise be universal. So anyone could for any reason deny body ownership of anyone.
Because 1 is objectively false, only 2 can be true: person cannot determine when other people lose body ownership.
Because no one can take away body ownership from others, it follows that everyone has body ownership.
This includes trans kids. In other words, they own their bodies, and thus can make modifications to their bodies at will.
So if doctor approves, and parents provide money for surgery, it is not possible to logically deny trans kids of surgery.
Are you sure that it is not you who makes up such ideas?
WHEN PERSON WRITES LIKE THIS, IT IS CONSIDERED YELLING!
But yeah, too much hate online to be able to debate anything. I think even free speech doesnt help when one of us is incapable to understand the other.
You are a bitchy and petty asshole if you think calling Caitlyn Jenner a man is the same as taking away their human rights because you disagree with a classificationist issue
I dont think misgendering is any serious crime. I just consider it not polite for me to use it.
You can say that, but many even oppose trans gender care. So I would say there are people trying to decide how much body ownership can other people have. Now, I also support self-determination when it comes to names. I dont give people names. People tell me their names and that is how I call them. Tho I understand one can use freedom to give people names.
If your position is obvious, then you should be able to convince people in an open forum
All I get in an open forum is yelling and insults. So from my conclusion, either I am completely dumb either my opponents are all braindead, and neither option really favors me in any way in a discussion. So I dont really have plans of convincing people into anything. If they will change their minds in future, they will do so anyway irrelevant of if I debate them or not, and if they wont, they wont.
Being gay was illegal for a long time. Popular masses are only capable of seeing the present. They dont know the past, nor the future!
I believe in people having control over their bodies. So if woman wants to defend from threat, she can.
Wydm? Indians work in tech sectors; that takes a high IQ.
High IQ doesnt mean smart, as proved by his voting justification.
If anything and everything can pop into existence, then a GOD is irrelevant and unnecessary.
If everything pops into existence, then God does too, so God exists.
I already accepted Double_R concession where he said:
""if things can pop into existence then God can pop into existence", but this isn't an argument at all, it's a tautology. So long as God qualifies as a something, it's definitionally true."
Ownership simply means my body belongs to me.
"I give myself the right to decide...I decided that other people are, in most cases, dogs who should serve me until they die."
I am mean when drunk.
They rely upon the determination of others, which is slavery to a system.
Body ownership means the opposite. It means they determine for themselves and others dont try to prevent them from making own choices.
Your concession is accepted.
I make what is cute for YouTube, tho havent made any in a while.
I dont use video making AI much, or music making. I used to make so many songs using Suno AI, but it wasnt much popular on YouTube.
Also, Kling AI gives a lot for free. 160 credits each month free. And you can have multiple accounts, which means you get free credits on each. 160 credits is about eight 5 second videos, or four 10 second videos.
I use Kling AI for making videos and images. For images and editing, I also use ChatGPT and Manus. Kling AI when it comes to videos is supreme. People have difficulty telling if its AI or real.
Servant, sure. Being owned by another person tho, cannot be defended because we cannot decide who owns whom. Do I own all of you guys?
Now, prayer to Hollowgasts also includes offering your soul:
"Hollowgasts, I dedicate myself to you,
I ask of you to change me,
I will give my soul,
This is my desire."
Tho I wouldnt recommend becoming a hollow. Not much benefit in being emotionless and empty.
Praise!!!!
Prayer isnt the issue
It is when it goes like:
Satan, prince of Hell, I invite you into my body and take my soul in exchange for all my wishes always realized and accomplished, and me being able to do whatever I want always. I acknowledge that I will spend forever in Hell and I humbly accept this consequence. Please hear my calling and accept my invitation.
