Some religions do make people stupid like that.
Some religions do make people stupid like that.
One can make arbitrary morals. They are still categorically self defeating.
Body autonomy cannot be violated for arbitrary reasons = same one result, no contradiction
Body autonomy can be violated for arbitrary reasons = contradictive results, each reason produces different violation and different condition for violation.
Hmmm, in my opinion child circumcision is physical and sexual abuse of a minor...Therefore falls under the umbrella of paedophilia.
Apparently, touching a baby's dick is a crime, but touching it while cutting it by circumcision isn't.
One must really go a long way to think that touching baby's dick is very horrible and harmful, but completely stops being harmful when it's touching and circumcision.
Yeah, if someone is caught with photos of naked baby boys, he would be arrested for child porn.
Yet if same person was caught with having circumcision videos, he would not be arrested for child porn despite those videos also showing naked baby boys.
Make it make sense!
Any violation of body autonomy for arbitrary reasons = Enables removal of same violation for arbitrary reasons
Age restriction for smoking means person under certain age isnt allowed to smoke cigarettes.
When it comes to "should/shouldn't" questions, debaters are expected to not merely suggest a standard, but also justify it with deductive logic.
Burden of proof is shared.
So umm yeah, as description says, debaters must use deductive reasoning to justify their standard. thus, no subjective morality is allowed to begin with.
So reasoning must be in form of:
A = B
B = C
C = A
With of course starting premise also being logically deduced.
Due to is-ought gap, using observations to derive "should" is not possible, because observations merely tell what is, not what should be.
However, using logical axiom as starting premise works as foundation to derive morality from, and the only way to deny logical axiom is to deny logic itself.
thus, my reasoning will be in form of:
A or not A
Not A, when accepted as true, results in self-defeat and establishment of A.
thus, only A remains as true.
I. Body autonomy objective morality
When it comes to what "should" be done, some moral principles survive A or not A much better.
Some examples of moral principles are:
Body autonomy
Property rights
Person's wants
Harm
Freedom
We can logically deduce body autonomy by saying:
Everyone has body autonomy = No one can take away body autonomy of another
this principle remains self-consistent, but opposite principle does not:
Any person can take away body autonomy from others for subjective reasons = Everyone can take body autonomy from everyone for any subjective reason, including their ability to take away autonomy from others = Ability to take away autonomy itself disappears as principle.
Suppose someone says:
"I have right to take away body autonomy of others for reasons I choose".
We can respond to that by saying:
"We have right to take away your ability to take away body autonomy of others for reasons we choose".
thus any attempt to take away autonomy results in symmetry justification to prevent that same attempt.
Any person has right to take away choices from others = Any person has right to take away choice to take away choices from others.
thus, any attempt to take away body autonomy for subjective reasons, results in also subjective reasons defeating same principle.
Because topic is about smoking and age restrictions, body autonomy is important argument.
Suppose some person wants to smoke and has money to buy cigarettes. to impose age restrictions which prevent that person, then his wants, choices, autonomy and property choices would all be violated.
And if violating body autonomy is good for subjective reasons, it results in justification to violate all autonomy, including ability to violate autonomy, hence self defeat of "Not A".
Likewise, violating property choices is self-defeating:
Any person can take away property choices from another for arbitrary reason = All choices regarding property can be taken away, including choice to take away choice.
Any person can deny goals of another = Any person can deny goals of all others, including goals to deny goals.
Freedom likewise works same. If freedom can be taken away for subjective reasons, all freedom can be taken away for subjective reasons, including freedom to take away freedom.
II. Future wants argument
One of biggest counters to body autonomy of children is that violating it maybe upholds their future autonomy.
However, such counter doesnt work, because justification for it rests on same subjective reason as any other violation of autonomy.
We can logically deduce that "no one can violate body autonomy of others".
We cannot logically deduce "We can violate autonomy of others if it possibly upholds their future autonomy".
Because when:
Autonomy can be violated = Who gets to decide when it gets violated and for what reason?
And that question is a core self-defeat of all principles which attempt to violate body autonomy.
Any person can decide when autonomy gets violated = Any person can decide to violate autonomy of anyone always
And violating autonomy to preserve autonomy is a self defeating principle, because autonomy remains non-violated only if never violated. If it is violated, it is no longer autonomy but a removed autonomy.
It is not possible logically to follow a principle "No one gets to violate autonomy of others" while violating autonomy of others, for whatever reason the violation occurs.
And as autonomy principle is deduced from deductive logic, "future autonomy > current autonomy" argument is not only unproved and not logically deduced, but is self-defeating because it attempts to use subjective justification to violate autonomy, while same can be used to defeat it.
Principle is justified by subjective reason = Principle can be defeated by subjective reason
III. Harm argument
Another big counter to child's autonomy is harm argument, usually in its more objective form:
Any person can cause harm to others and justify it for subjective reasons = All harm becomes justified = Harm to prevent harm becomes justified.
However, the flaw of harm argument is essentially misunderstanding what harm is.
Harm entirely depends on desirable state of things or desirable functions being violated.
However, when it comes to wants and desires, cigarettes can be desirable on balance, so to not allow smoking would itself be harm.
Any person can deny wants of others for subjective reasons = all wants can be denied for subjective reasons, including wants of person to deny wants of others, hence resulting in inability of any person to deny wants (opposite principle)
Wants can be denied for subjective reasons = Wants to deny wants of others can likewise be denied for subjective reasons.
thus, "no person can deny wants of others", remains as true objective principle, because opposite principle simply doesnt survive dichotomy.
Harm argument likewise can be negated by body autonomy.
Body autonomy = Objective principle
In dichotomy between harm and body autonomy: Objective principle of body autonomy prevails.
Because harm can be justified by using not arbitrary, but objective principle of body autonomy.
Harm justified for objective reasons =/= Harm justified for subjective reasons.
So if body autonomy results in what person considers to be "harm", that harm is still not objectively wrong, because it isnt done with subjective justification, but an objective justification of body autonomy.
IV. Power/authority argument
One of big counters to moral principles and body autonomy is "might makes right".
In other words, someone can say:
"My decision to deny autonomy of others is justified by my power to do so."
However, power principle doesnt work in "should" debates, because it doesnt say what should or shouldnt be done.
Society has power to both impose and remove age restrictions, and having power alone doesnt deduce logically which decision should be made.
Likewise, morality which uses power as justification justifies anything, even my position. If something is justified by power, then all thoughts and actions which exist are justified by some power which enables them to exist, including my own position.
V. Subjective morality justification
Any moral principle derived from arbitrary reasons cannot be justified, and any excuse for violating objective principle by using arbitrary reasons merely enables its own denial by other arbitrary reasons.
Arbitrary reasons can be used to deny principle = Other arbitrary reasons can be used to deny those arbitrary reasons, and justification of "arbitrary reasons can be used to justify or deny" becomes self-defeat.
VI. Symmetry reciprocity principle
Any attempt to justify denying autonomy of others rests on these conditions:
Because justification is always arbitrary, same can be denied arbitrarily too, and 2 can be denied arbitrarily as well.
the only justification which would work is objective justification.
But who decides what objective justification is?
If anyone can decide what objective justification is = Anyone can decide to deny others of body autonomy based on what they think is objective justification, including denying ability to deny body autonomy, hence self defeat of any attempt at justification to deny body autonomy, even with what person thinks are "objective reasons.
VII. Opponent's burden
Because my opponent is ultimately arguing to violate body autonomy, the conditions for his position to be true are:
Compare that to simple body autonomy.
Everyone has body autonomy = No one violates autonomy of another
Principle is self-consistent, not self-defeating. the opposite principle, when accepted, defeats itself and returns to original principle after futile struggle to come up with justification which ends up being justification against the very principle using it, because symmetry argument which relies on same abilities defeats it.
If person says: "I can decide what objective justification for violating autonomy is",
I can say " then so can I, and I reject yours".
Conclusion:
With objective principle of "thou shall not violate autonomy of others" being logically deduced, and opposite principles resulting in self-defeat,
what follows is:
Choosing to smoke = allowed by body autonomy
Allowed by body autonomy = Allowed by objective morality
Choosing to smoke = Allowed by objective morality
Age restrictions = not allowed because they violate body autonomy
Violate body autonomy = Violate objective moral principle
Age restrictions = Violate objective moral principle.
So a person who smokes in private and doesnt smoke with others who are unwilling to inhale smoke, isnt violating autonomy of others.
But placing age restrictions is a violation of body autonomy and property choice.
There’s a strong ethical argument that publicly sharing or distributing infant circumcision videos can violate the child’s privacy and bodily dignity, especially when:
Legally, it depends on the country, context, and purpose. Some recordings are made for:
In medical settings, there are usually consent procedures involving the parents or guardians. But parental consent does not automatically settle the ethical question of the child’s future autonomy or privacy interests.
Many people also distinguish between:
The second case raises much more serious concerns about privacy, exploitation, and digital permanence.
There are also broader debates around infant circumcision itself involving:
Different societies and individuals weigh those factors very differently.
What I never really understood is why circumcision videos of infants are legal?
Infant obviously didnt agree to be recorded, so its a violation of privacy.
the only difference between it and child porn is apparently "intention", but some people are probably jerking off to circumcision videos, so I dont see how that helps.
Hot and cold temperatures mix is what improves blood flow.
You wouldn't stand a chance and you know it.
Against you? Not much of a challenge, to be honest. Most of your responses are like ramblings of a mentally ill person. But if you are interested in formal debate, sure, I don't mind. Tho topics I debate are probably out of your intellectual range.
But tell use more Lucy oh great one about what qualifies as rational
I would love to tell you, but given that you don't believe in objective morality, there is no such thing as "rational behavior" in your playbook, so to you a violent ape is as justified as Immanuel Kant and Aristotele himself.
Of course, I would love to debate you on a lot of topics, but given your absurd positions, I wouldn't have to try very hard to win.
"Brainless apes" cannot be provoked by words because they lack the ability to understand them in any meaningful context
Unproved claim.
To say that words cannot get an emotional reaction out of you is to say that you lack the capacity to formulate ideas in response to them.
Response =\= Emotional reaction =\= formulate ideas =\= beating someone up
Try a bit harder next time.
Boycott Tinder if you actually care about punishing those with Epstein. If you don't, then you don't really care about stopping pedophilia.
I dont use tinder.
Typical response from Dbl.
the guy thinks many absurd things. Of course he wants corporal punishment of children legal, which is also assault. He wants assault to be legal if someone calls him a nigger. He "wonders" if assault should be legal in cases someone is provoked by words. In words of one famous song: that boy needs therapy. He is crazy in the coconut.
Your argument that they couldn't have been built is defeated by the fact that they exist, they were in fact, built.
My argument wasnt that they couldn't have been built.
Nah it was aliens bro trust me
It wasn't just pyramids. Some huge statues in ancient Egypt have almost perfectly symmetrical faces on left and right side. No one today can build such statues without modern technology.
Right now, trump's popularity is so low that if Hitler ran against trump, Hitler would win.
Hence the flaw of democracy. At some point, you get such terrible leaders that even Hitler seems as improvement.
And a deeper question is whether words alone can qualify as provocation in this context.
thats not really any deep question any rational person even asks. If you are brainless ape, then words can provoke you to act violently. And government then stops you because you are doing assault. And no, assault cannot be legally justified by saying "oh he said a mean word to me so I beat him up".
Sure, try building a pyramid. You have modern technology. Should be easy, right?
Here are the specific details of the 1978 Japanese pyramid experiment of building only 10 meter tall pyramid:
The Goal & The Crew: Nippon TV, guided by Egyptologist Sakuji Yoshimura, wanted to test if modern technology could replicate the ancient construction methods of the Giza Pyramids.
The Scale Down: The team originally planned a large structure but was forced to reduce the size to roughly 10 meters tall and 15 meters at the base due to a shortage of funds and rising limestone costs.
The Failure of Ancient Methods: Relying exclusively on raw manpower, wooden sledges, and ropes, the team found the 1-to-3-ton limestone blocks nearly impossible to move. The stones could only be dragged a few centimeters per day.
The Resort to Modern Machinery: Facing logistics issues, the builders had to bring in electric saws, cranes, and even a helicopter to hoist and place the stones, proving that replicating the feat with primitive tools alone was unsuccessful.
they couldnt move 1 ton block stone. But some egyptian pyramids have block stones weight as much as 80 tons.
The stone blocks used to build the Egyptian pyramids vary greatly in size and weight, but the average stone block weighs approximately 2.5 tons (2.3 metric tons). However, depending on where the stones are located within the structure and the materials used, their weights span a wide range from 1.3 tons to as much as 80 tons. [1, 2, 3]
To put this into perspective, the Great Pyramid of Giza is constructed from roughly 2.3 million stone blocks. Combined with the mortar used during construction, the total weight of the entire monument is estimated to be around 6 million tonnes. [1, 4, 10]
If you are researching pyramid construction, I can provide more details on how the Egyptians transported these heavy stones across the Nile or the tools and ramp systems they used to lift them. Which aspect would you like to explore next? [11, 12, 13]
I mean, why should someone be upset if person A disrespects their God?
tho I also dont see why someone should get upset if someone disrespects women and blacks.
Where exactly is the dignity in being triggered?
This claim I decide it is hateful. Would you respect me to knock your front teeth out for saying it?
these people are literally kids. Mentally.
But lets change gender. Imagine if woman says something which offends me emotionally. Should I beat her up?
The first amendment of the US constitution specifically bars Congress from creating any law abridging your right to speak. Nohing about that in any way addresses some rando on the street beating you up for speaking your mind.
Actually, you are just wrong again. Government has legal duty to protect from assault, and thanks to first amendment, cant use my speech as excuse to create exception to legalize assault in that case.
But I am sure legal consistency is not the term you are familiar with.
Well it depends what the consequences are. Even in North Korea it could be said that they have free speech, just not freedom from consequences
North Korea has guaranteed free speech in its constitution.
But in reality, guaranteed consequences for anyone talking what government doesn't approve.
So yeah, free speech with very bad consequences is no different from no free speech at all.
People today are very sensitive. You can literally hurt them with words. Free speech dies very quickly in country full of word-sensitive apes.
"Oh he said a mean word to me, so instead of acting like I don't care, I will beat him up because I am actually an ape."
The 1A protects people government censorship, not from the consequences of their speech
This is probably the dumbest argument I ever read. You cannot have free speech if someone can beat you up or kill you for it. So I am afraid some consequences must be protected from, for free speech to exist at all.
Sure.
If you are the only one with such sense between the two of us, then no way to prove it to me.
You can use some logic to get there, but you'll need starting premises, and you have to use a priori beliefs to get those.
If someone believes that logic exists, they are already accepting all formal logic laws as possible starting premises, assuming they know them.
But if someone doesn't know what logic even is, how can that person possibly use logic to judge arguments?
Because you don't solve math equation by feelings.
And solving countless arguments in order to decide about belief change?
Belief change based on feelings can also be due to rhetoric. Because "feelings" aren't exactly famous for being logical.