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

Author: YouFound_Lxam ,

Posts

Total: 92
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,039
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
--> @zedvictor4

You know exactly what it means. 

My comment in reply to your sycophant nonsense about 9yo wasn’t naive. It was on point. 

And I didn’t live any measure of a sheltered or religious life. I’m anti-religion as much as I am anti-groomer of innocent children. 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 507
3
3
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
3
3
6
--> @YouFound_Lxam
"I am saying that there is a difference"

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?

"One is basic parenting"

So taking away choices from young people is basic parenting?
This is a definition, a very unclear definition.
Arguments were about justification of the two, not the definitions of the two.
You cant use definition of something as justification for it, since that is circular logic.

"and the other is adults telling adults what they can and can't do."

So government telling adults what to do is wrong because adults are adults?

More circular logic?
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
So taking away choices from young people is basic parenting?
Yes, this is exactly my point.


No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.
That is not my argument. My argument is that parenting kids and governing people are very different things.


YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
So, government telling adults what to do is wrong because adults are adults?
If you actually thought about this statement, you would know that this is not circular logic.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 507
3
3
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
3
3
6
--> @YouFound_Lxam
"My argument is that parenting kids and governing people are very different things."

Read again:
"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."

"Yes, this is exactly my point."

So your point is that a definition is a justification? In that case, I use the definition of a government to justify whatever the government does.

"If you actually thought about this statement, you would know that this is not circular logic."

Using the definition of something as its justification is circular logic, since conclusion is not derived from a premise, but rather the conclusion is the same as premise.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 8,120
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @TWS1405
Well, perhaps I should report the post then.

And how might I be a sycophant?

And what is sycophant nonsense?

You say a lot of stupid stuff.

And children are fed knowledge from the moment they are born.

And what once wasn't available to them, is now available at the tap of a button.

Innocent 9-year-olds is a naive assumption.

Sycophants are the ones wearing red caps and stupid grins on their faces, standing behind Donald Trump.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 507
3
3
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
3
3
6
--> @sadolite
You reaffirm the comment in which you didnt explain why you oppose to the government taking away your choices when the government's justification is being your inability to comprehend important decisions?
You also reaffirm the comment in which you didnt explain why you dont oppose to that same justification when it is used in case of young people?
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,252
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
--> @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. 
So we should let kids cut off their arm if they want? Is this the hill you really want to die on?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,662
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @Lemming
don't see how societies power is an illusion,
Though I would agree it is made of smaller groups,
Perhaps country the largest group, then smaller factions within, smaller faction withing those factions, and so on.
Because the allusion to "society" is no more than a placeholder for whomever believes they have priority in dictating how others should behave with one's self and resources.

I would agree there is some inconsistency in the terminology of consent, even for adults,
But would argue this is why additional clarifiers are often made in arguments, such as informed consent, in medical for example.
Informed consent attempts to prevent undue influence a physician or medical professional may have as a result of asymmetric information (not to mention, preventing the prospect of lawsuits and issues with liability.) This does not translate well when it simply refers to consent, hard as one may try. Because one cannot justify how one is misinformed or under-informed when it comes to one's own intentions and desires as it concerns oneself.

I'd agree I see great value in one's right to themself,
A society that uses people for the good of the many,
Or some utilitarian goal,
I find a bit dislikable,
And admit such is even in American society, the military draft for example.
Measures to conscript others into one's own agenda under the pretext of the "common good."

For younger individuals,
They've yet to acquire the ability to make living wills,
As opposed to older individuals,
If an older individual failed to make preparations, then lost their mind, it can be difficult to know what they would have wanted.
How old one must be to act best in service to oneself? Is this even possible if others are coercing one to follow their prescriptions?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,662
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @sadolite
How about instead of choosing an age, we use a responsibility level instead. When you move out of your mommy and daddies house, pay all your own bills and rent you can choose your sexuality. That includes paying for everything related to your sexuality choice.
And this is the leverage parents can use to persuade their children. I personally take no issue with parents refusing to enable their child's sexual behavior under the auspices of the provisions and resources they provide.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,662
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @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.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,662
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @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.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,662
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @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.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,256
4
3
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
3
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.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,252
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. 
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,662
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @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?
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,252
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
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,662
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @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.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
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?


YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
--> @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.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
--> @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.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
--> @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. 
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
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. 


YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
--> @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. 
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 264
0
2
5
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
0
2
5
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.