I do agree with you; however, the ‘just because’ part should be emphasised here. For non medical body alternations such as this, there should be a period of time to actually decide if you truly want to undertake this, along with an basic assessment. I’m not advocating for bans, but regulation on how this should be approached in the first place.

Well I do respect your opinion; however, teenagers should have more autonomy in terms of their own body. Age of consent should remain just that - the age of consent to sex, not anything else.

In addition, I don’t think we should rely on arguments grounded on opinions - just as its the case with it matching the age of consent, without further clarification. There are also publications such as WHO which further exemplify the point I’m trying to make.

Also, according to this Neuroscience article which is related to gender affirming care:

adolescents possess the capabilities required to engage in adult-like cognitive control and decision-making

To conclude, the original argument had unclear motives and objectives - of course feedback had enabled to see this problem. Further evidence has been provided to reinforce the position of decision making to not be based on age of consent. Additionally, within research, age of consent has no influence on personal decision making - in terms of your own self.

I still think you have a misunderstanding of what the age of consent is. It’s simply the age where a person is deemed mature enough to consent to having sex with an adult.

I am aware of that fact. The point here is that people below the age of consent shall be able to decide what they want to do as opposed to waiting till the age of consent, as stated within my first argument.

In essence, teenagers should have a degree of say, because they are capable of understanding medical decisions and shouldn’t be restricted towards the age of consent - which usually is used for sexual consent with another person. In addition, age of consent already does one thing, which is sexual consent to others. It shouldnt dictate what you do to yourself.

Yes that is correct, but you’re misinterpreting my initial argument. As by sexual maturity I mean the average age of sexual maturity which as implied within my statement was 13.

But, alas. It is a problem on my end with my argument not being clear enough on that - I can thank you on pointing that error out.

and if possible at age of consent.

While I agree with the majority of the argument, I don’t agree with this point. Age of consent is mainly a political thing, disregarding the actualities involved with teenagers and sexual life, and discrediting those who have problems before that set age.

Biologically, pubescence which is around 13 is where this decision should be undertaken, as this is the point where the individual is sexually mature.

Medical problems start before the age of consent so the individuals which are sexually mature should have the option to treat this condition.

Its actually hurtful to watch the strong opposition to cirumcision involving girls yet barely any opposition involving boys. It looks like another take on sexism and like one commenter said, it makes it more difficult for trans people.

Circumcision for both genders should only be a medical decision, not a thing you or your parents decide just because.

I agree, this is basically an attack at many individuals.

Atleast, the meme mentions “sex offenders” which is more accurate than pedophilia.

So essentially contextomy.

There has been a spitfire of such deceivingly titled articles being posted here within the past couple of days.

You’re sabotaging your own argument here. You stated full body autonomy to be a right to then dismiss that within this statement.

Also,

no one should be forced to let anyone else use their uterus

Tell me, how does this relate to your current argument?

I’m against encouraging teenage pregnancy

Encouraging teenage pregnancy isn’t the problem. The problem is the encouragement in general. As said, full bodily autonomy - it should remain a right for all.

The most fallacious statement spoken by the fascist scum.

I can definitively agree on the explanation stated infering the second point. However, it is an aspect which needs further clarification, like op said: “someone else’s skin” is usualy interpreted as human directed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/someone). This essentially introduces double meaning within the argument.

In terms of vegetable tanning your best knowledge is correct, it costs more as it requires substantially more time thats why it is only used for higher end or artisan leather. Additionally, I have stated synthetic tanning which is comparable to vegetable, but not as bad as chromium.

& the original person’s comment about chromium-salts looks spot-on, & was ignored by your counter.

In regards to that, can you provide relevant information which details it?

While the conclusion of this argument is valid your premises don’t follow a logical sequence. Firstly, leather is defined as a material obtained from rawhide which is tanned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leather) - this is real leather, there is no need for calls to ignorance here.

Secondly, what do mean by referring to “someone else’s”? Because the common usage for such statements usually mean human, not non-human animals. This essentially looks like an emotional appeal at this point.

Thirdly, you state that it is common for leather to be coated in plastic. While this is technically correct - as large portion of the market is composed of reusing scraps, it dismisses leather production from virgin rawhide and processes using vegetable or synthetic tanning which don’t need plastic for the resultant product.

That’s not a feature thats exclusive to open source though. Circular reasoning like this just distracts from the fact that software just like hardware is constantly evolving, even in personal spaces. Thinking someone can do better has no relevance on the “open source” aspect or the political leaning.

But can we talk about how lasseiz faire we used to be about children online security.

“Lasseiz faire” online security was applicable to all individuals, it wasnt directed to a specific group. It also makes no sense to look at what we used to do when online totalitarianism and discriminatory segregation is arguably causing more significant damage to everyone involved.

I agree, social media is harmful for all, no matter the age. We shouldn’t be destined to further segment and disfranchise individuals solely because they’re “inferior”, based on age or any other discriminatory factor - the thing is, who is the victim and who is the abuser in this case? Because the situation at hand seems like the victims are getting punished for the wrongdoings of the abuser.

This is where we are at, the corporations flipped the script, and we as a society gulped it all down, tightening the handcuffs around the wrong hands.

But besides the point, relating to the logic within your statement, who are you trying to ban here? Because you mention both “everyone” and “them” - which consequently makes it ambiguous, which introduces double meaning.