Column1 Column2

REF #
00.00

Participant 1

LJ
01.00
01.10

Column1

01.12

01.13

01.20

01.30

01.31

01.32
01.40

01.41

01.42

01.43

01.50

01.51

01.52

01.60

01.61

02.00

02.10

Excuse me.What the meaning of "variations to a dominant power

are inherent to the attributes of realities which inevitably are larger
than that dominating power (whether such dominance occurs in the
area of body or food or other is a secondary and simply anecdotal
feature)"

02.11
03.00

03.10

03.20

For L's second reply, I would say the disagreement on the 3

"assumptions" which I didn't find any relative with the spirit of post.
Quote "the assumptions:
1) we make choices independently;
2)we make choices that are best for us; and
3)our choices will not bring damage to others. "
@L: do you mean this 3 conditions should be the
people have the right to choose their identity?

03.21

03.22

04.00

premises that

04.10

04.20

04.30

04.31

04.32

04.40

04.41

04.42

04.43

05.00

05.10

05.20

06.00

06.01
06.02

Allow me to insert. There will be different issue pops out when we

put "personal choice" in different historical/society/religion
environment.
Back to our original issue, the narrative on poster, it is somehow
uncompleted, it is not an airtight conclusion. Because it's a narrative
on poster, not an essay. The priority of the requirements of the copy
on poster always be clear, concise, arouse sympathy...
The objective of poster is to publicity. It's not fair to require a poster
which less than 100 words must have the same level logicality as an
essay that have enough space to define the premises, critical
reasoning and conclusion.

07.00
07.10

07.20

07.30

07.31

07.32

07.33

07.34

07.40

07.41

07.42
07.43

07.50

07.51

07.52
07.53

08.00

09.00

10.00

10.01

10.02

11.00

11.01

12.00
12.01
13.00

14.00

14.01

14.02

15.00

I been enlightened and convinced that even poster has its duty of
care due to its function. But I still want to back to the original spot.
The spirit of poster is people has freedom to choose the identity of
themselves.

15.01
It's not extended the boundary to the pure freedom of all behavior.

16.00

Column3
Participant 2

Column2
Some of the descriptions are not clear. E.g. Are we going to encourage Whitney to have mor
food so she can be happy?

Yes I understand your point. If we are to fully embrace the spirit described in the post, there
few assumptions:

1) we make choices independently;

2)we make choices that are best for us; and
3)our choices will not bring damage to others. I believe both of us agree these prerequisit
easier saying than doing.

Without a detailed explanation on these issues, the advocacy for feminism/freedom will be s
to abused. As I said, McDonald's will be happy to sponsor this movement as it empowers pe
choices.

1)
you embrace the posters mainly because they advocate women should not become vict
external pressure- I agree, and nobody should be. However, my statements were to point o
danger of advocacy without giving further explanation or background.

One such danger is we are advocating people to stick with something that is ethnically wro
harmful to themselves. Im not simply talking about the photo of the overweight women (
course I know there are many reasons for overweight), Im talking about similar thinkings.

We can already see the amusement of feminism in our society- look at those women who ru
the church with naked tops. Does that really make a point and advocate feminism?

2)
Our values are shaped by our society- education, family, friendsetc. and we all agree the
sick values (eg. consumerism) Are we going to advocate peoples whatever choice even th
ones?

3)
I gave the 3 assumptions to minimise the possible abuse of the advocacy. The third on
harmful to others is important because thats the basic social ethics (think of Nazi or Isrea
person is not sure his/her answer to the 3 requisitions, then its hard to even talk about pe
identities- he/she doesnt know what he/she wants.

07.00Here I would like to add a few more points to the posters we were discussing, regardi
content.
The first one is about feminism.
07.012 If we replace each of the character in the poster with a man, most of them still work.

07.013 (eg. John decided not to have kids. No worries, John. Fatherhood is a choice and
decision does not make you any less of a man!)
07.014 Or, rephrase some of them from a reversed angel: eg. Mike likes wearing makeup.
not a problem, Mike! you are boss of your face!

07.015 So here comes one point: the truth behind many problem is not about the unfair trea
to women, it is to both gender. The inequality of human rights is the problem. If we embra
advocacy of feminism alone, it is biased, incomplete and its even a fallacy.
07.10 The second one is about the statement of its your body.
We hear and see similar statement very often these days when advocating individual rights.
But if we think a bit wider, what makes us think that the body belongs to us?

We didnt create it, we didnt build it, we are more close to the executives in the companie
are only in charge of the daily operations. So how can we be so firm that the body belongs to

Our current social research focuses on the rights that are in absence for a certain grou
women), I agree it seems women are deprived more rights than men.

However, if we change a perspective when doing research (e.g. the socially added obligation
values, to name some, men to be strong, to take the financial responsibility of the family
then how would the result look like?

I pointed the biased view on feminism, is because the strong push in our society since 1
somehow absurd.

After half a century, while we are basically telling the people to focus on the brain of wome
mainstream social value is still treat women as flower pots, and we enjoy it and want to be p
it.

The ideology is flawed because it has failed to address the root of the problems. The l
women rights is true, but it's the symptom. The root of the inequality of various issues (w
children, LGBT, Palestinians, environmental pollution...etc.) is the inequality of wealth- the
bullying the poor.

My other argument on the ownership of the body remains. Whether the body and so
separated or not has been an argument for thousands of years.

I cannot prove the body and soul are separated, just as you cannot prove they are one. So ho
you be so firm that they are one?
Based on this, we are the master of our body is not factual. It's skeptical.

Our parents are not the owner of us because they didn't create us. They have contributed
The mechanism between the cells are beyond they control, and any other human's control.
So what is certain is no human being is the master of our body. But then who is?
Religious people would tell you the answer is simple- God.

As I said earlier, I do not firmly believe in the theory which we cannot prove, though t
possibility. So yes, the ownership of our body should remain an open question. We are n
master neither.

Column4
Participant 3

J
Column3

If we analyze any rhetoric, we can indeed fairly and importantly make these critical consider
you for them.

However, simultaneously, one can also acknowledge the spirit of a narrative and respec
output will always be faulty. Hence, we are human and not some fascist god-like yet static pe

The support of difference does not imply the devious ignoring and even feeding of unhea
whether food or other).

One, the spirit is about the intrinsic integrity of the individual diversity.
Two, the important critical analysis you offer is about extrinsic support with the well-being o
rather than an oppressive conformism in mind. At times, these are at odds. You correctly poi
no linearity, human becoming is chaotic, non-linear and contradictory.

Moreover, if you, I and others were to put the same yet proportional critical analysis into th
the idealized feminist form surrounding us on a daily basis, we would perhaps be having pr
Simultaneously, the marketing of contradictory foods to that idealized and homogenous fem
be tackled.

And thirdly, the foods you refer to are in antithesis to the spirit of the posters. Such foods
freedom of choice but rather addiction and lack of enlightenment. These foods are equa
driven compulsion as the homogenized female form that is questioned in the posters.

This is not simply "my point" this is an impersonal deduction of an opposing narrative to the
of commercial fabrications where the female body, the female expression and the fem
debased to a standardised consumer item just like the McDonalds hamburger.

If you truly get the point there would be no debate since the argument you apply (and whic
fact exactly the same argument as to the driving force behind the posters and behind the a
nothing to do with the entirety of my personal opinion nor with my animal drives which act
intellectual constructs).
This is all the while I currently knowingly ignore secondary forces and external influences
abuses as you rightfully mention (I.e from a fast good chain).
That stated, your reply ignores the third part of the argument I offered.
In general, L, ANYTHING and thus any one (in form and function) can be abused

This is not an argument to ignore or debase a counter-culture with the exact culture it tries
fake freedoms and fake choices)
In regards to the assumptions you pose, I can offer the following:
I do not think nor argue we make choices independently. Nor Is that the spirit of the posters.

The spirit is that of being aware that it should be ok not to fall victim to external pressures (s
"idealised" female aspects)
The assumption that we make choices that are best for us is neither the point.

The point is that the choices others in high dominating and oppressive power-struggles m
necessarily the only nor the right choices for every individual into a homogenised result of
the same (eating because that refers to your rebuttal).

The assumption that our choices do not damage others and which you believe is core t
collection of posters is neither the case.

More importantly, the choices that are made by others for others are not necessarily "liber
(such as female form and function i believe is good or such as the type of food i believe is go

If these were indeed premises, I would indeed agree that these are easier said than done.

Though this argument is the argument of the victimised, the one who gives in or wishes
consider or try.
If indeed this argument has any purpose or validity then the following would negate it: if it
do what one aims for, then one still looses more by not trying compared to by trying. This
the universal fact that a "no" one has a "yes" one can try to obtain.

So, I repeat: advocacy is indeed open for abuse. Though that is a devious and circular argum
one should not advocate. The advocating implies abuses to begin with since one only adv
(perceived or factual) abuses; so abuse certainly exists before any advocating is initiated!!

Hence, simply statistically (and not a personal opinion at all) it means advocacy increase
changes in abuse. Although I do very much see that immediately following advocacy abuse
temporarily increase. However, if advocacy is sustained and increased this initial increase
and the abuse might very well decrease (or shift to another aspect). Thus advocacy is a ne
since it is human that also abuse is never ending.

By the way the advocacy of sexy stylised submissive women and the advocacy of male chau
abuse endured by the advocacy of what I do not call feminism but rather of variation, iterati
the heterogenous forms and functions of life.

The actual words used in the posters do not touch on the possibility that tackling one a
another abuse. Though the spirit does, since, I repeat: fast food uses the same underlying
bodies: cravings, obsession, laziness towards complexities such as diversity or healthi
emotional or spiritual), fear of not belonging,...

To come to this one particular poster. Weight differences are not only related to food intake. .
in bodily forms and curvatures.
The mere fact that the advocacies exist established the fact that

1/ my argument is not personal

2/ variations to a dominant power are inherent to the attributes of realities which inevitably a
dominating power (whether such dominance occurs in the area of body or food or other i
simply anecdotal feature)

Advocacy is a variation to a dominant power. Could you see this?

That implies reality is larger then either. Historically we can observe advocacies and paradig
always in struggle with one or other larger power but never with the entire reality since a
reality and since I'd advocacy were against the entire reality such advocacy would inevita
itself. This is a fallacy.

Here comes the kicker: i agree 100% with the concern you express.

In effect, not too long ago I had a debate with someone who is aspiring to go into Europea
wrote a type of manifesto. We came to the topic of political slogans. My analysis was in sp
your analysis here.
So, where lies the possibility to carry both analysis at the same time?

What I mean is, both the analysis I offer and the analysis L offers are seen from a larger pers
highly relevant.

The reason for accentuating what I accentuated lies not in the posters nor in myself. They lie
the entire narrative ( = the posters + my initiation of a certain topic). Within the logic if the t
finds its premise in the aesthetic and thematic appreciation of the artwork and the narrativ
from the most common artwork, narratives I see around me and most of us are exposed to.

Within that premise the theme you rightfully shared (which I acknowledged) was outside of t

That stated, we should indeed dare to look at consequences. This is where your argument a
truly stand for as well comes into play.

Personally, in terms of social engineering I am highly sceptical or even opposed to slo

dangerous, superficial, and Di not truly tackle the problem. They are in essence manipulative

What you tackle, is the practical application. The actions and concerns. It is in fact a risk a
right applaud that.

The large dilemma is what I wrote yesterday.

1/
How can we each define what is actually harmful to oneself or another?

There are obvious examples where this question has been answered. Such as that of ce
assume we were collectively able to tackle the food & health problem.
Then the problem of self-image and associated peer-pressure remains.
The value you add to the mix is to think of feedback, evaluation, diligence, and vigilance.

In terms if advocacy one must indeed be very sensitive not to he co-opted by those force
different agenda compared to that what is advocated. Such abuses are very real.
So again, I have always agreed (if my agreement is of any relevance, which in fact it is not).

Beyond the perspective of these posters and the one specific focused on here, the questi
action or process not to be harmful to others is essential.

Yet, if I now step into the framework of what you aim to tackle, another important question b

2/
are we truly aware of such damages, and is the manner with which we evaluate the ris
superficial as the poster we are discussing?
I dare to say it is superficial.

Think of other examples such as the mobile phones we are using to share this debate her
and its used resources at one stage did harm to others in highly dramatic manners.
Here we enter into the realm of:
3/
which battle do we choose and which priorities do we have?

This poster is not (a priority in the larger scope of things), the concern towards the poster is n

However, the poster did give us the opportunity to perhaps come to a deeper realisation. Per
issue you tackle L, we should shift towards an analysis of larger market and social processe
mining for resources used in electronics and the consequences towards the harm and a
others.

These three assumptions L offers are crucial. They are key.

However, I do not think we make or should make decisions purely independently.

05.200 It is true that within the reality of only posters it is not fair. This issue is somewhat ad

05.201 Nevertheless, since a poster is intended to reach a context larger than the limits of i
it would be equally if not more unfair to stop an analysis at the borders of a poster.

05.202 Moreover, we should note that the issues tackled in the posters here are not publicit
not political (which they are).

05.203 Hence the issues or topic reach far beyond the limitations of the medium. Not addre
ignoring the reality the content of the posters wishes to address.

05.204 If we are to expand in your premise that a medium has a form that follows a funct
and one can not judge it for "being itself" (which, by the way, one could judge and actuall
indeed you should be consistent to recognize that it is neither fair to contain content withi
poster that is not publicity or commercial in nature.
05.205 The implied narrative should and must be expanded on.

05.206 In effect, if one does accept that a poster can have content that is not publicity then
that the poster medium (its form) does a great injustice to the function of the content it tries
highly limiting attributes if what a poster actually is (and which you clearly acknowledge sin
of your argument).

[insert photo of plastic surgery ad here]

The antithetical poster content should be part of this debate.

In effect, it is not antithetical to what is already discussed.

Hence, i agree with this very much and you agree with the point when I wanted to go beyon
substitute the opposite of one aspect in a narrative is a very clever way to show what should

If our body and our mind is not our own then why do you worry about encrypting the word
own mind and body share here? They neither are your own.

So, this argumentation that our body were not our own is highly fallacious since the idea th
to far more problems, contradictions and risks of abuse then to assume it is our own. Owner
care and responsibility.

So too is, in a seemingly entirely different realm is for example "encryption" valid as an act s
take ownership of some of the output created by one's body and its intrinsically connected
separated) such as these words here.
To come back to the substitution of woman imagery by man imagery is clever, essential and

I wondered why women have certain "rights" I clearly do not enjoy (I can not enjoy the
consider social pressures and dynamics of excommunication.

However, this too brings me to statistics and from it urgencies. Women in general ar
pressured to conform to a very strict bodily form, function and fiction.
That stated, it should be mentioned that the pressures on men are equally real yet perhaps
are they?

I do think that L's second point on ownership is very much a taboo (in society and certain com

Although I see many openings for fallacies and risks, i do agree the posters also open this to
further consideration.
A simplistic question is:

if there is not ownership by oneself, them by what or who? If there is no ownership then wha
identity"?

Is the argument that we did not create something automatically linked with lack of ownership

If so, this becomes highly interesting since them we must reevaluate all of ownership, con
Creative Commons, IPR, privacy, and so many more.

It does bring me back as well that lack of ownership, as L also implies, does not exclude "re
"duty of care"

Ownership of body external to the body (and mind) could also be dramatic and unsustainable
For instance, would ownership start with parenthood?

Since the management of the factory of the body manufactured the components that cons
blocks" for offspring, a child.

Can then parents dispose of this objectified and dehumanised property at their own will? Ob
me and I assume to you, not. Could any one else (if no "serious" reason exists)?

Hence I believe "duty of care" is a concept that fits within the entire debate here including
and of the poster content. It is not only about rights, human or other.

It (with "it" i refer to the large concept and practicality of "duty of care") goes even bey
(beyond does not imply exclude; on the contrary).

Hence: the lady in the poster has the duty of care towards herself, which includes the holistic
entirety and the context if one's own entirety. This phrasing and approach includes most if
offered by with LJ, L or myself (including the assumed 3 assumptions we could still further ex
(And which also includes the considerations of limitations of media, such as that if a poster)

On the latter, of the poster, I wish to come back: if a medium or media at large were void if s
should indeed be seriously evaluated and perhaps be avoided at all cost.

As previously established it is at times indeed too narrow to only concern oneself with w
important to substitute the main subject with the seemingly opposing subject to su
oppositions are minor concerns within much larger concerns (I.e "men").

Secondly, i also concur the idea that women are still seen as "flower pots" and that the
enjoys it and that within that "we" there are also woman who enjoy this "flower pot" status.

Though how do we marry these both arguments since they are in conflict with one anothe
mentality contradicts the larger-than -feminism approach.

Also, we should be careful of the terminology "feminism" since it can mean various and confl

It is however not only or simply poor versus rich. There are also rich and powerful lesbian w
who are confronted with purely gender issues irrelevant from their social status driven by
Surely, financial issues can worsen conditions within certain injustices or abuses. More ove
"bullying" in the broadest sense of the word is at the center of much abuse and injustice.

Although the posters hyper-focus (and as I can agree perhaps wrongly ignore larger issue
campaign within the realm of opposing bullying. Considering this, then "property of body
secondary issue or perhaps somewhat irrelevant.

One could however, consider degrees of bullying and from this decide which aspects withi
bullying issues one campaign or focus could be offered at one given moment; such as iden
one's body and its functionalities as a women.

This focus does not automatically reduce all attention forever to this one and only this one is
elsewhere an infinite number of other foci can be handled. What I personally mean is that I
act on the Palestinian plight while also appreciate the perhaps very personal motivatio
advocate an issue that might seem minor as seem from the plight of Palestinians.

On your second argument, I never used the word "soul". Your usage if it confuses and con
will not even begin discussing "soul" here.

So, since soul is not and has not been part of this debate, your argument and your inaccu
mine, becomes void. I can only refer you back to what I wrote and not read what I do not writ
"Master of our body" did I write that anywhere? "Master" has a unique meaning.
God is 100% surely not the master of my body. Which is not the topic here anyway.

Btw: neither do I believe in a theory that can not be proven. However, then I do know tha
profoundly fallacious. So I am not too worried about believing or not in an unproven th
however huge and although I would like to discuss it and my firmness of this as well, it wo
away from the topic here. If we want that we can of course.
The jump from soul to dismiss ownership of body is nonsensical. The reasons are many.
One i offer in that "soul" is not in anyway part of what I discuss here.

One thing is indeed firmly clear, The ownership of my body L is not an open question. If yo
me be profoundly rude (rude from my point of view since I do consider you as at least an
body; in a sense as I define owner or ownership): let someone take ownership and see what
is then.

The mechanism of creating a child I do agree does not warrant property rights over a child.
However they do warrant duty of care.
The mechanisms if the human body are not consciously controlled. That is established.
However, it is inaccurate to imply that would make them entirely uncontrollable. The issue
core of the posters here.

The mechanisms that operate one's own body can be approached like this as well. Your sta
are simply puppets. Could you explain this further?
To come back to another aspect of our debate and to use one example you brought up:

The abuses against communities and individuals within let us say LGBT are not being
abstractions and all-encompassing narratives to include all abuses and all forms of bullying
by hyper-focus and relentless campaigning or advocating.
Do new abuses occur due to this campaigning and advocating? I think we can agree to that.

Then, why would the approach in regards to (and I will use different terminologies away
accommodate your concerns) (although please note it is linguistically unsustainable not to
imply property) the identity one attaches to one's body versus the image others have or
body, be any different?

Then we need to discuss how to define freedom; what are its attributes so that it can be cal
applicable within the given poster(s).

Secondly, we need to still be open to that what erodes such concept or such execution if fr
value of the points L is mainly raising.

So, LJ, even if we were not to "extend" it to "pure freedom of all behavior," ignoring the larg
consequences would be detrimental to the actual analysis. Such reductionist approa
steppingstone (how is if only for the poster) but quickly we must go beyond (contextualisatio
our selves and maintain a willing level of navet. this kind of (willing or unwilling) naivet
we might not (want to) be as free as we claim / propagandise we are. As such I lean more to
*had* to make.

Column5

general notes & keywords

PROCESS:
1.0. history:
migrated content from a WeChat debate based on 9 posters LJ posted, J reposted & commen
question to the debate.

1.1 source materiala:

The posters and other source materials can be found in this excel under the second sheet en
1.2 topics:
Topics that were hinted of in the debate that at the moment of offering seemed too complex
different direction have been or can be noted in the third sheet, entitled "topics to tackle."

1.3 off-topic topics

Topics mentioned that are agreed to be too off-topic yet still have validity in their own right c

1.4 References:
Definitions, citations, proof, data, etc can be referenced to the debate by quoting the REF # o
reference within the "external reference" sheet.

1.5 Lingua Franca:

Any language can be used (and translated to any other language) though English seems to b

1.6 Privacy:
The privacy of each participant is respected. The content of this debate shall not be used out
participants unless agreed upon by all participants. The names of the participants have be re
1.7 ______:
_______________
Column4
(driving question) junk food, encourage

spirit, narrative, faulty, intrinsic, extrinsic, conformism, contradictory

TYPO: feminist form => needs to be: female form!!! (perhaps this created a confusion later o

spirit, freedom of choice, enlightenment, addiction, compulsion

3 assumptions, choice, best choice, damage, advocacy, abuse, McDonald's, movement

commercial, physiology, debase, opposing, dominant, narrative, expression, driving force, an

abuse, "anyhting... can be abused"

3 assumptions, assumption #1, independence, , vitimization, external pressure

3 assumptions, assumption #2, best choice, oppressive power, power struggle, homoginzatio

3 assumptions, assumption #3, damage, damage others, consideration, liberation, emancipa

3 assumptions, premise, victimized, try, resilience, have, have-not

advocacy, abuse, abuses

advocacy, abuse, abuses, never-ending processes

submissive, advocacy, male chauvinism, abuse, variation, heterogenious, life

media format, media content, spirit, poster, body, food, dynamics, processes, mechanisms

poster, weight, food intake

variations, reality, power, dominance

inherent, dominant power, reality, variations

advocacy, dominant power

paradigm shift, struggle, reality, fallacy

3 assumptions, spirit, posters

assumptions, identity, premise

advocacy, feminism, church, overweight, posters, victimization, victims, dangers, dangers of

values, advocacy

advocacy, abuse, minimization, ethics, society, Nazi, Israel, personal identity, 3 assumptions

slogans

competing analyses, perspectives

posters, narrative, structure, aesthetic, thematic, artwork, refreshing, framework

consequences,

social engineering, scepticism, slogans, superficiality, manipulation, danger

risk analysis

dilemma, harm, peer-pressure, vigilance, advocacy

perspective, poster, focus, framework, harm, damage, superficiality

superficiality, mobile phone, components, mining, harm, realization

3 assumptions, indepenedent decisions

fairness, poster, media, media analysis, form and function, form follows function, medium, co

source material
content

antithetical

substitution, SCAMPER-styled debate technique, gender, gender studies, inequality, human

content, critical analysis

body, individual rights, human rights, property rights, gardian, operations, creation,

substitution, SCAMPER-styled debate technique, gender,

body, ownership, property, encryption, ownership of content, privacy

body, ownership, property, abuse, risk analysis

encryption, ownership of content, privacy, body, mind, body & mind dichotomy

imagery, male, female, gender studies, substitution, SCAMPER-styled debate technique, gend

risk, fallacy, ownership, posters, identity, personal identity, first personal pronoun "I"

IPR, Creative Commons, Free culture, Sharing Economy, privacy, consumerism, property
creator, the created

duty of care

body, ownership, property, abuse, risk analysis

duty of care, content, posters, human rights, rights,

duty of care, poster, content, hollistic, context, 3 assumptions

media form & function, limitations

duty of care, media, media format

women's rights, men's rights, priority, urgency, symptomatic, systemic, inequality, minor
have's versus have-not's, ideology, larger perspective, values, deprivation, flower pot, debas

ownership, body, soul, soul & body dichotomy, religion, God, uncertainty, belief, certaint
parenthood, procreation, mechanisms, physiology, genetics, control, master, master-slave
falsification, verification, corroboration

bullying, flower pots, feminism, larger scope, rich versus poor, social status, abuse, inju
campaigns, poster, focus, terminologies, abuse, flower pot

bullying, flower pots, feminism, larger scope, rich versus poor, social status, abuse, inju
campaigns, poster, focus, terminologies, abuse, flower pot

bullying, flower pots, feminism, larger scope, rich versus poor, social status, abuse, inju
campaigns, poster, focus, terminologies, abuse, flower pot

soul

soul
master
god as proprietor,

theory, proof, scientific processes, falsification, verification, corroboration

soul, ownership, body, rude, harrassment, rape, master-slave relationships, SM, debas
deprivation, assault, violation, abuse

ptocreation, genetics, property rights, control, operate, puppets, mechanisms, duty of care, p

abuses, bullying, personal pronouns, property, identity, image, brand identity, brand image,

duty of care, poster, spirit, freedom, identity, choice

behaviour, freedom, all-encompassing, comprehensive

definition, freedom, erosion of freedom, context, consequences, reductionism, focus, framew

posters

who is Carol Rossetti? (agenda, motivations, etc)

ownership versus lack of sense of owbenrship
mind-body
abuses
advocacy versus absence of advocacy

topics

"human body" & "property

rights" | "body ownership" |
"who owns my body?" (note:
ownership of body as a whole while alive needs to
be clearly addressed)

"human body" & "human rights"

"sovereignity of the individual" | "individual

sovereignity" | "individual autonomy" | selfownership | bodily integrity
"sense of agency" | "sense of control"
"sense of self"
self-concept | self-identity | gender-roles |
sexuality | racial identity
self-awareness
self-esteem
self-knowledge

REF 01

body, body parts,cells, medicine, biotech and ownership:

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v10/10HarvJLTech369.pd
f
quote: ""every man has a Property in his own Person." (John
Locke. Two Treatises on Government.)

REF 02

REF 03

body, body parts,cells, medicine, biotechnology,

and ownership:

paid access only :

http://www.jstor.org/discover/
https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/even 10.2307/764628?
t/265105/media/slspublic/Whose%20Body%20Is
sid=21105570183943&uid=
%20It%20Anyway.pdf
2129&uid=2&uid=4&uid=70

REF 04

REF 05
Critical anlysis on the idea that one's body is
one's own; perhpas it is not...:

http://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ve
d=0CEYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication
%2F6601035_My_body_your_body_our_bodies
%2Flinks
paid access only :
%2F00b7d52a6fe523c33e000000.pdf&ei=w42rV
IPXMMTboATA1IHQBg&usg=AFQjCNHsrQ5Ivu8Z
http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/cont GDhyUeKsmQ4hu1dHqQ&bvm=bv.83134100,d.c
ent/16/1/55.full.pdf+html
GU&cad=rja

REF 06

religious arguments (READ THE

COMMENTS on GIFTS as well) :
http://randalrauser.com/2012/05/
do-i-own-my-body/

REF 07

quote: "The most important question is, Who owns your body? The government?... No. You do
most fundamental property, and rights are always based on property. You should be able to p
anything into your body that you want, be it raw milk, alcohol, raw nuts or heroine. But you m
accept the responsibility of this freedom. Dont ask the government to bail you out of your po
choices.
...with rights come responsibilities. True freedom and sovereignty are available only to those
understand their rights and are willing to defend them.
... Whats your freedom worth?"

source: Retrieved on January 6, 2015 from http://joanneunleashed.com/1279/who-owns-your

constitutional-rights-vs-privileges/

REF 08

who owns
our bodies?
Should we?
http://blog.pr
acticalethics.
ox.ac.uk/200
8/04/do-weown-ourbodiesshould-we/

REF #

001

LJ

L
...
As I said earlier, I do not firmly believe in the theory which we cannot prove, though
there's possibility. So yes, the ownership of our body should remain an open
question. We are not the master neither.

J
Btw: neither do I believe in a theory that can not be proven. However, then I do know
that this statement is profoundly fallacious. So I am not too worried about believing or
not in an unproven theory. This topic is however huge and although I would like to
discuss it and my firmness of this as well, it would take us entirely away from the topic
here. If we want that we can of course.

REF

debate REF: 09.00, 13.00