I'm not sure where you stopped, but if you read it through there are some very clear thoughts of my own.
To define freedom, three postulates are required:
1. The self-contradictory cannot exist.
2. A concept and its complement exhaust a universe of discourse.
3. Every permission corresponds to a conscious action, and every conscious action can be stated as a permission (Gill 1971).
I would argue that when people speak of freedom, they mean self-control (Hadamard 1945). Within self-control there is a need for self-consistency therefore, Freedom is decision by necessary norms.
If I were to define liberal democrats using your criterion and search methods, this would lead me to the wikipage titled "liberal democrats"- a UK based political party. Wikipedia lists their platform as follows: constitutional and electoral reform,progressive taxation, wealth taxation,environmentalism, human rights laws, cultural liberalism, banking reform and civil liberties.
Furthermore, their ideology or philosophy is to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which they seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
Based on the platform, ideology and definition of freedom as a decision by necessary norms. I would say they are practicing the very decisions to create necessary norms.
Are they afraid of freedom?
Perhaps, however if your intention was to insinuate that being afraid meant that they would not pursue decisions to create necessary norms, I would counter that liberal democrats own platform and ideology stand against that insinuation and therefore are not afraid of freedom.
Works Cited
Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20.
Hadamard, Jacques. (1945) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, N.J.
Wikipedia. Liberal Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Supporting Evidence: Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20. (www.jstor.org)
What's FTW?
Your comment on tap water depends on where you're located in the world. Tap water is typically free of harmful bacteria to humans. If it isn't it's usually for a very short time, as in a few hours a day or more isn't very typical of most water systems in the US. If it were, you'd notice a higher prevalence of diarrhea and cholera, to name a few.
I haven't been on the site in some time. It was more typical of past debates to be more clear on terminology. In addition, I have not exchanged words with you and wanted to gauge your perceptions on either of these points.
Assessing the different talking points in this debate has led me to the conclusion that your negligence to include a clear definition of freedom (at the most basic level) has limited the likelihood for a clear and logical debate to occur. (perhaps that was your intention)
Freedom is not self explanatory. "Ordinary speech, being careless about details, frequently causes somebody to do something or permits a tree to fall. By failing to discriminate between the deontic, the alethic, and the mechanical, common usage makes the problem of freedom insoluble--or worse, meaningless (Gill 1971)." Your limited viewpoint is the exact reason why much of this debate lacks substance.
To define freedom, three postulates are required:
1. The self-contradictory cannot exist.
2. A concept and its complement exhaust a universe of discourse.
3. Every permission corresponds to a conscious action, and every conscious action can be stated as a permission (Gill 1971).
If I were to engage in your limited view of freedom, I would argue that when people speak of freedom, they mean self-control (Hadamard 1945). Within self-control there is a need for self-consistency therefore, Freedom is decision by necessary norms.
If I were to define liberal democrats using your criterion and search methods, this would lead me to the wikipage titled "liberal democrats"- a UK based political party. Wikipedia lists their platform as follows: constitutional and electoral reform,progressive taxation, wealth taxation,environmentalism, human rights laws, cultural liberalism, banking reform and civil liberties.
Furthermore, their ideology or philosophy is to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which they seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
Based on the platform, ideology and definition of freedom as a decision by necessary norms. I would say they are practicing the very decisions to create necessary norms.
Are they afraid of freedom?
Perhaps, however if your intention was to insinuate that being afraid meant that they would not pursue decisions to create necessary norms, I would counter that liberal democrats own platform and ideology stand against that insinuation and therefore are not afraid of freedom.
Works Cited
Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20.
Hadamard, Jacques. (1945) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, N.J.
Wikipedia. Liberal Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
There shouldn't be a difference. If there is, it most likely has something to do with the water infrastructure. If it has an odd taste or smell for both it could have something to do with the treatment process or possibly organic material build up in the distribution system.
Where are you from and what is the source of your water? (Specific to ground water or surface water) In most, if not all, US cities, a drinking fountains supply comes from tap water.
Prior to engaging in any sort of debate, I ask the debate creator to please specify his or her definition of the following two terms: liberal Democrat, freedom.
Thanks.
(Glad to see some familiar names among the active community)
I can't say I disagree with you, but your point seems off topic. What I can see from the statements is purely an argument in semantics. :)
Why is it better? What types of diseases come from consuming meats? And what types of meats? What types of fats are these meats packed with? How are these meats bad for our health?
What makes Vegan the best choice? What makes Vegetarianism the best choice? Did you know there is a difference?
It's not necessarily that consuming animals is unhealthy. It is the amount you eat and the origin of the meat. How was this meat prepared? Was the animal wild or husbanded by humans? What types of foods did this animal consume during its lifetime? What environmental toxins were in its habitat? What effects do the hormones and medicines introduced have on the animal itself and in turn how does that affect those that consume it?
I could go on and on. My point is you don't have to give up your steak, but you should know where it comes from and balance how much you eat. This will help you take stress off your bodies functions to maintain homeostasis and will result in a long and healthy life.
The meats we consume are the results of animal husbandry, which our bodies are not accustomed to. (speaking from an evolutionary perspective of human genetics)
Plants, those that have not been genetically modified by humans from 1950-current, are better for our nutritional needs and have far greater health benefits.
There is much evidence linking the eating of "greens" to providing 90%+ the nutrients we need to provide a healthy living structure. I would argue that meats that do not come from the result of animal husbandry, also known as wild, have far more benefit. Furthermore, if these meats come from an environment that has the least amount of contaminants it would be the most beneficial- as your body would not require the energy to detoxify as well as any possible genetic change that could result in later in disease.
*Vegetarianism is different than being Vegan.
I'm more inclined to practice a 80-20 or 70-30 type diet whereas the first number is the percent of plant based consumption and the later is animal based in your diet.
First and foremost, thank you for being the first to address this debate. My hope is that many more join in and this topic will be debated for quite some time.
Many good points, but prior to engaging you a bit further could you do me the pleasure of informing me, and the group, of your education/age . (I want to make sure my points are in a context not only understood by yourself, but that of our peers)
And to be fair, I am 26 years old beginning my graduate level studies this year in the fields of Occupational and Environmental Health. My main interests are biotechnology and their impacts on human health and that of the environment. I have learned much, but still feel as though I know nothing. I look forward in sharing more about what I know.
I do not remember what they were. With the unforeseen I was speaking onto the programs that have never been put into place. Foreseen would be for those that are in place and have failed or are inevitably going to fail. As you know the entire bill is approximately 2,000 pages. I was making a general statement, this isn't my area of study. I may be studying Public Health, but I am no professional when it comes to the study of Health policy or policy in general.
The seminar was the following:
HEALTH OUTCOME SEMINAR SERIES
(Presented by the UIC IHRP’s Center for Health Services Research
and the UIC Center for Pharmoeconomic Research)
“Will Health Reform Actually Reduce
Disparities and Improve Public Health?”
Harold Pollack, PhD
The University of Chicago
Professor, School of Social Service Administration
Faculty Chair, Center for Health Administration Studies
Co-Director, The University of Chicago Crime Lab
Dr. Pollack’s current research, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, examines racial and ethnic disparities in substance use disorders and in access to treatment services among low-income women.
I was at a very interesting seminar this past week on disparities in healthcare and if the current healthcare bill being proposed would deal with these issues. What stuck with me out of this entire seminar was one simple line.
While the actual act of passing the healthcare bill will be a grand victory, it will also end up being one of the greatest failures.
The point the lecturer made was that many of the programs being created or revamped have not been tested. Add this to the fact it was written in such a hurry and you've a cocktail of problems unforeseeable and foreseeable for the years to come.
The financial crisis cannot be pinned to one person. If it had to it wouldn't be Bush. As much as I disagree with most of his moves, this financial crisis looms deeper.
I'm only going to answer the question in the title. The national health care reform isn't the answer to our medical problems. The biggest problem is food safety and the american diet. Preventative measures need to be taught to the masses so that we can eliminate the need for much of the reasons we frequent the hospitals.
What they are trying to push is system where everyone has the right and can afford health care when they DO need it. I am all for that. The biggest step is not only to address the Health Care reform talk, but to integrate measures that will take some stress off it and put the responsibility of individual health in individuals.
Again, this is an answer to your question.
If you don't want to see it don't look! I do think a little of respect towards the rest of the world is also needed. I've seen mothers do it in a very respectful manner and I've seen others do it in a very trashy manner. It's all about how you go about it.
It is also very important to note that the myth of GM crops creating higher yields has been busted.
where do you live? I ask this because there are many "organic" options that many don't ever explore and they are very affordable. For example there is a grocery store by my house that sells conventional and organic at almost the same price. The difference is literally a few cents. I know that some small farmers cannot afford to get the USDA organic certification yet they have the same or even higher standards...I've known of ppl who directly contact those farms and buy from them.
As for your first paragraph: Have you been following the science community as of recently? There have been a few studies that have come out that clearly communicate Organic has more nutrients and less byproducts unhealthy to human consumption.
I'm sorry, but your request to have no smart notations is ignorant. You cannot discuss which is the greater invention without reviewing it's importance on human history. With that said, the wheel, as of now, is hands down more influential than the internet. In 100 more years we will have another discussion, but the wheel has influenced humans and can be said to be our first experimentation with "machines".
An estate with 20 of my best friends would be my ideal situation. I hate Condo associations!
I will quote the late George Carlin, "If selling is legal and fucking is legal, then why isn't selling fucking legal?!!!"
Enough said.
I can't agree with you on the second point. Especially the FDA, which a few years ago was proven to be entirely broken, understaffed, and couldn't handle the load they were being given. Not to mention the contributions of millions of dollars from pharma companies to get their products pushed out with little to no oversight. You are in a dream world if you really think the FDA and other regulatory agencies are not in the pockets of corporations. Just follow the money trail and look at the oversight of so many products that harm the safety and well being of Americans everyday.
Absolutely yes! The federal tip minimum wage has been 2.13 since the 50's. That's all i'll say
