Coveny

I'd disagree with the statement that "Organization and freedom are incompatible". This is similar to cultural conformity. Just because we've agreed as a society that we aren't cannibals doesn't meant we have lost freedom. Freedom can only be achieved in a society if others freedoms are also taken into account. This is what organization does, and why you can't exercise your "freedom" to eat another human being. I will agree that it makes us more productive, harmonious, and gives us a better chance of survival though. Organization is a requirement if you are going to have anything but a dictatorship where only one person has total freedom.

But you can still walk on the road if you want. The same is not true of public schools and vaccines. There is a big difference between organization and freedom...

Freedom of speech that causes harm is what was suggested they are not two separate topics as you've indicated. There is a distinction between "don't use" and "refused service". Yes it is common for citizens to pay for services that are available to them, but they don't use. This however is a service they pay for but are not allowed to use. Also it's a not to protect them from harm, it's to decrease the risk of harm. Harm is not eminent, nor is it likely given the coverage levels we have. The seatbelt is a good analogy. I'm personally against seatbelt laws because I believe it infringes on freedom. Greater good > individual freedoms seems to be the consensus, but the government loves to use that hammer with everything from privacy to indefinite incarceration. There are plenty of examples IMO of the government ignoring the constitution with the mantle of greater good.

Just brought it up as it is germane to the topic to a degree. Yes but many of the same arguments that apply to free speech also apply to freedom the freedom to perform actions that could cause harm to others. The decision hinges on should decreasing the chance of something bad happening be required by law. Spreading the propaganda increases the chance that, that chance will happen. (that was a weird sentence... prolly could have wrote that better)

The topic can be taken as anti-vaxxing with or without damages, so it does cover both: 1) Should it be a criminal offense for a parent doesn't vaccine and no one gets hurt 2) Should it be a criminal offense for a parent doesn't vaccine and people get hurt Most of the responses seem to agree with #2, and it's the most common response type to the topic. A tangent on whether or not people who encourage others to not vaccinate their children (but don't have children) should face criminal offenses as well. There does not seem to be a consensus on how to determine the amount of impact, but some have suggested punishing all who possibly could have help to create the situation. I'm not a fan of group punishment when you can't determine who's at fault though.... Please cite your source. Vaccines range in effectiveness, and average around 95% as I understand it, and to my knowledge even in the "effective" cases, if enough of the illness is present it can still overpower the individual's immune system and infect them.

Yes. Because it causes harm. No, it directly damages the child. Yes. One is a protection from a possibility, while the other is a requirement for life.

Laws don't make morality...

Not having proper education isn't solely a western counties issue, but that doesn't address who is to blame for the lack of education in these cases. The point being that we have many items, and do many things that have the potential to harm others, and would work better if we applied cooperation to them. On that I completely agree, but who gets to decide what a good decision is for someone else's life? That's where the crux of the problem lies.

Many freedoms like cars, guns, knives, etc impinges upon the collective responsibility, but we still allow them because they aren't guaranteed to impinge upon society. Ya but who's the offending party? I have yet to see a curriculum that has critical thinking on the books. Where does the failure lie at that point?

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet that references “studies” that have been debunked my science. There is also the fact that science isn’t infallible and has history has shown what science believe to be good for you today, could later turn out to be bad for you. I believe in this case vaccines have proven they work, and they are good science, but their effectiveness means that the risk is much lower to be exposed and therefore need the vaccine is lower as well. We’ve recently seen cases of preventable illness come back into America after years without a case. I’m a supporter of freedom, but I want what’s best for our society as well. Laws about seatbelts statistically save lives, but this is forcing people to do things against their will for society and their own “good”. How can we call it freedom if we don’t have the choice to make bad decisions? Freedom isn’t defined by a Stepford wife following along because she’s programed to, freedom is defined by doing things like drinking, smoking, gambling, etc that many disagree with. Where is the line in the sand on freedom? Many public schools require immunization of children or they won’t accept them. These people are paying their taxes for services they cannot use. Should they get a tax break? Is that fair? Is it ethical to take away services paid for simply because you don’t agree with the way the person using it acts? And if it’s based more on the danger the unimmunized child presents what’s the liability? Should we charge anti-vaxxer parents with assault or murder if they cause an outbreak? They generally live in communities, is the whole community to blame? How do we decide (if we agree there should be punishment) who and how much is justified? And what about their own children? Is it moral to punish a parent for doing what they believe will help even if the end result hurts their child? I don’t know of a single parent who hasn’t felt like they’ve made some bad decisions in raising their children. It’s not like we received a handbook, and even if we did no one would have time to read it. As it requires more and more time to simply “get by” economically, how much of this is societies fault, and how much is simply a case of not having the time and money to do your due diligence?

1a - No that is what you article stated, not my "opinion". It stated there are three parts to every rape and they fall into two categories power sexuality and anger sexuality. So in all cases sexuality plays a role. For the record this is your article... 1b - I'm not sure what the graph shows the decrease in rape in nevada and the article say "no evidence legalized prostitution may reduce sexual assault." I also don't understand how rape being at 3% in nevada and 13% nationally doesn't show as evidence. I guess it's because sexual assault in regards to prostitution is 77% where nationally it's 42%. It was a bad article for me to post as I didn't read it well, I just looked at the graph and read the highlights. I'll change over to this study from the florida state university. http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:176310/datastream/PDF/view It goes into the problems with using Nevada as an example. ie all the rape and illegal prostitution is in vegas and reno where brothels aren't legal. 3 - I think lower rape and STDs is in fact better for the greater good. I have already proven by point, you have not however countered that. 4 - The porn industry is getting killed by free amuter porn done by willing participants. You are focusing a what is now a small subset of the available legal porn. Those individual do not have higher rates or addiction, depression, victimization, etc. 5 - So you postion is by legalizing sex you feel like woman in America will be forced into prostitution? You do understand the brothels would be regulated and there would be no kidnapped people or children working in them right? You are attempting to compare illegal prostitution with legal prostitution, and that's not a fair comparison as any brothel found to have underage children or illegal immigrants working in it would be shut down, and the vast majority of business owners wouldn't take that sort of risk.

1a - Sexuality is part of both the power and anger aspects of rape. It play enough of a factor by itself that rape drops if legal outlets are available for people who want to have sex. 1b - There are other factors that cause Nevada (what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas) to have a higher than normal amount of crime. It is a party destination where Americans go to "break the rules", and has a high tourist influx of people who don't understand the "rules". So no I don't think it's a fair real world example, but the rape rates there have dropped. https://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/3/Rape-in-Nevada-1990-2007.pdf 3 - You haven't proven that prostitution is against the "greater good". I am attempting to prove that legalized prostitution is for the greater good, and have supporting evidence. There is really no point in addressing other things you feel are against the greater good, I agree with some and disagree with others but to get to that point you need to prove that prostitution is against the greater good, which I don't feel like you have. 4 - Your response to my question was "the history" of it. I used cotton to show that history doesn't equate to future, or even present. I admit that prostitution needs to be regulate so that people aren't taken advantage of, and abused/forced, but those expectations were outlined in the original post. A medical worker deals with infectious people all day, and there are various other jobs that deal with just as much physical contact as a sex worker does. Every job has risks, and people still choose to do those jobs. Some have even higher risks that involve death or disfigurement being well above average in the profession. So long as the individual is free to say no to the job, then I see nothing wrong with a profession that has some risks. I worked in the casino business for almost 20 years having smoke blown in my face even though I've never been a smoker. It was a negative of the job I chose to accept. That is the nature of having a job. 5 - While I will concede that the wealth inequality in America needs to be addressed very badly. I don't feel like America has gotten to the point where woman have no other options to feed their family than to become prostitutes. There are many other options that allow a person to live and provide for their family. Now I advocate a change in the welfare system that would allow anyone to have the very basics of free housing, clothes, and food, but that's a different topic. America may not be as easy to move up and down the class ladder as it use to be, but there are still many options when it comes to career path.

1 - I would disagree and the drop in rape when prostitution is legal supports my position. I will agree that prostitutes are often themselves people who have been raped, this is part of the reason to have brothels to protect sex workers. 1a - The article supports the claim stating "issues of power, anger, and sexuality are important in understanding the rapist's behavior. All three issues seem to operate in every rape". Now it goes on to say the sex aspect doesn't present without power or anger, but the point being rape is still about sex per your supporting article. 1b - It has been shown that legalizing prositution lowers the instances of sexual abuse. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20150299 2 - ok 3 - And yet site for free porn created by willing participants for free is destroying the porn industry. https://www.thedailybeast.com/free-porn-is-threatening-the-adult-industry-here-are-5-ways-to-save-it 4 - Cotton has a history of slavery but we still use it. There are numerous instances where prostitution exists that does not involve the abuse, addiction, and depression associated with the slave sex trade. A very valid argument could be made that by legalizing prostitution it could cripple the slave sex trade. 5 - I don't really feel like this is a concern in the USA. In other countries I will concede there are instances of sex workers who don't have any other options, and are little more than slaves. Also I'd like to thank you. You are the first person who presented supporting material for their position against my suggestion. I've gotten a lot of "you wouldn't feel that way if was your daughter" responses, and other emotional type responses, but very few that debate in my opinion, so thanks for that.

First off I will provide the rules for brothels as: 1. They require condoms. 2. They accept any customer. 3. They must prove they are free of STDs regularly. (monthly) 4. Each person has their own prices and list of what they are willing to do. In 2003 Rhode Island, accidentally decriminalized prostitution. The effects of this were “caused both forcible rape offenses and gonorrhea incidence to decline for the overall population. Our synthetic control model finds 824 fewer reported rape offenses (31 percent decrease) and 1,035 fewer cases of female gonorrhea (39 percent decrease) from 2004 to 2009” http://www.nber.org/papers/w20281 This breaks down into two argument in favor of legalized prostitution. 1) Rape dropped by 824. The effects of which will affect the victim for the rest of their lives. https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml 2) Gonorrhea dropped by 1,035. STDs are a critical health concern affecting this country. https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/3805.pdf 3) It is hypocrisy with prostitution being illegal, while porn is legal. Whatever argument can be for or against, one can be made for the other. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/12/colb.pornography/index.html?iref=allsearch 4) No one sees any problem with massages. No one sees any problem getting their hair, nails, or feet done. In all these cases, you are paying another human being to touch you. How is sex any different? 5) Freedom is being able to choose what you do with your body. Choosing to have sex with someone for money is no different.

Regulation are requirements, and to meet these requirements additional funds must be used. This means additional costs as you can't request something made of the best materials, and expect it to cost the same as something made of the cheapest materials. The UK, and Canada have universal healthcare which has issues with lines, and a lack of incentive for doctors, so yes you do have lower costs with the same strictness of regulation, but you have a different set of problems that goes along with it.

This is going to be a fairly long post about what I believe is the solution to health care in America. I’m going to touch on the scientific reasons, the economic reasons, and also discuss the emotion impact. I’m going to try and give goals for each of my positions, as well as explanations on how this position is going to achieve that goal. As a for the record thing I’m not getting anyone to review this before posting it so it likely will have spelling and grammar errors, and may not be as organized as it should be, and while you are welcome to criticize those parts my hope is that you will look past them and discuss the various points and how valid you feel like they are. The problem Our current system is too costly because of regulations which prevent small at home type hospitals from operating, as well as the lawsuits against medical personal. These regulations also prevent new drugs from being brought into market, and increase the time and costs involved to bring the drug to market. On the flip side the patents or copy rights to drugs keep drug prices very high in this country because once a drug is created only that company can legally produce it for many many years. This is all designed through corruption of our state and federal government to benefit the few at the cost of the many. Universal healthcare cuts back much of company’s corruption, lowers medical and drug costs. It is not without its problems though as it removes much of the incentive to become a doctor, which leads to less doctors, longer wait times, or patients not qualifying for needed treatments. This again remove options of the poor to get healthcare. The goal To create a system where everyone can get healthcare, provide an incentive for people to become medical professionals, and lower healthcare costs. The solution 1) Deregulate medical buildings 2) Lower patent and copy right terms 3) Making being a medical personal easier 4) Regulate the amounts of lawsuits 5) Bringing it all together 1) Deregulate medical buildings Did you know that in an abortion clinic it’s required to have hallways big enough to fit two gurneys side by side? Did you also know that they don’t use gurneys in an abortion clinic? The point being there are many laws in place that regulate what a medical building must have, and these laws double if not triple the cost require to build these facilities. By removing these regulations, we could have doctors who saw patients out of their homes completely removing the overhead costs of having a hospital at all. Obviously, this opens concerns about infection and hygiene but if we want to lower costs and allow more people to make money in the medical profession we need to be able to treat it like any other profession. If you want to pay the extra money for a nice that is always an option, but for the poor this gives them other options to get the treatment they need. And as with everything else, as the demand in the hospitals drops, the cost of going to the nicer facilities will drop as well. This is what capitalism excels at. Once we’ve done that we can setup classification of facilities by standards. 2) Lower patent and copy right terms Many drugs are patented and copy righted for life, and they have a monopoly on the market so they can charge through the roof. Other companies have to wait years before they are able to make generic versions of the drugs. Companies spend a LOT more on marketing than they do on research. The government is doing most of the research. “75% of so-called new molecular entities with priority rating (the most innovative drugs) trace their existence to NIH funding” source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-mazzucato-big-pharma-prices-20151027-story.html Government pay for the research (as with the case of the epi-pen) and then private company buy the patient, regulated all the schools to use it, and then increased the price by 5000%. We need to break the patent/copy right monopoly sooner, and force drug companies to invest into research rather than milking what’s already been created. 3) Making being a medical personal easier One of the best ways to lower the cost of something is to have a better supply. Currently to be a doctor you need over a decade of school, from which you will exit with a mountain of debt, and there are no half measures here. The closest being a nurse practitioner who is still over a decade in the making. Also let’s be clear, medical malpractice is the 3rd cause of death in this country (at over 200 thousand a year) so it’s not like the people who go through all those classes are providing. So, let’s make it easier to break into the medical profession. Let create tiers like what we do with emergency personal. EMT is the first, paramedic is the second, ER nurse is the third, doctor is the fourth. My suggestion is to have 5 tiers for both general and surgery. The higher the tier the more schooling that’s required, and obviously testing and certification for each of level. I purpose to do the tiers in two year increments so Tier 1 = two-year degree, Tier 2 = four-year degree, Tier 3 = six-year degree, Tier 4 = eight-year degree, and Tier 5 is what we have today. Now this could mean 75% in class and 25% on the job, or whatever the industry feels is best, but the amount of time it takes to get to the point where you can see someone needs to be shortened. Also, the ability to prescribe drugs would be attached to the various levels as well. 4) Regulate the amounts of lawsuits If we put tiers in place then there needs to be an understanding that the less you spend on a doctor the less you can sue them. This could be regulated based on the tier of the individual who saw you or the amount of money you spent to receive care. For instance, if you saw a tier 1 then you couldn’t sue him for more than 10k, tier 2 30k, tier 3 100k, tier 4 200k, and tier 5 unlimited, or it could be something like 100 times what you spent so that if you had a $20 doctor visit then the most you could sue that doctor for would be $2,000, but if you spent $300 then you could sue for 30k. Accidents are going to happen, and if you want to take a higher risk to save money then the person trying to provide you care needs to have the incentive that one mistake isn’t going to bankrupt him. 5) Bringing it all together Once we have a system in place where medical care is much cheaper and more available we can cheaply subsidize it. For instance, it wouldn’t be expensive to cover 100% the cost for tier 1 medical professions in a tier 1 building, 80% for 2/2, 60% for 3/3, 40% for 4/4, and nothing for 5/5. Insurance companies could easily adapt to this system, and allow for MUCH more flexibility in healthcare plans that cover the difference, and work on top. Making it affordable to even see tier 3 medical professionals. Doctors have the freedom to build their own practices without having to worry about the regulations of the facilities, and our society would likely even have doctor house calls again. If we can stop trying to remove risk, and stop trying to force people to work for less I think we can easily provide healthcare for everyone.

I just saw this video about fetuses in a pod. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgmdF9l7K9o Sorta on topic methinks.

Making us more resilient could pose other problems to the symbiosis we call the human digestive system. If they wanted us to be able to get the nutrients we need without bacteria and other lifeforms living in us, they would really have to rework the human body to overcome the deficiencies. Also there are issues with creating a totally different type of class warfare where you have the designer people of means versus then randoms who can't afford it.

Humans have already shown that it’s going to be a slippery slope when designer babies pick up full steam. PGD is widely used around the world currently to allow parents to select some of the traits of their children, such as gender and eye color. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a19313/genetic-engineering-allow-parents-select-gender-eye-color-children/ First genetically modified human embryo happened this year. http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/world-s-first-genetically-modified-human-embryo-raises-ethical-concerns/ Is genetic modification of humans to remove genetic illnesses like some cancers, color blindness, Sickle-Cell, Hemophilia, etc. a matter of if or a matter of when? A U.S. Panel has already endorsed it for these serious diseases. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603633/us-panel-endorses-designer-babies-to-avoid-serious-disease/ Ethically and morally I see it as a positive thing. The ability to remove genetic diseases from the world is huge in and of itself, and I think it more than overcomes the possible abuse by parents to make perfect little designer babies. But we live in a capitalist world so is it just going to become yet another way that the 1% is “better” than the rest of us? Or on the other end what about genetic mistakes happening in third world countries doing bargain basement genetic modifications? So do you think the benefits of genetically modified humans outweigh the negatives?

Each case's merit is based on something, something that we as a society haven't been able to fully define and that's what this debate is about. If you prefer I can follow you down the rabbit hole and ask why it this case is handled this way, or that case is handled that way? It still comes back to the lines that are drawn, and where they are drawn.

On the point of Michelle Carter what if her intention to end his suffering? There are numerous cases where assisted suicide and mercy killings were prosecuted. Also with Michelle there is the aspect of free speech. How many times have you heard someone say something like “you should kill yourself” or wishing some form of death on another person. So, was the amount or persuasiveness of those statements that caused her to go to jail? Is it ok to say “The world would be a better place without you” once or twice… but at three times … that’s just too much? Or maybe it’s too much when you start listing their failures or maybe even how the world would be a better place without them, or that pain would end. And what about the type of pain as well? Pain from a breakup vs pain from a terminal illness are different situations. Also, when there are accepted best practices and they aren’t followed we have no problem prosecuting people like Medical Malpractice. I think everyone agrees Doctors intentions is good but the results were bad and cost someone their life. Generally, though it’s only a loss of money, and takes repeated offenses before the doctor loses their license and no they are no longer able to practice medicine. There are rarely criminal charges brought against them, and they don’t serve any time in jail even if they are the cause of multiple people’s deaths. So, there is some precedence that recklessness and stupidity led to people going to jail regardless of intent. But how incompetent, misguided, stupid, or reckless do you need to be? Does anyone have suggestions or ideas on where those lines should be drawn?

Intent is very important when it comes to prosecuting someone, but should that be enough to overcome giving advice that costs someone their lives? Day after day I see people posting articles against vaccination, or promoting cures for cancer that either do nothing or makes things worse. For this I’m going to assume these individuals believe they are giving good advice, and their intent is to help the individual they are giving the advice too. For years, I’ve used this example. If I have a fly on my chest and your intent is to help me and kill the fly, but instead you kill me. This is an exaggeration, but the concept is still the same. Should good intent supersede harmful advice/action. Just this year Michelle Carter was sentenced to two and half years for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. The law seems to finally be moving in the direction of the results rather than the intent. So at what line do you believe anti-science need to cross before the intent can be ignored, and the individual is punished for the results?

So here recently I've had a string of debates on Facebook with trump supporters and flat earthers and I decided to take a break from the insanity and have some intelligent conversations. I'm new so the thing to do is introduce myself. Jobs done. I watch a fair amount TV, but don't read like I use to. I work in IT as a consulting doing Exchange/O365 and Networking. I enjoy science and some of my favorite topics are batteries and alternate energy sources, but I find stuff like wasp venom and nano delivery systems that curing cancer fascinating as well. This include hydro and geothermal which don't seem to get the love they deserves IMO. I also enjoy gaming but I'm holding off on that right now. Still playing a card game called War of Omens, but work on my retirement plan of an 8 unit apartment complex took up all my free time for the last month or so and I stopped playing Black Desert Online. (that game is a huge time sink...) I've played World of Tanks/Warships. Love the Total War series. Played some league of legends but quit when I started playing BDO. (might be going back ARAM and no ranked in the near future) On a humorous note I named my two havanese Teemo and Galio. Was going to debate.org but it's just so buggy now, so I started going to debate island but they've set flat earthers as moderators for the earth science and they just delete my posts when I disagree with them. As I've finally recovered from the housing bubble bursting in 2006 I decided to hire some developers to create ForDebating.com for me(You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating), but the delays are worse than the contractor problems I'm having with my apartment complex. I've almost come to the conclusion no one does what they say they are going to do/their job anymore. It's frustrating, so I figured I'd try some different forums and see if that leads to a better quality of discussion. So hit me up if any of that sounds interesting, and I look forward to getting to know ya.