Is law right or wrong? In our existing system, most all of it is wrong.

How about this, is the violation of another person's self control wrong? I believe it is. It requires one simple premise, we are equals under the law.

How can they know? They obviously don't. They have prevented gay marriage, sent men and women to die and murder, they have kidnapped people for having vegetation in their pockets, they have imprisoned people for printing coins and delivering mail.

How can they force it upon all of us? Sheep like you that give them power.

Who can be sure about what is right and wrong? Logical premises and the scientific method can prove a lot of right and wrongs.

Dictating others actions has always existed, and at some point it included slavery. We realized we were wrong then, we can realize we were wrong again.

If someone does wish to commit suicide, yes, I support their right to do so. I would offer alternatives, but interfering makes them my slave.

Yes, it is your OPINION being forced upon drug users, and I resent it. If you don't want to use drugs, don't use them.

No, we have no right to force our opinions on the government, because the government is nothing more than a group of people. I will not force my opinion on what others will do except to prevent them from forcing their opinion on me or someone else that I am an advocate for.

What is the point of debating?

Actually, this is an intriguing question. If you believe that your opinion should be forced upon others, why are you debating with me? Why not simply force me to see it your way. You obviously believe in voluntary communication and convincing, why is it that you refuse to use that same methodology when it comes to breastfeeding?

No, it isn't evidence that he/she/it doesn't exist, it is evidence that he/she/it doesn't get involved. Inaction is a subset of nonexistence and all the evidence provides is a sign of inaction, not the greater nonexistence. I have already provided my reason and evidence for believing there is a God, but to clarify: the existent systems of matter and energy indicate that neither can create something from nothingness (conservation of mass and energy) and the fact is that we have something that from what we can see, nothingness was before it. That requires an act of something that was not matter or energy, and to me also presupposes a deliberate action. It could be a programmer and we are his VR people or it could be an alien or a God, but it seems to be borne out by the evidence.

USA was not founded on the principles of religion. It was founded on the principles of freedom to believe or not to believe. This is why State is separate from religion. You are confused on this issue. It is probably what you would like, but definitely not what it was or is.

Believes are not rights. Poeple can have rights to believe whatever they want but me not believing your believes does not take your rights to believe your believes. Do you get that? You can sill believe in your God, while I believe in another. This should not hurt you. It does not hurt me.

How doe the Government of the United States define a "sin"? Where can I find it in our Constitution or may be other legislation. Just for your information, Bible is not our Constitution and should never be.

2. There is a huge difference between supporting gay marriage and supporting man marrying an animal -animal has no voice and can't give a concent. A person should only be able to marry another being that can give a concent -that simple. Both sides must willingly agree to be married -impossible to achieve with animals. So this should help you feel more secur -this will never happen just because of that.

I don't have gay couple friends with or without kids. But I do have a lot of heterosexual friends with kids and pretty much all of them have been crewed up by their parents one way or the other. I don't like how my own parents raised us, I would rather prefer have two loving moms or dads instead.

Can anybody against gay marriage make an intelligent comment without involving God in it? We are not required to believe in God in this country! If you start talking God, then my question will be -who's God? Yours? And how about mine? Who's God is right? Etc... This is the best about this country -God does not have legal rights here.

I am an aitheist and this is a DISbelieve in God. I am married but my marriage has nothing to do with religion. The purpose of my marriage is to declare to the state that I chose this person to partnet up with and we will claim all the tax benefits, health insurance benefits and everything else we can claim!

The benefits derived from the marriage go far beyond protecting the rights of the children. Say there were a heterosexual couple who's children grew up and left home. Both parents retired, one dies, another continues to receive her/his spouses pension. How does this protect the interests of the children? In my opinion this has nothing to do with the children's interests. This is what gay want -to derive the benefits that have nothing to do with having or not having children, but the interests that nonetheless ARE protected by state!

Morally I'm not sure on how I stand on abortion, but I can not allow the government to make the decision not only for me, but for everyone else on the legality of abortion.

It is not the role of government to be making moral calls on something like abortion. It is up to the individual.

No. I find all the so called "evidence" crap. I'm yet to be convinced.

Are you saying that we should stone children to death simply for "swearing"?

Wow, I'm just... wow.

Pollution

All civilizations collapse, it is part of human nature to fail.---------

Eliot Spitzer has no authority or respect with talking to anyone about consistency or integrity, just ask his EX-WIFE! He is still part of the status quota in liberalism.

The point of inviting an guest onto the show is to understand their takes on issues, so by cutting them off and not letting them to clearly explain their position is typical of liberalism. IT IS THE I AM LOUDER THAN YOU, SO SHUT UP!!

Spitzer asked the tough questions, but when cutting the guest off, and switching gears so often, it is obvious there is an agenda not only in the moderator, but the network

Then, we would be free from any moral or ethical responsibilities beyond the unfounded, selfish limits we put on morality and ethics.

So I'm selfish. Still, what ethics?

See above.

it doesn't answer my question.

I would ask you to justify your speciesism.

Why? Do you object to it? If so, tell me why :(

An addiction is the continued consumption of a substance despite negative consequences.

So all the positive consequences mean nothing? As well, vegans live just as long as meat eaters. Vegetarians, according to only a few studies, live a few years longer, but with no consideration for healthy lifestyle choices that vegetarians tend to go by.

What are the negative consequences of eating tofu?

Mostly the lacking of essential nutrients found in meat. You can get all you need from not eating meat, but meat eaters have the advantage when it comes to proper nutrition (b-vitamins, iron, etc.)

But I will concede that tofu has little negative consequences if you are careful enough to set up your diets properly.

But really, is it an addiction to not care about your meals and just eat what is convenient and tasty?

I do not crave meat (unless I'm high), and I don't get withdrawal systems if I don't get my "fix." But maybe I spend too much time with real addicts to take what you say seriously.

Not based upon any sort of anatomical foundation.

Many NON-vegan nutritionists would disagree (which is most of them).

But we can have an argument based on what nutritionists say on anatomy, or we can focus on "natural," where our ancestors depended solely on fruits, vegetables, and meat. Hunting would not have been such a popular thing among tribes and nomads if it wasn't necessary. With this day in age of agriculture, we no longer NEED meat like we used to, but agriculture comes with its own risks (contributing to the obesity "epidemic") and assertions that just because we've discovered the power of the soy bean we must give up meat is sort of... authoritarian. Why should we stop eating meat just because we've found alternative ways to eat? We're human beings. Our way is to dominate and do what benefits us, not limit ourselves based on feeling bad for lower beasts.

Garry would love a debate on this.

We went far past the innocence thing at this point. We've concluded that animals are innocent and so are bacteria and grass.

There are multiple definitions of murder. Legal definitions are only one.

The definition of murder, with the fifth definition being the only one that can help you and it is only in a verb sense. So sure, multiple definitions, but primarily the term murder is a legal term... created for legal purposes.

Because objection to the unnecessary massacre of innocents is such a weak moral foundation

It is, because you make the assumption that animals deserve any respect or protection from animals. I see little reason to remove the rights of a human for the sake of a lower beast.

We as a society presume innocence.

Okay, I'll feel bad about kicking that innocent rock into the ocean.

Paul vs Paul debate is interesting. Paul was the clear winner despite not being an economist.

It seemed to me that Paul just repeated himself after a certain point, unable to counter some of Krugman's points.

Paul is not an true Austrian economist, if Thomas Thomas DiLorenzo, Robert Murphy, Lew Rockwell or even Peter Schiff, Paul Krugman would appear foolish. These men get no attention because they are not running for president nor fit into mainstream economics.

If girls play football, then boys should be able to play volleyball.

Mother's are not infallible.

Considering she is human, how is that really a surprise? Humans make errors in judgement, I was unaware of anything being infallible.

Now name a non-governing body which would have a "Central Controller,"

Companies have central planners, but they don't plan for other people. They plan for the future of the company.

otherwise you first and several times since for no apparent reason other than your preconceived notions of me, have brought government into the debate.

Please, exact quote in this debate where "GOVERNMENT WAS MENTIONED."

By what ethics do you support your claim?

Why are animals protected by human ethics?

One could very easily place a line at "humans." Then, we would be free from any moral or ethical responsibilities beyond the unfounded, selfish limits we put on morality and ethics.

Why do we need justification to indulge in meat eating? It's delicious and they are not humans.

See above.

Until someone can convince us that animals are equal to humans, I see no reason to just stop eating them.

I would ask you to justify your speciesism.

Primary food sources are not an addiction.

An addiction is the continued consumption of a substance despite negative consequences.

You might as well say that vegans are addicted to tofu.

What are the negative consequences of eating tofu?

It's very natural.

Not based upon any sort of anatomical foundation.

Especially since we are at the top of the food chain.

So are rhinos. That doesn't make carnivorous tendencies natural to them.

Unless being on top means it's unnatural to eat what's below you

In many cases, yes.

As for unnecessary... as unnecessary as NOT eating meat.

That makes absolutely no sense.

What makes animals innocent?

Garry would love a debate on this.

And is it truly murder? I always figured murder, according to the legal definition, to be the unlawful killing of a human being.

There are multiple definitions of murder. Legal definitions are only one.

So really, all you're banking on right now is that we're KILLING innocents.

?

Yes. Because objection to the unnecessary massacre of innocents is such a weak moral foundation (sarcasm).

Why are animals so innocent?

You're asking the wring question. We as a society presume innocence.

you are possibly the most christian person on the planet..... not that theres anything wrong, just pointing out the obvious :)

Yea, cause we all know the mother always knows whats right for their children... ::cough:: Casey ::cough:: Anthony ::cough,cough::

The case concerning Casey Anthony is an aberration; a vast majority of mothers have her child's best interest.

No, I'm not. That's why I'm glad we're clear.

-------------------------