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.

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.

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

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

I do like Krugman, but I found him to be just going on the basis that government is good because government is good and that's why it's okay to continue the bubble.

He didn't really contest Paul, and Paul, at a certain point, went on to just repeat the points of liberty and shit like that.

Krugman didn't really corner Paul... they just seemed to reach a stand-still. I find that Paul is not an economist, and it would have been better to have Libertarian economists debate Krugman so they could get more in depth.

Spitzer, to me, is at the same level as Paul. This is why I was more impressed. Krugman is a brilliant economist with some interesting ideals, but he doesn't really know how to debate Ron Paul and vice versa.

I realize that's what you meant but that still isn't what you said, sorry.

Thank you, nuff said.

If you wish to equate inaction to action... than sure.

But if not being the cause of something that didn't happen is the same as being the cause as something that did happen, what would be the point in the word cause at all?

If no matter what, a cause exists for everything at all times, cause is simply existence. For that, there is no cause because it's something else. And that else is everything, sort of.

Then we're getting into deconstructuralist language, which I feel your Theory wouldn't hold up against because it is too specific, and deconstructuralism would suggest that your specificity in causation is harming itself as a theory.

No, i meant that you must abide by contract, as stated.

Playing around with words just to avoid that you didn't know how contracts work isn't what "adults" do... but maybe you're wanting of me to act like an "adult" has caused me to make an assumption... that you feel that you should do the same.

I haven't believed in spirits since I was 14.

It all seems like fantasy, to me.

I believe that once you die, that's it. So Ghosts just seems irrational.

now, if I ever saw one I'd be more interested in whether they exist or not (and it would alter my philosophy a bit). But Ghost stories and stuff where people go into a "haunted" house with a camera and some fake technology used to "track" ghosts is pretty bullshit. I'm surprised that people actually fall for this shit.

Rarely would I ban users. I'm not sure on how you feel about those creating debates that are advertisements. Do you invite that?

Bans are strong, and there are two types of bans. Profile bans and IP bans. now, there can be a limit to how long or how much a user can be banned, and mods will probably have to make an appeal to do a perma-ban on a user that they feel is a troll.

But as a mod, I'd avoid banning users.

I'd avoid editing or deleting anything. I'd only delete multiple arguments of the same content, stuff like that. Keep the site clean. But I love controversy and wouldn't ban or delete someone just because they're as much as a racist or idiot.

I believe that mods are for keeping the place tidy. But debate invites controversy, so controversy is NOT messy.

I just gotta say; ideological similarities don't impress me as much as good arguments.

You can argue for why rape should be legal, but as long as you truly have a good argument, I'll have respect for you.