No it isn't. One forbids it, the other considers it earning of its consequences.

And what happens when you do something which is forbidden? You suffer the consequences.

Which isn't society, and the level it affects society is considered to be in acceptable private levels. That's why we consider it absurd to tell others what kind of sex they may have, or what they may eat.

Yet society does regulate these things, even a so-called modern society such as our own. Which is why an argument resting on what society considers an activity to be, is a self-defeating argument because this is precisely what you are arguing against.

Honour killings deprive individuals over their legal autonomy of body. They are murder. Abortion is a private decision which modern culture has magnified into everybody's business.

Murder is a legal definition. Prior to 1973, abortion was considered murder in many places in the United States. I would not rest your argument on what the law says, or even on what society says as these things tend to change.

Just pointing out some of the flaws in your argument.

I picked tolerate so that my two definitions would both be verbs - it's easier to compare words when they belong to the same word class, and tolerate was the closest verb I could find to intolerance. But the dictionary definition of intolerant supports what I said earlier: it means not tolerating, plus a frequently perceived negative connotation ("not respecting", "bigoted" - terms that also carry a negative connotation).

It's true that voting is a far less proactive measure than lobbying, but the concept remains the same. When the ballot paper asks you for your opinion, it's not asking you "do you think x is good?" but "do you want x to be allowed or banned?" The difference between these two questions is huge.

There is some merit in your example about music, but I think it doesn't replicate the gravity of the vote. You're at a private location with a small number of people, and you tell your host that during the time that you're at that location, you'd prefer that they played something other than country. This is a matter of collaboration and compromise on a limited scale in a limited situation. You don't want to stop everybody from listening to country music altogether; you just want to stop your friends from listening to country during the time that you are at their place.

The vote is quite a different matter. When you're voting to have something banned in your nation (I'll use the word nation instead of country, so as not to get it confused with country music), you're voting to restrict the freedom of every person in your nation. It has a blanket effect on everyone's actions at all times - it's a much more serious matter. Someone who would vote for something to be banned for the sole reason that they personally think it is bad would be described as very narrow-minded. I think drinking and smoking are bad, but I wouldn't vote to have them banned because I think they're not so detrimental to society that it's worth restricting everyone's freedom.

I'll illustrate the difference between the informal "what music do we play at our house" vote and the formal "what is allowed and not allowed in this nation" vote with the music example again, altering it a little to make it closer to real-life. Say it's hip hop that you really don't like. If your friends play hip hop while you're at their place, and ask you what you think of it, you'd say you wish they would play something else. But then a politician starts a debate about how hip hop is ruining the nation's youth, and you get asked in the ballot box whether or not you want hip hop to be banned. What would you say? You'd probably vote to keep hip hop legal. Even though you personally don't like it and wouldn't want to listen to it, you want to allow other people to have freedom of choice in music. You're critical of hip hop, but you don't not vote against it.

(Of course, I realise there are some people who think that what they like is what everyone needs to do, and some people who whimsically cast their vote based on personal preferences rather than on consideration of the nation's interests. But I'd think of such attitudes as highly problematic.)

There are degrees of criticism and degrees of intolerance, of course. Someone who is highly intolerant of something may, as you suggest, proactively enforce their beliefs. (I was only using violence as an example of proactive enforcement, by the way, not claiming that you think all intolerant people advocate violence.) But you can be intolerant without being particularly proactive about your intolerance. Intolerance is a state of mind, not a set of actions. "Tolerating" something means you're willing to allow it to happen, even if you personally don't like it. "Not tolerating" or "intolerant", in the broad sense, simply means that you're not willing to allow it to happen. If you're going to vote for something to be banned, and this vote is your honest opinion, doesn't that entail that you're not willing to allow it to happen?

I disagree. You said that republicans fight against tax increases, yet they sat by and prevented a vote on tax cuts for the middle class.

I know that, but in general, republicans tend not to be in favor of more taxation across the board. This is a general debate, so I am making general arguments.

There is absolutely no evidence that this is true and mountains of evidence to the contrary.

There is a mountain of evidence that goes both ways, but lets utilize some common sense. Lets say you're the CEO of McDonald's, and you've had a fairly sizable profit increase. You can either pocket the money, or you can invest it in expanding the company and making even more money. Most people choose the latter. It's risk taking that got them there in the first place. But even if you pocket the money, it doesn't just disappear. The purpose of having money is to be able to acquire items and services. Suppose a wealthy person pockets his extra profits and decides to buy a fancy new mansion in California. Those millions of dollars he's spending are going towards other people. Contractors, architects, masons, electricians, plumbers, and dozens of others who are needed to produce the final product. Not to mention plenty of work for supply companies and lumberyards.

You are the most open-minded republican I have ever met.

Actually most of us believe that. Even Glenn Beck.

"What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?" --Dr. Ron Paul

Lets make something perfectly clear. Members of extremest organizations like AlQueda and the Taliban hate anyone who do not conform to Sharia law, and they believe it is their responsibility to conquer anyone who resists it.

What makes North Korea and Pakistan any different from Iran. NK is also ruled by a crazy dictator (like father like son).

Because North Korea is allied with China, and China would have a lot to lose from a nuclear war between Korea and the US. But I do think Pakistan should be disarmed.

The report claimed that, but it provided ZERO evidence to prove that.

They were building Uranium refinement plants and running experiments on prototype implosion disks. They also fought the UN safety commission tooth and nail when they demanded an inspection.

All you have proven is that terrorists attacks occurred before 9/11.

That's all I needed to prove. Islamic extremists hated the US even before there was widespread occupation in their land.