Kalhoun, you are out of control.

[Mr. Moto]

We're having a spirited discussion in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418876&page=1&pp=50), and I'm stating my position as plainly as I can. Maybe not as plainly as possible, but the majority of posters there tend to get the gist of what I'm saying, and though they disagree, mostly, they're responding to these arguments in kind.

Everyone, that is, except for Kalhoun, who not only automatically ascribes the worst possible motives to my position, but attacks it with luducrous statements totally not indicated by any of my posts.

Do you believe that a person cannot change their life? Do you believe that all non-convicts always place a vote that is in the best interest of the country? Do you believe that all aspects of a criminal's being are bad? Do you believe that all shoplifters should forfeit their driver's license?

Might as well suspend medical care and book learnin' too. Fuckin' sub-humans.

Now, Kalhoun, if you hated what I had to say that much, you should have come over here a while back. Your statements were out of line in what what should have been a rational debate. Choosing to attack me in that way in that forum was uncalled for, and demonstrates to me a basic disrespect for your political opponents and the general rules of this place.

Fucker! ;)

[Uncommon Sense]

Congrats Kalhoun on your first pitting(?)

Yay!

[Man With a Cat]

I like Kalhoun , she's gone after things I've said and done with some, um 'enthusiasm' before, but she's rational and pretty smart when all is said and done, and I frankly don't see the big insult here.

I don't see any ascribing of motives anywhere in your quote. I see questions.

[Nava]

Given that I haven't set foot in that thread because I didn't want to get myself pitted, what can I say, I'm not impressed.

Maybe we should all have some chunky chocolate ice cream and calm down, yes?

[tdn]

Congrats Kalhoun on your first pitting(?)

Yay!
Yay indeed. No one lights up a room like Kalhoun. ;)

[Lightnin']

All I see is a perfectly valid point against Moto's clear-as-mud position on the subject. This has to be one of the lamest pittings I've ever seen.

[Kalhoun]

We're having a spirited discussion in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418876&page=1&pp=50), and I'm stating my position as plainly as I can. Maybe not as plainly as possible, but the majority of posters there tend to get the gist of what I'm saying, and though they disagree, mostly, they're responding to these arguments in kind.

Everyone, that is, except for Kalhoun, who not only automatically ascribes the worst possible motives to my position, but attacks it with luducrous statements totally not indicated by any of my posts. First off, they weren't statements. They were questions. Questions that were perfectly valid, in my opinion. It just seems that you thought the disconnect between crime and punishment is ok in some instances and not in all. I was giving you a chance to flesh it out more clearly.

I happen to believe (and I'm not alone) that forbidding ex-felons to vote has absolutely no positive impact on society. It's like treating an ovarian cyst by striping a parking lot. I also believe that when a sentence is served, we should all get on with the business of being productive members of society. The scarlett letter attitude serves no one.





Now, Kalhoun, if you hated what I had to say that much, you should have come over here a while back. Your statements were out of line in what what should have been a rational debate. Choosing to attack me in that way in that forum was uncalled for, and demonstrates to me a basic disrespect for your political opponents and the general rules of this place.

Fucker! ;)
I never said you were a cock-sucking imbicile with no value to the human race who should be cast aside like a myopic waste-oid. If that were the case, a pitting would be in order. I merely think your ideas about crime and punishment and citizens' rights are inconsistent, ill-conceived and silly. The snarkification of that last comment was fine in that forum. Maybe you should spend less time making a mountain out of that mole hill and think about what you hope to accomplish by supporting the stupidity that is the disenfranchisement of a large segment of the community who has done their time.

[Plynck]

It's like treating an ovarian cyst by striping a parking lot.So there's still a chance that I could become a doctor?

[Phlosphr]

<<snip>> The snarkification of that last comment. <<snip>>

Snarkification??? - I like it.

Now, as for your first pitting - let's get on with it.

Ya know there was the fuck'in time you....

And the funking, fuckity, fuck, fuck, time you fucking fucked up so fucking bad I can't fucking believe it...UHH OG, I JUST CAN'T....

Ok fine. I can't pit Kalhoun, she's too good at being little shit. :D

[Sal Ammoniac]

It's like treating an ovarian cyst by striping a parking lot.
Just to chime in, I happen to think that's one of the best lines ever I've ever seen on the SDMB. Score, Kalhoun 1, Moto 0!

[Shodan]

Actually, if I were you, Mr. Moto, I would have been more offended at Czarcasm's attempt to assign unworthy motives to you.

First off, they weren't statements. They were questions. No, the part where you pretended that supporting the removal of voting rights from felons was the same as saying that they were sub-humans who didn't deserve medical care or education was a statement. A stupid, unnecessarily inflammatory straw man statement. Not a question at all.

:shrugs: Kalhoun lost her temper along with the argument.

Seems like the boards are nastier nowadays. I thought you folks would cheer up when the Dems took over Congress.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sal Ammoniac]

No, the part where you pretended that supporting the removal of voting rights from felons was the same as saying that they were sub-humans who didn't deserve medical care or education was a statement. A stupid, unnecessarily inflammatory straw man statement.
Sarcasm is not a strawman. It's sarcasm, and perceptible as such by most of us.

[Kalhoun]

No, the part where you pretended that supporting the removal of voting rights from felons was the same as saying that they were sub-humans who didn't deserve medical care or education was a statement.
No, that was sarcasm.

[Sal Ammoniac]

See?

[Kalhoun]

(Jinx! I owe Sal a coke!)

[tdn]

No, that was sarcasm.
Yeah, right.

[Sal Ammoniac]

(Jinx! I owe Sal a coke!)
Wow, I can't believe it! My kids say that, and I've never heard the expression anywhere else!

[Mtgman]

I agree that Kalhoun was demolishing straw men with the specific statements quoted in the OP. On the other hand, on reading the thread I didn't see any movement on your part towards addressing her points about including penalties not related to the crime and which would not help prevent future crimes, especially lifelong penalties, in sentences. Given that said penalties include the forefiture of basic rights I would think there would need to be a compelling reason to do so. Your continued arguments about there being "something"(poor judgement, "civic immaturity", etc.) about committing a felony(regardless of what the actual crime was) automatically meeting that standard seem pretty weak. You do have caselaw on your side however, so if you want to continue standing firm on the "it's the law" platform you can. When you leave those waters and start to argue the wisdom and appropriateness of the caselaw is where you seem to flounder in getting your point across.

Enjoy,
Steven

[elucidator]

..Seems like the boards are nastier nowadays. I thought you folks would cheer up when the Dems took over Congress...
A tourniquet has been applied. The wound remains.

[vetbridge]

I never said you were a cock-sucking imbicile with no value to the human race who should be cast aside like a myopic waste-oid. If that were the case, a pitting would be in order. I merely think your ideas about crime and punishment and citizens' rights are inconsistent, ill-conceived and silly. The snarkification of that last comment was fine in that forum. Maybe you should spend less time making a mountain out of that mole hill and think about what you hope to accomplish by supporting the stupidity that is the disenfranchisement of a large segment of the community who has done their time.
Dayum, that was good.

[Kimstu]

Seems like the boards are nastier nowadays.

Must be the influence of all those folks chanting "Neener neener neener".

[RedFury]

Mr Moto, you're an imbecile and a dickwad to boot.

Having said that, here, have a cookie...and share it with Shodan on the cross.

[RTFirefly]

Props to Kalhoun for the great response @7.

And since a Pit thread is open, this seems like as good a place as any to bug Mr. Moto for not being able to tell the difference between my not taking a stand in favor of voting rights for current inmates, and his claim (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8528555&postcount=114) that I oppose (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8529539&postcount=125) such rights. Mr. M., not being for something doesn't mean you're against it.

Yeah, I was a little cryptic in my response the first time you claimed that, but I thought that you ought to be able to figure that out on your own.

[Liberal]

Kalhoun is female? Well anyway... this is all pretty sad. To me, at least.

I do agree that the board is nastier than ever, especially in the Pit. There seems to be a push-me/pull-you conflict with conservatives. I saw comments in another thread about how poor the quality of conservatives here is, and about how we need good ones. I'm not sure how a good one would help, though, unless by good one you mean one who agrees with you... which would defeat the whole thing.

I think there's some jumping-the-gun involved. Pouncing on a remark, casting it in the worst possible light, and then addressing that reworked interpretation rather than the original. And I think that a part of that might come from a sort of "Ha ha! We have the power now!" intoxication, but that's not all of it. I can understand the desperation not to lose what you've achieved. Better to swat down these pesky conservatives lest they regroup and rebuild their power.

From one another, on the other hand, the lefts find the best possible interpretations and hold a sort of exclusive mutual back-patting discussion. Like how WONDERFUL people think post number 7 is. I do believe that were it reversed, and post number 7 was the response of a right to a left, it would be assailed as weakminded and missing the point. From my point of view, neither left nor right, it's just a slap-down post like any other slap-down post.

With John Corrado gone, and Shodan effectively crippled by consensus, and now Mr. Moto beginning the process of disenfranchisement, I wouldn't be surprised to see the quality of conservatives becoming worse, rather than better. Far less eloquent people will remain to take your punches, and surely that won't be any fun. Who's next, Bricker? God, I hope not.

Me, I'm pretty much desensitized to that sort of thing. I've mended a lot of fences since coming back, and I don't care to rip it all up again. So I hope y'all will take this in the manner it's intended — nothing more than the point of view of an outsider. No need to freak out or anything. And if you do pile-on, I'll just go on to some other thread. It ain't worth the hassle.

But you gotta admit. You're not cutting the rights any slack. None. You're not really trying to understand their point of view. You just want to make sure you win the fight. And that's understandable because you've had a lot of years of very little to celebrate.

Just remember that these people are your fellow community neighbors. They're not evil. If they worded something in a way that shocks you, just ask for clarification. The whole mindset of a right can be shocking to a left. Before you assume that a conservative automatically thinks convicts should be effectively tortured, just try to cast his comments the way you would a left.

Okay, now that I've wasted all this time, I'll shut up. :D

[RTFirefly]

Seems like the boards are nastier nowadays. I thought you folks would cheer up when the Dems took over Congress. I don't know if the boards are any nastier now than they were a year or two ago, and the Dem takeover of Congress has increased my hopes for the future. But in the present, pretty much everything bad that was going on last year continues - war, a gutted safety net, corruption in government, a major American city still largely in ruins - but a bit more light is being shined on it.

No one in their right mind expected the Dem victory last November to be more than a first step in undoing the evil of the past six years. The evil is still there, hard at work.

[tdn]

I do agree that the board is nastier than ever, especially in the Pit.
Really? Maybe I'm just not reading the right threads, but to me it seems more civil than ever. I do see a bit of whining by some rightists about the big bad liberal cabal, but only from a few posters, and not all that often.

[Kimstu]

I do agree that the board is nastier than ever, especially in the Pit.

Meh. It doesn't seem to me to be significantly different from the tone of the board back in, say, 2004, when this sort of lament (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284717) was going the rounds:

I am disappointed in the Straight Dope Message Board members, and in human nature in general. I am disappointed and aggrieved that any feel so bitterly that they would moan and complain and bitch about having lost this election, so vociferously and in such a petty way. [...] I am ashamed to be a member of a message board where some feel so gleeful in victory that they must do the Happy Dance and verbally abuse anybody in the opposition.


We've all had to put up with a certain amount of nasty partisan sniping from time to time, and most of us, alas, have at least occasionally given in to the temptation to commit some of it.

I tend to think that if there really is any detectable difference between now and a few years ago, it's chiefly that some conservatives are feeling thinner-skinned because their perceived credibility in the world at large has dwindled.

When conservatives in general felt confident that their guys were doing the right things and growing in popular esteem, they didn't care so much about being picked on by a bunch of "whiny liberals". But now that many conservatives are feeling seriously embarrassed by the well-publicized missteps or unpopular actions of many politicians on their own team---from Katrina to the failure to stabilize Iraq to Republican sex scandals to military contractor scandals to unconstitutional detainment policies to the firing of the prosecutors, etc. etc.---being mocked by liberals flicks them on the raw more than it used to.

That's not to say that I think conservatives in general are worse people than liberals, or that they necessarily have worse political leaders, or even that they have worse political ideas. But I think that conservative politics happens to be going through an embarrassing bad patch right now, and it makes some of our conservative posters feel more vulnerable to insults and objurgation. So they naturally think that the insults and objurgation must be getting worse than they used to be.

[vetbridge]

Like how WONDERFUL people think post number 7 is. I do believe that were it reversed, and post number 7 was the response of a right to a left, it would be assailed as weakminded and missing the point. From my point of view, neither left nor right, it's just a slap-down post like any other slap-down post.
I read post #7 and commented positively on it because of how Kalhoun stood up for herself. For me, it wasn't R vs L or R vs D or C vs L or whatever. Kalhoun was attacked (see thread title) and she snapped back in a clever way.

ETA: Fuck

[Liberal]

When conservatives in general felt confident that their guys were doing the right things and growing in popular esteem, they didn't care so much about being picked on by a bunch of "whiny liberals". But now that many conservatives are feeling seriously embarrassed by the well-publicized missteps or unpopular actions of many politicians on their own team---from Katrina to the failure to stabilize Iraq to Republican sex scandals to military contractor scandals to unconstitutional detainment policies to the firing of the prosecutors, etc. etc.---being mocked by liberals flicks them on the raw more than it used to.Okay, well let's just say that your interpretation represents reality. Stipulating that rightists are licking their wounds and being more sensitive than usual, why aren't you toning it down? Was I right that there's an element of "we have the power now!" revenge thing?

[elucidator]

I'm a lefty, and I gloat when we win. You're a libertarian, and therefore not subject to any such temptations.

[Shodan]

I do agree that the board is nastier than ever, especially in the Pit. There seems to be a push-me/pull-you conflict with conservatives. I saw comments in another thread about how poor the quality of conservatives here is, and about how we need good ones. I'm not sure how a good one would help, though, unless by good one you mean one who agrees with you... which would defeat the whole thing.
That is what they mean.
I think there's some jumping-the-gun involved. Pouncing on a remark, casting it in the worst possible light, and then addressing that reworked interpretation rather than the original.SOP. And I think that a part of that might come from a sort of "Ha ha! We have the power now!" intoxication, but that's not all of it. I can understand the desperation not to lose what you've achieved. Better to swat down these pesky conservatives lest they regroup and rebuild their power.
I think it is sort of a delayed reaction. Subconsciously, they are attributing the Dem victory in 2006 to the same rhetoric they spouted in 2004 (and 2002, and 2000, and 1998, and 1996, and ...) It didn't work in 2004, but that didn't discourage them for long. Now, finally, the Dems regained ground, and they are (as you said) afraid that they might not win in 2008, and then have the whole difficult process of convincing themselves that they didn't really lose ahead of them. This they would have to achieve (on the SDMB) by shouting in unison whenever someone dissents from the groupthink.
From one another, on the other hand, the lefts find the best possible interpretations and hold a sort of exclusive mutual back-patting discussion. Like how WONDERFUL people think post number 7 is. I do believe that were it reversed, and post number 7 was the response of a right to a left, it would be assailed as weakminded and missing the point. From my point of view, neither left nor right, it's just a slap-down post like any other slap-down post.
Again, SOP. It is easier to announce (if you are a leftie) that you have won the argument than to actually argue, since (if you are a leftie) you can count on a chorus of approval for you and derision for those of us on the Right, so long as you spout the properly approved talking points.

You can't do that if you are not a registered Bush-hater. The conservatives (like Mr. Moto and others) are as thoughtful and intelligent as the best of the lefties, and infinitely superior to the rest. They don't do pile-ons. If Bricker is convinced by an argument, he changes his mind. Name the last time one of the Usual Suspects did that!
With John Corrado gone, and Shodan effectively crippled by consensus, and now Mr. Moto beginning the process of disenfranchisement, I wouldn't be surprised to see the quality of conservatives becoming worse, rather than better. I am quite sorry to have lost John Corrado, but one can only be crippled by consensus when one gives a rip. I am not naive enough to expect that any of the less thoughtful of the extremists around here are actually going to concede a point. That's not what they do. Thus I am not crippled by any consensus.

I seek rather to gain my satisfaction from identifying when I have won the argument by my own standards. If someone throws out a straw man, and then, when called on it, retreats behind the "I was only joking" stuff that (as you say) would be derided if it came from some one not reliably left-of-center, that means that their point, such as it was, has been effectively refuted. If someone has to misrepresent your argument in order to debate it, that means that your real argument is air-tight and unassailable. And the more extreme the misrepresentation, the clearer the victory. I mean, come one - if Kalhoun has to pretend that the Constitutional clause removing voting rights from a felon is the equivalent of letting someone die because they are subhuman, then that is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. So, despite her reluctance to admit it, she doesn't have an arguement and Mr. Moto's point is carried by default.

Your only mistake (IMO) is that you take seriously the notion that the Usual Suspects want a higher quality of conservatives here. They don't - they want only stupid ones, because then no one will be there to make them and their arguments look stupid. That's part of the reason behind the pile-on and snarking at Mr. Moto in particular - they don't want him around. He's too smart. So the less intelligent of the Dopers on the left, those who rely on snark and ad hominems and dishonesty and sheer annoyance factor, cluster to the attack like flies to sugar.
Far less eloquent people will remain to take your punches, and surely that won't be any fun. Who's next, Bricker? God, I hope not.
God forbid.

But you are correct, it won't be any fun for those who value intelligent conversation. But for those who merely want the sort of circle-jerks that most political threads turn into once someone mentions Bush, that will be lots of fun.

But you gotta admit. You're not cutting the rights any slack. None. You're not really trying to understand their point of view. I have come to believe they aren't even reading anything beyond the first sentence or two.

Can't make someone understand if they don't want to. So I get my kicks where I can.

Thanks for the outsider's point of view.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sal Ammoniac]

Just wait till the leftists realize they didn't really win. The Democrats won, and there's a difference -- they're not taking their marching orders from elucidator, anyway. (And I'll just say that it would be a more picturesque crusade if they were.)

[tdn]

I read post #7 and commented positively on it because of how Kalhoun stood up for herself.
Not to mention that it was just a good post. Such things tend to invite comment. A good post is not necessarily a secret liberal rallying point.

[Sal Ammoniac]

That's part of the reason behind the pile-on and snarking at Mr. Moto in particular - they don't want him around. He's too smart.
Who's this "they" you're talking about? And got any proof? Telling Moto his pitting is lame is not the same as saying we don't want him around. Heck, you could probably even get him to admit his pitting is lame. The fact that the conversation wandered as abruptly as it did from the point of the pitting is proof enough that the pitting has precious little traction.

[Kimstu]

Okay, well let's just say that your interpretation represents reality. Stipulating that rightists are licking their wounds and being more sensitive than usual, why aren't you toning it down?

Me personally? I like to think that I'm one of the polite ones, at least most of the time, but if you tell me I've been failing to live up to that, I'll try to be more careful.

Or Doper liberals in general? Welllllll.....can't speak for anybody else, of course, but it does seem to me that the idea of toning down one's insults because one's political opponents are feeling more vulnerable than usual due to real-world setbacks and failures is...something of a novel proposition for these boards, to say the least.

Not that it doesn't sound like a good idea that would make us all better people, mind you. Just that it's never been tried before, and we'll probably have to give Dopers of all political stripes a little time to get used to the concept.

[Shodan]

Who's this "they" you're talking about? And got any proof? Telling Moto his pitting is lame is not the same as saying we don't want him around. Heck, you could probably even get him to admit his pitting is lame. The fact that the conversation wandered as abruptly as it did from the point of the pitting is proof enough that the pitting has precious little traction.
And the reason it has little traction is that Mr. Moto is not a registered Bush-hater. Thus he does not have the built-in chorus of assholes (hi, RedFury!) to chime in to support him and deride whoever he Pits.

You did read my post, didn't you?

Oh, that's right - I forgot.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lightnin']

And the reason it has little traction is that Mr. Moto is not a registered Bush-hater. Thus he does not have the built-in chorus of assholes (hi, RedFury!) to chime in to support him and deride whoever he Pits.

You did read my post, didn't you?

Oh, that's right - I forgot.

Regards,
Shodan


There there, Shoday, there there. It's not easy being a martyr, is it?

[tdn]

Who's this "they" you're talking about?
The Evil Liberals of Shodan's imagination.

Honestly, some of the complaints by some of the conservatives on this board of late have been rather surreal. The accusation that not one liberal would actually debate the issues makes me wonder what Shodan has been smoking. The accusation of some liberal hive mind makes me think it must be pot, because that's some serious paranoia going on there.

[RedFury]

And the reason it has little traction is that Mr. Moto is not a registered Bush-hater. Thus he does not have the built-in chorus of assholes (hi, RedFury!) to chime in to support him and deride whoever he Pits.

You did read my post, didn't you?

Oh, that's right - I forgot.

Regards,
Shodan

Awww...didn't get your cookie, did you? Mean, mean, Mr Moto, kept it all to himself. :(

[Kimstu]

Yup. Gonna take a little time to get used to the concept...

[Kalhoun]

And the reason it has little traction is that Mr. Moto is not a registered Bush-hater. Thus he does not have the built-in chorus of assholes (hi, RedFury!) to chime in to support him and deride whoever he Pits.

You did read my post, didn't you?

Oh, that's right - I forgot.

Regards,
Shodan
Dude, back away from the crack-pipe. This has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Moto has the common sense to see that Bush is a dumb cunt. It has to do with a stupid law and his support of that law. Jayzuz! Where do you get this stuff?

[tdn]

Dude, back away from the crack-pipe.
So much for me thinking it was pot.

[Revenant Threshold]

You're all morons.

You've turned the issue of the OP - in which Moto suggests Kalhoun is wrong not because of her position, not because of her ideas, but the way she represented them - into a partisan bicker-fest.

I have noticed the boards "getting nastier" but not I think in the way it was meant. It seems like any issue that could in any way affect politics even a tiny amount gets blown up into this ridiculous running liberals/conservatives snarkfest. Things aren't nastier, per se, people are just more willing to ignore what actually might be the issue (on which, I can only assume, they have pisspoor arguments) and define it as a partisan issue. Oh, you've insulted me, that's proof all liberals are idiots! You're disagreeing with my position, you fool - and isn't that typical of conservatives?

Like I said, you're all morons. And so am I for posting this. But at least I realise it.

[Liberal]

Not to mention that it was just a good post. Such things tend to invite comment. A good post is not necessarily a secret liberal rallying point.But it wasn't good. I mean, it wasn't bad. But it wasn't something that merited a series of me-too cheers. It was just a fairly run of the mill smack-down. For me, a good post would be one that facilitated an understanding among one another. But then, it's like Luc says, as a liberal, I've never known victory. Maybe if overnight we were all free from coercion, I'd be worse than all the leftists combined! :D

[Jackmannii]

For me, a good post would be one that facilitated an understanding among one another. Words that should be written in flaming letters for all to see. :)

[tdn]

But it wasn't good. I mean, it wasn't bad.
I'll grant it weren't no Shakespeare, but it seems to have been a defining moment in the thread. She stood her ground well, and the ovarian cyst comment was gold, pure gold.

[Sal Ammoniac]

And the reason it has little traction is that Mr. Moto is not a registered Bush-hater. Thus he does not have the built-in chorus of assholes (hi, RedFury!) to chime in to support him and deride whoever he Pits.
Are you seriously suggesting that if Mr. Moto was a registered Bush-hater, that we'd all have piled on Kalhoun? For the crime of using sarcasm in a GD thread?

Heavens to betsy!

[Liberal]

I'll grant it weren't no Shakespeare, but it seems to have been a defining moment in the thread. She stood her ground well, and the ovarian cyst comment was gold, pure gold.Okay, then it restored the status quo. She stood her ground, leftists are having a party, rightists are licking wounds, libertarians are going "what the fuck?", and authoritarians are trying to devise a suitable central plan for us all. Hooray. I guess.

[Kalhoun]

But it wasn't good. I mean, it wasn't bad. But it wasn't something that merited a series of me-too cheers. It was just a fairly run of the mill smack-down. For me, a good post would be one that facilitated an understanding among one another. But then, it's like Luc says, as a liberal, I've never known victory. Maybe if overnight we were all free from coercion, I'd be worse than all the leftists combined! :D
You've been nippin' at the giggle juice, too, I see. I think you confuse understanding with agreement. I understand exactly what Moto was saying. I simply don't agree with it. Because I didn't agree with it and because he can't tell the difference between statements, questions, accusations, or sarcasm, he decided to call a conservative jihad on me here in the pit.

Most people in the other thread agreed that forbidding ex-cons to vote is assinine. He could have simply answered the questions posed to him so that the participants could get a more complete picture of what his idea of fairness and civil rights are. Instead, he chose to gather up his friends and throw stones at me off school grounds.

And after all is said and done, it's still monumentally stupid to forbid ex-cons from voting after they've served their time.

[Miller]

If Bricker is convinced by an argument, he changes his mind. Name the last time one of the Usual Suspects did that!

We might be able to do that, if you'd ever defined who is one of your celebrated "Usual Suspects." Trying to determine who you mean by the context in which you use the phrase, I've managed to narrow it down to, "Anyone who disagrees with Shodan, in any way, for any reason."

Which doesn't help a whole hell of a lot.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Because I didn't agree with it and because he can't tell the difference between statements, questions, accusations, or sarcasm, he decided to call a conservative jihad on me here in the pit.
Actually, to be fair, it's a jihad of one at this point.

[Mr. Moto]

Most people in the other thread agreed that forbidding ex-cons to vote is assinine. He could have simply answered the questions posed to him so that the participants could get a more complete picture of what his idea of fairness and civil rights are. Instead, he chose to gather up his friends and throw stones at me off school grounds.

I was answering those questions, wasn't I? The picture I presented of where I stood on the issue was reasonably complete, wasn't it?

Even if it wasn't, a polite question would have been nice, rather than a nasty one.

You chose to muddy things considerably with your rude and over the top contributions to that debate. I didn't think that had any place in that conversation, which is why I came here.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Mr. Moto, let's do like the emergency room physicians do. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most refined politeness and 10 being the ultima thule of rudeness, where do you think Kalhoun's remarks lie?

[Mr. Moto]

I just brought it here because I didn't think it was appropriate to get into a pissing match in the other thread.

[Shodan]

Remember earlier how I said there were ways to tell when you had presented an unassailable argument, because people then had to misrepresent it? The accusation that not one liberal would actually debate the issues makes me wonder what Shodan has been smoking. I just won the argument.
:D
It's not easy being a martyr, is it? As also said earlier, it becomes much easier in situations where, as the debate continues, so does a precipitous decline in the apparent IQ of your opponents. So don't cry for me, Argentina.
Are you seriously suggesting that if Mr. Moto was a registered Bush-hater, that we'd all have piled on Kalhoun? I am suggesting that Kalhoun is a RBH, and thus does have an automatic chorus line all kicking in time to her tune.

I guess you haven't read the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard Parker]

Kalhoun's questions seem pretty legitimate, perhaps with the exception of whether you think all aspects of the criminal's being are bad. Moto stated himself in the thread that it's a balancing test. He believes that any violation of the law evinces a lack of civil maturity, and draws the line at the commission of a felony. The questions were clearly targeted toward understanding that balance and why he thinks ex-felons should be presumed to lack that maturity.

That said, the sub-humans sarcasm seems a little out of line. Pit-worthy? I think you need to be pretty short-fused to find it pit-worthy. It would be pit-worthy if it were evidence of the wider issue cited, that Kalhoun automatically assign the worst of intentions to Moto. But none of this even arises until page 3, after 2 pages of rational interaction between the two. There's really no assigning of bad intentions in what is clearly a snarky comment.

As for Shodan and the rest in this thread, can you really read that GD and come away thinking Moto or Martin or Bricker was treated unfairly? It seemed like a pretty level-headed, rational discussion to me overall. I thought Moto presented a calm and relatively well-reasoned argument and got mostly that same response in kind.

[Sal Ammoniac]

I am suggesting that Kalhoun is a RBH, and thus does have an automatic chorus line all kicking in time to her tune.
Given how tepid Mr. Moto's actual complaint is, it would be beyond bizarre if the rest of us piled on her. And the idea that there's any ideological angle to this at all is pure invention -- of yours, not Mr. Moto's.

[Shodan]

As for Shodan and the rest in this thread, can you really read that GD and come away thinking Moto or Martin or Bricker was treated unfairly? It seemed like a pretty level-headed, rational discussion to me overall. I thought Moto presented a calm and relatively well-reasoned argument and got mostly that same response in kind.
Put it this way - suppose Mr. Moto had posted that he believed that the reason Kalhoun wanted to amend the Constitution to automatically restore voting right to felons the instant they left prison was because she was sure they would mostly vote Democratic. Is that a fair-minded comment, in your view?

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard Parker]

Put it this way - suppose Mr. Moto had posted that he believed that the reason Kalhoun wanted to amend the Constitution to automatically restore voting right to felons the instant they left prison was because she was sure they would mostly vote Democratic. Is that a fair-minded comment, in your view?

Regards,
Shodan

First, let me say that I took you and others to be saying that the board in general treats conservatives poorly. I think that thread is evidence in quite the other direction, regardless of how you come out on Kalhoun's two comments (of many).

Second, I think your hypothetical comment as-stated is probably unfair. But it's sort of a gray area. If it's used to dismiss everything the person is saying, I think it's unfair and pointless. But I don't think we should never be able to address possible unstated motives. If it's just being pointed out that there is an underlying partisan advantage to the position, I don't really have a problem with that. I think it depends on the tenor of the comment and the actual context of the discussion. If you started a thread saying that only military personnel should be allowed to vote because of their service to the country, I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that part of the reason that you endorse that position is the partisan effect it would have. I don't think the discussion of your particular motives for endorsing a policy further the debate over the policy too much. But neither do I think it should be off-limits.

Are you referring to Czarcasm's comment?

[Kalhoun]

Actually, to be fair, it's a jihad of one at this point.
Agreed. But by the grace of Allah go I.

[Kalhoun]

I was answering those questions, wasn't I? The picture I presented of where I stood on the issue was reasonably complete, wasn't it?

Even if it wasn't, a polite question would have been nice, rather than a nasty one.

You chose to muddy things considerably with your rude and over the top contributions to that debate. I didn't think that had any place in that conversation, which is why I came here.
Impolite? Over the top??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalhoun
Do you believe that a person cannot change their life? Do you believe that all non-convicts always place a vote that is in the best interest of the country? Do you believe that all aspects of a criminal's being are bad? Do you believe that all shoplifters should forfeit their driver's license?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalhoun
Might as well suspend medical care and book learnin' too. Fuckin' sub-humans.

What rock did you grow up under? Just answer the questions as they were posed to you. Or don't.

And have your sarcas-o-meter checked. It's malfunctioning.

[Kalhoun]

I just brought it here because I didn't think it was appropriate to get into a pissing match in the other thread.
Why...because I disagreed with your jackboot brand of justice? Because I was debating the issue and expressing my disrespect for your position?

[Cheesesteak]

Why...because I disagreed with your jackboot brand of justice? Because I was debating the issue and expressing my disrespect for your position?If you are debating, then there should be some sort of non pissing match response to your last statement. Tell us what sort of response Moto could have given you that would have been appropriate for the forum.

Mr. Moto actually seemed to hold a fairly open minded, somewhat sensible position. He was in favor of allowing people to get their vote back, per his comments on the Virginia process. He admitted that he would have no problem if Virginia gave them the vote back after completion of parole. The only things he disagreed with was giving them the vote while incarcerated and giving it back automatically while they're still on parole. BTW, on parole does not mean you've served your sentence, it just means they're letting you walk free while reserving the right to throw you back in the slammer if you don't play nice.

Even after admitting multiple times that he was OK with re-enfranchisement, you decide to lay down sarcastic strawmen responses that there is no reasonable response to and claim Moto is the jerk.

[Apos]

Gotta go with Moto on this one. Complete misrepresentation of a reasonable position.

[Frank]

I was answering those questions, wasn't I? The picture I presented of where I stood on the issue was reasonably complete, wasn't it?

I agree that you were, and it was. Also, when I first read Kalhoun's post, I didn't think it was sarcasm, either.

I hope this doesn't mean I have to turn in my Usual Suspect Card.

[Kalhoun]

If you are debating, then there should be some sort of non pissing match response to your last statement. Tell us what sort of response Moto could have given you that would have been appropriate for the forum. He could have answered the questions. He could have revealed a little more of his attitudes about justice.

Mr. Moto actually seemed to hold a fairly open minded, somewhat sensible position. He was in favor of allowing people to get their vote back, per his comments on the Virginia process. He admitted that he would have no problem if Virginia gave them the vote back after completion of parole. The only things he disagreed with was giving them the vote while incarcerated and giving it back automatically while they're still on parole. BTW, on parole does not mean you've served your sentence, it just means they're letting you walk free while reserving the right to throw you back in the slammer if you don't play nice.
Bullshit. He said they'd have to go through some sort of expungment or pardon process. When the sentence is completed (whether that includes parole or not...and it doesn't always, even when the most heinous of crimes is committed) the ex-con should be free to resume his life, in total. The exception in my opinion might be with regard to violent crime and being forbidden to own firearms. But even that is questionable, as a violent crime can be committed with something other than a firearm. Moto failed to explain what the benefit would be with regard to crime, punishment, protection, and the general good of the country. We're waiting.

Even after admitting multiple times that he was OK with re-enfranchisement, you decide to lay down sarcastic strawmen responses that there is no reasonable response to and claim Moto is the jerk.Sarcastic? Absolutely. So what? He wasn't "ok" with re-enfranchisement; he wanted the ex-con to jump through hoops that are unrelated to the crime he committed. He wanted them to cough up some sort of proof that no one else has to produce. For no other reason than to be a Governmental Pricktoid.

There were no strawmen. They were honest questions that he chose not to answer. And that's his perogative.

[RTFirefly]

For me, a good post would be one that facilitated an understanding among one another. Then you've turned over a new leaf? Excellent!

I remember when you were king of the cryptic posts.

[Cheesesteak]

Bullshit. He said they'd have to go through some sort of expungment or pardon process. He wasn't "ok" with re-enfranchisement; he wanted the ex-con to jump through hoops that are unrelated to the crime he committed. He wanted them to cough up some sort of proof that no one else has to produce. For no other reason than to be a Governmental Pricktoid. Is that so?

What if your state decides that a sentence is served once the felon is released back into society? Are you ok with that as long as the state is?I've told you what my personal preference is. But if Virginia decides to enfranchise felons upon completion of their parole, I wouldn't be too upset.His personal preference? I would prefer to see evidence of rehabilitation before restoring the voting rights to those convicted of felonies.So, he has a preference you don't agree with, but will accept the decision of the state if they vote to have automatic enfranchisement upon completion of parole. Truly, he is a monster.

[Kalhoun]

Is that so?

His personal preference? So, he has a preference you don't agree with, but will accept the decision of the state if they vote to have automatic enfranchisement upon completion of parole. Truly, he is a monster.
I never said he was a monster. I said his support of disenfranchisement is stupid. Aside from that, he feels that ex-felons should be somehow not quite as citizeny as the rest of us.

Originally posted by Moto:

Hasn't their citizenship been degraded somehow?

and For people whose behavior crosses into felony territory, they absolutely can be punished in this way. And I believe, personally, that until they are rehabilitated that it is a good idea. (aside from the disconnect of the whole thing, he hasn't offered up a plan for that rehabilitation guarantee)

and he also said this:

I would have a big problem with allowing incarcerated felons or those under current parole or probationary supervision to vote, for the reasons I stated above.

...except I couldn't find where he stated reasons. I only saw him parroting law. If someone could find those "reasons" for me I'd appreciate it.

[Frank]

...except I couldn't find where he stated reasons. I only saw him parroting law. If someone could find those "reasons" for me I'd appreciate it.
He believes that the completion of a sentence does not, in and of itself, demonstrate rehabilitation.

[Kalhoun]

He believes that the completion of a sentence does not, in and of itself, demonstrate rehabilitation.
Nor does it exclude rehabilitation, in and of itself. So what's his point?

[Frank]

Nor does it exclude rehabilitation, in and of itself. So what's his point?
Neither case is provable. He feels more comfortable with a waiting period and a separate process; I (for example) feel that completion of the sentence is enough. I think that's something on which reasonable people can disagree. I think that's all his point is.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Liberal
For me, a good post would be one that facilitated an understanding among one another.Then you've turned over a new leaf? Excellent!

I remember when you were king of the cryptic posts.You've assumed I think my own posts are good. You're projecting.

[Kalhoun]

Neither case is provable. He feels more comfortable with a waiting period and a separate process; I (for example) feel that completion of the sentence is enough. I think that's something on which reasonable people can disagree. I think that's all his point is.
And I was disagreeing. He's the one who felt disagreement with anything other than a clinical, non-emotional presentation was worthy of a pitting.

[Cheesesteak]

I never said he was a monster. I said his support of disenfranchisement is stupid. What about his support for re-enfranchisement? You asked him what he would think if Virginia loosened their restrictions, he says he wouldn't have much of a problem with that, and you respond to that with an insult. Aside from that, he feels that ex-felons should be somehow not quite as citizeny as the rest of us.But he would be fine if the state decided to give ex-felons (felons who completed their sentence) the vote back.

Clearly he doesn't want current felons to be allowed to vote, a position shared by many people, and the law in 48 states. Felons are removed from society for their bad acts, until they've served their time. Voting is something you get to do when you're part of the community, if you've harmed the community and are being separated from the community, losing the vote can be thought of a part of that process.

[Shodan]

First, let me say that I took you and others to be saying that the board in general treats conservatives poorly. I think that thread is evidence in quite the other direction, regardless of how you come out on Kalhoun's two comments (of many). Must be a point of view thing - I would say that Kalhoun's comments (and much of the first page of this thread) are evidence in favor of my position.

To be fair to the boards, Cheesesteak and Frank are doing a good job of pointing out that Mr. Moto is not refusing to answer any questions, or that he is debating in any way in bad faith, or any of the rest of the dust Kalhoun is trying to throw up to disguise her chagrin at being out-debated. The board does not consist entirely of Usual Suspects. There's too many of them, and they are hugely over-represented by left-wing assholes, but (as I also mentioned earlier) Mr. Moto and Bricker and Sam Stone and Starving Artist and so forth are easily the equal of any of them. And now that some of the Usual Suspects have had their shit in the thread, it is possible to develop some kind of reasonable discussion. My point is that the boards do have people, several of them, who shit in threads, and make it a point to aim it at conservatives.
Second, I think your hypothetical comment as-stated is probably unfair. But it's sort of a gray area. If it's used to dismiss everything the person is saying, I think it's unfair and pointless.A fair position. And I would say that the fact is that Kalhoun is merely repeating that anyone who does not agree with her opinion is a monster/Pricktoid who thinks ex-felons are subhuman and so forth. And since Czarcasm's ad hominem was pretty much his only contribution to the thread, I think we can agree that he was dismissing everything Mr. Moto was saying, and is unfair and pointless.
Are you referring to Czarcasm's comment?Yes.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

What about his support for re-enfranchisement? You asked him what he would think if Virginia loosened their restrictions, he says he wouldn't have much of a problem with that, and you respond to that with an insult. But he would be fine if the state decided to give ex-felons (felons who completed their sentence) the vote back.

Clearly he doesn't want current felons to be allowed to vote, a position shared by many people, and the law in 48 states. Felons are removed from society for their bad acts, until they've served their time. Voting is something you get to do when you're part of the community, if you've harmed the community and are being separated from the community, losing the vote can be thought of a part of that process.
Well, he's sending mixed messages as far as I'm concerned. He's not for simply giving them the vote back when their sentence is served. He'd be fine with looser restrictions if his state decided that, but really...what choice would he have? He's leaving it up to the state. I was looking for a deeper gaze into who HE is.

[Mr. Moto]

Maybe you should have asked me, then.

[Sal Ammoniac]

And now that some of the Usual Suspects have had their shit in the thread, it is possible to develop some kind of reasonable discussion. My point is that the boards do have people, several of them, who shit in threads, and make it a point to aim it at conservatives.
And whom exactly -- by name -- are you accusing of shitting in this thread?

[Cheesesteak]

He'd be fine with looser restrictions if his state decided that, but really...what choice would he have? He's leaving it up to the state. I was looking for a deeper gaze into who HE is.Are you "fine" with the way Bush is dealing with Iraq, because you don't have any choice in the matter?

To me, his being fine with it indicates two things. One, the proposed process is close enough to his preference that there's no need to be upset. Two, the right people (the state) are making the decision, it's not being forced on them from the federales like some other posters would prefer.

Right from his initial post, he supported a "robust" system to give the vote back to people who have "reformed" their lives. What reformed means is open to debate, but he seems willing to accept full completion of sentence (including parole) as the dividing line, even if his personal preference is more stringent.

[Kalhoun]

Maybe you should have asked me, then.
I did. No answer so far.

[Kalhoun]

Are you "fine" with the way Bush is dealing with Iraq, because you don't have any choice in the matter?

To me, his being fine with it indicates two things. One, the proposed process is close enough to his preference that there's no need to be upset. Two, the right people (the state) are making the decision, it's not being forced on them from the federales like some other posters would prefer.

Right from his initial post, he supported a "robust" system to give the vote back to people who have "reformed" their lives. What reformed means is open to debate, but he seems willing to accept full completion of sentence (including parole) as the dividing line, even if his personal preference is more stringent.
No, I'm not fine with it. That's not the point. He's making moralistic judgements on people's right to vote ONCE THEIR SENTENCE HAS BEEN SERVED. He specifically said he would prefer that ex-cons have to provide some sort of proof that they are capable of voting. This is a standard that is not required of the rest of the voting public. It has nothing to do with the crime that was committed. That is the point of my post. He has yet to show any sort of connection between being an ex-con and being forbidden to vote. He prefers a waiting period that extends far beyond sentence fulfillment. I'm well aware of his opinions on this subject. I'm interested in seeing how far this type of thinking extends into other issues.

[Kalhoun]

A fair position. And I would say that the fact is that Kalhoun is merely repeating that anyone who does not agree with her opinion is a monster/Pricktoid who thinks ex-felons are subhuman and so forth. And since Czarcasm's ad hominem was pretty much his only contribution to the thread, I think we can agree that he was dismissing everything Mr. Moto was saying, and is unfair and pointless.
Yes.

Regards,
Shodan
No, they're not pricktoids. They're just people I disagree with. I'm not the one who opened a pit thread simply because someone didn't agree with me.

[Lightnin']

The board does not consist entirely of Usual Suspects. There's too many of them, and they are hugely over-represented by left-wing assholes, but (as I also mentioned earlier) Mr. Moto and Bricker and Sam Stone and Starving Artist and so forth are easily the equal of any of them. And now that some of the Usual Suspects have had their shit in the thread, it is possible to develop some kind of reasonable discussion. My point is that the boards do have people, several of them, who shit in threads, and make it a point to aim it at conservatives.


You know, there's a certain notorious game developer who refers to anyone who argues with him as a "Usual Suspect", just like you do. I'm not going to mention his name, because he loves to argue and seems to scour the internet, looking for people to argue with. I'll just say that he thinks he's really "smart".

I asked this in a previous thread, but you ignored it then... and I imagine you'll ignore it now- Who, exactly, is in this list of "Usual Suspects" you keep referring to?

My point is that you're not the first one I've seen who's used that exact phrase to dismiss the arguments of those you disagree with. It's an interesting strategy- you never say, exactly, who the "Usual Suspects" are. Like that notorious game developer, you keep the membership nebulous, so you can continually refer to anyone you're arguing with as a "Suspect" without actually accusing them of being in some club that exists to persecute you.

I guess what I'm trying to say is knock that shit off. There's no group of Dopers who follow you around, looking to argue with you in every thread that you post in, just because you're you. There's just a group of Dopers who happen to disagree with you, and find you to be an insufferably self-righteous asshole. If anyone is a "Usual Suspect", Shodan, it's you.

[wring]

What about his support for re-enfranchisement? You asked him what he would think if Virginia loosened their restrictions, he says he wouldn't have much of a problem with that, and you respond to that with an insult. But he would be fine if the state decided to give ex-felons (felons who completed their sentence) the vote back.

Clearly he doesn't want current felons to be allowed to vote, a position shared by many people, and the law in 48 states. Felons are removed from society for their bad acts, until they've served their time. Voting is something you get to do when you're part of the community, if you've harmed the community and are being separated from the community, losing the vote can be thought of a part of that process.
what's this "current felon" term you're using mean? Do you mean some one who has yet to complete their sentence? Hopefully you're aware, then, that IIRC, few states forbid folks who are currently on parole or probation (which would include a substantial number of 'current felons' under that definition) the right to vote.

[Cheesesteak]

I am using "current felon" to mean "not yet an ex-felon" under the assumption that an "ex-felon" is someone who is no longer serving a sentence for a felony. Just a made up term trying to be more specific than "felon" which can be used to describe anyone who committed a felony.

According to this document (PDF) (http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/fd_bs_fdlawsinus.pdf) out of the 50 states+DC, 49 restrict the rights of those in prison, 35 those on parole and 30 those on probation.

I see now what I did... I said that 48 states restrict "current felons" when they actually only restrict currently incarcerated felons. I knew that, I saw the linked chart before making that post, and was just sloppy with my writing. Mr. Moto's "acceptable" (if not preferred) law would now be comparable to 30-35 state's laws, not 48, depending on the probation issue.

[wring]

thanks for the link - I had a set of brochures dating back about a decade that had individual states info, admittedly haven't kept up on all the changes. I found it intersting that some states in their revisiting of the issue made things much less restrictive, but others made it more restrictive. I know the sense is from folks that convicts would almost automatically vote liberal leaning, but it's not been my experience w/working w/them. They, like other citizens go all over the map.

[RTFirefly]

You've assumed I think my own posts are good. You're projecting.You say you value posts "that facilitate[] an understanding among one another," and the level of effort required to eschew cryptic posts is pretty minimal. So if you chronically post in a cryptic manner, it demonstrates that you place a low value on that which you claim to value.

[Shodan]

I guess what I'm trying to say is knock that shit off.If you don't mind my saying so, go climb a tree. I'll post as I please.

He wanted them to cough up some sort of proof that no one else has to produce. For no other reason than to be a Governmental Pricktoid.
No, they're not pricktoids. They're just people I disagree with. I can't tell - are you retracting this statement, or denying that you said it?

Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

If you don't mind my saying so, go climb a tree. I'll post as I please.


I can't tell - are you retracting this statement, or denying that you said it?

Regards,
Shodan
Sorry. I forgot I said that. I'm stickin' with it unless they can show me the connection and worth of it.

Incidently, a pricktoid isn't all bad. Just in matters of shit like this.

[Shodan]

Still confused - now you are saying that some one who disagrees with you on this subject is a pricktoid?

Incidentally, the "connection" has already been demonstrated - it is in the Constitution. What you are suggesting is that the Constitution be amended, and having a melt down because you don't like that some posters don't instantly agree with you. You keep saying that disenfranchisement is a horrible injury to ex-convicts - could you demonstrate what the bad effects are?

Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

Still confused - now you are saying that some one who disagrees with you on this subject is a pricktoid?

Incidentally, the "connection" has already been demonstrated - it is in the Constitution. What you are suggesting is that the Constitution be amended, and having a melt down because you don't like that some posters don't instantly agree with you. You keep saying that disenfranchisement is a horrible injury to ex-convicts - could you demonstrate what the bad effects are?

Regards,
Shodan
On this issue, yes. Taking away a person's right to vote has no relation to the crime that was committed. Once the sentence is served, there shouldn't be a waiting period, a review, or a form to get that right back. If you get in trouble again, you lose the right to vote again (though I don't see what that has to do with anything, either. They should be allowed to vote, in my opinion, from prison).

Anyone who thinks that it's logical and civilly fair is welcome to present the connection, the benefit to society, and the detriment to society if we do allow ex-cons to vote. Change my mind. I'd like to believe someone in government had this right when they made this a law. So far, I'm unconvinced.

[Kalhoun]

Missed the window with regard to presenting the harm in this:

You might say, "what is it hurting to go back to the old days when blacks weren't allowed to vote?" I'd say the ill-effects would be the same. Telling people they don't deserve to partake in the most basic of democratic processes is telling them they're less than a citizen. I do not believe that's true.

[Shodan]

You might say, "what is it hurting to go back to the old days when blacks weren't allowed to vote?"Pretty poor analogy, I'd say. How about "what is it hurting to prevent to prevent four-year-olds from voting?"

The ban on voting for ex-felons is behavior-based. The ban on blacks voting is not. That is to say, an adult citizen is presumed worthy of the right to vote until and unless he proves his unworthiness in his other relations with a civil society. This was not the case with blacks - they were presumed unworthy even if they proved they were capable. I'd say the ill-effects would be the same. Telling people they don't deserve to partake in the most basic of democratic processes is telling them they're less than a citizen. I do not believe that's true.
Well, in a sense this is arguing in a circle - it is true that felons are less than a citizen. They can't vote, after all.

But the difference between preventing blacks from voting and preventing felons from doing the same is that blacks are not really inherently inferior in judgement to other citizens. Thus to prevent them from voting makes no sense - there is no way in which blacks have demonstrated that they are not up to the tasks of citizenship.

Felons have. They have demonstrated that their judgement or their commitment to civic well-being or what have you is weaker than for a normal citizen. Weak enough, in fact, that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they will act to the detriment of the society if given the opportunity. And the presumption is that they will demonstrate this poor judgement or lack of civic commitment in their voting. They have proven that they are not worthy of the rights of a citizen.

There exists (as Mr. Moto has pointed out) a mechanism by which the ex-felon can demonstrate that he deserves to regain the rights of which he was deprived. You seem to be arguing that the presumption is that a person guilty of a serious crime is actually someone well worthy of the public trust.

It seems to me, and it seemed to the founders of the republic, that this is an unwarranted assumption. So I ask again - what evidence do you have that felons are actually fine fellows, in whose judgement society as a whole can place implicit faith?

We don't trust them to walk the streets, but your "voting from prison" idea seems to assume that we have to trust them to select our leaders. Why is that? They have already demonstrated that it is legitimate to deprive them of most of their other rights, at least on a limited basis. I fail to see any justification from you for insisting that they should be trusted with the vote.
Anyone who thinks that it's logical and civilly fair is welcome to present the connection, the benefit to society, and the detriment to society if we do allow ex-cons to vote.
Actually, I was hoping for some justification for your position besides these strawmen, where anyone who supports the status quo of the Constitution is the functional equivalent of a racist, who thinks that felons are sub-human. What exactly is the harm being done to these people, and how does it justify a change to the Constitution?

Or it is merely your opinion, in which case I wonder at your vehemence. My opinion, and those of Mr. Moto and the Founding Fathers differs from yours. I have presented a little about why I agree with the writers of the Constitution. Perhaps you could do a little to persuade me otherwise.

But mere name-calling isn't going to do it.


Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

But the difference between preventing blacks from voting and preventing felons from doing the same is that blacks are not really inherently inferior in judgement to other citizens. Thus to prevent them from voting makes no sense - there is no way in which blacks have demonstrated that they are not up to the tasks of citizenship.

Felons have. They have demonstrated that their judgement or their commitment to civic well-being or what have you is weaker than for a normal citizen. Weak enough, in fact, that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they will act to the detriment of the society if given the opportunity. And the presumption is that they will demonstrate this poor judgement or lack of civic commitment in their voting. They have proven that they are not worthy of the rights of a citizen. What do you think about lifelong welfare recipients and their rights? What about cripples and old people, or other drains on society?

There exists (as Mr. Moto has pointed out) a mechanism by which the ex-felon can demonstrate that he deserves to regain the rights of which he was deprived. You seem to be arguing that the presumption is that a person guilty of a serious crime is actually someone well worthy of the public trust. I'm saying that the "mechanism" is stupid. It demonstrates nothing, it ensures nothing and it means nothing with regard to worthiness. When a felon is released back into society, he no longer has to answer to anyone for any other aspect of his life. His sentence is served and he is deemed worthy to walk free amongst the people he robbed, beat, even murdered. Are you telling me that there is some sort of logic in denying him the right to pull a lever while at the same time allowing him go to bars?

It seems to me, and it seemed to the founders of the republic, that this is an unwarranted assumption. So I ask again - what evidence do you have that felons are actually fine fellows, in whose judgement society as a whole can place implicit faith? As mentioned above, the powers that be allow him to be in direct participation with the aspects of life that landed his ass in prison in the first place. Tacit approval that the person is in fact capable of behaving like a responsible citizen.

We don't trust them to walk the streets, but your "voting from prison" idea seems to assume that we have to trust them to select our leaders. Why is that? They have already demonstrated that it is legitimate to deprive them of most of their other rights, at least on a limited basis. I fail to see any justification from you for insisting that they should be trusted with the vote. Because we, as a voting society, place nearly no importance on a person's ability to make a responsible choice when selecting our leaders. It isn't even something that's demanded of our citizens. We don't actually care if anyone votes or not.

Actually, I was hoping for some justification for your position besides these strawmen, where anyone who supports the status quo of the Constitution is the functional equivalent of a racist, who thinks that felons are sub-human. What exactly is the harm being done to these people, and how does it justify a change to the Constitution? The harm is that they don't have a voice. The status quo at one time was that disenfranchisement of blacks was not only acceptable, but it actually made sense to most people. Had we not taken a stance against those that supported that, we'd indeed be approving of racism. The argument in favor of continuing to rob people of their right to vote effectively puts them in the same place blacks were years ago. And we're not talking about a just handful of people, either. Their numbers are high and growing higher every day.

Or it is merely your opinion, in which case I wonder at your vehemence. My opinion, and those of Mr. Moto and the Founding Fathers differs from yours. I have presented a little about why I agree with the writers of the Constitution. Perhaps you could do a little to persuade me otherwise.

But mere name-calling isn't going to do it.The founding fathers have made a few omissions and mistakes in the past. Good thing it's a living document, designed to be changed. You haven't proven harm in allowing ex-cons to vote. You can't. But I'm willing to let you try.

[brownie55]

Felons have. They have demonstrated that their judgement or their commitment to civic well-being or what have you is weaker than for a normal citizen. Weak enough, in fact, that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they will act to the detriment of the society if given the opportunity. And the presumption is that they will demonstrate this poor judgement or lack of civic commitment in their voting. They have proven that they are not worthy of the rights of a citizen.

An interesting point, and one I'd like to question you on.

A person with 50 parking tickets and 10 speeding tickets has shown a continued willingness to "act to the detriment of society." IMHO, even moreso than say a man that commits assault in a heat of the moment situation.

Should the bad driver be similarly stripped of his or her voting rights? And if no, why not, when he or she won't learn from their punishments. That person would seem more to fit Mr. Moto's definition of civil immaturity than a one time felon.

[Frank]

A person with 50 parking tickets and 10 speeding tickets has shown a continued willingness to "act to the detriment of society." IMHO, even moreso than say a man that commits assault in a heat of the moment situation.
'Cause there's a difference between civil offenses, and misdemeanors, and felonies. Your first example is a civil offense - a summons; and your second example would most likely be a misdemeanor - simple assault. Felons are different, and I'm - frankly - stunned by those who can't see that. One might as well ask, "Why do we not execute people who commit traffic offenses?" (See Larry Niven.)

[Frank]

Shodan, if I may:

You have been (as has been mentioned once or twice) for some time confining yourself to one-liners. I am delighted that you are arguing again. Welcome back.

:)

[Liberal]

Felons have [demonstrated that they are not up to the tasks of citizenship]. They have demonstrated that their judgement or their commitment to civic well-being or what have you is weaker than for a normal citizen. Weak enough, in fact, that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they will act to the detriment of the society if given the opportunity. And the presumption is that they will demonstrate this poor judgement or lack of civic commitment in their voting. They have proven that they are not worthy of the rights of a citizen.Gotta disagree with you there, Sho. That may be true of some felons, but it is also true of some people who aren't felons. If all laws were ethical and all jurisprudence were just, then you might be able to say that about felons. But when law creates crime just by being written, when enforcement of law is inequitable, and when wealth and power decide how fair a trial will be — there is no correlation between a conviction and civil worth. OJ Simpson gets to vote. Likewise, weasels and pariahs of every stripe, along with complete idiots and ignoramuses, get to vote.

[Shodan]

Shodan, if I may:

You have been (as has been mentioned once or twice) for some time confining yourself to one-liners. I am delighted that you are arguing again. Welcome back.

:)
Actually, no, I haven't been.

;)

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

Gotta disagree with you there, Sho.Shit, I'm doomed. That may be true of some felons, but it is also true of some people who aren't felons. If all laws were ethical and all jurisprudence were just, then you might be able to say that about felons. But when law creates crime just by being written, when enforcement of law is inequitable, and when wealth and power decide how fair a trial will be — there is no correlation between a conviction and civil worth. OJ Simpson gets to vote. Likewise, weasels and pariahs of every stripe, along with complete idiots and ignoramuses, get to vote.Well, it is not a perfect system, certainly, but I believe you go too far in stating that there is "no" correlation between a conviction and civil worth.

You are clearly correct that weasels, idiots, and ignoramii get to vote. After all, Cynthia MacKinnon had to draw her support from somewhere. And some felon convicted of a crime of conscience would not. But the blunt instrument of the law can do no better than to distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors, and assign greater penalties to the one than to the other. Even if some felonies are not nearly as serious a breach of the social contract than perhaps some misdemeanors.

Felons and ex-convicts, for the most part, are, in my experience, less capable of displaying good judgement and a commitment to the social good than the average schmuck with nothing on his record worse than a parking ticket.
What do you think about lifelong welfare recipients and their rights?I think they are a topic that some people bring up when they would like to change the subject. :D

If you can point to the Constitutional clause disenfranchising cripples and old people from voting, I would be glad to discuss the case. Otherwise, perhaps we could stick a little closer to the subject.
I'm saying that the "mechanism" is stupid. It demonstrates nothing, it ensures nothing and it means nothing with regard to worthiness.Err - if you read a little more closely, the "mechanism" to which I referred was the mechanism of pardon, and restoration of voting rights, upon some meaningful demonstration that the convict was now a responsible person - acting like a normal citizen for a number of years. So I would disagree that the mechanism demonstrates nothing.
When a felon is released back into society, he no longer has to answer to anyone for any other aspect of his life.Well, no, as Mr. Moto has pointed out. He is not free to exercise his rights under the Second Amendment. Would you agree that he should automatically be allowed to? Do you support this enfringement of his right to keep and bear arms?

I also believe that many licensed professions are also barred to those with felony convictions. Do you believe that this also is a serious violation of rights? For example, would you agree that no doctor convicted, say, of stealing drugs should be deprived of his right to practice medicine?
His sentence is served and he is deemed worthy to walk free amongst the people he robbed, beat, even murdered. Are you telling me that there is some sort of logic in denying him the right to pull a lever while at the same time allowing him go to bars?
Well, yes, as a matter of fact there is.

I have to run an errand. I will return here shortly.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

The logic of "He can drink but not vote" is to restrict a felon from exercising rights that directly affect others. A person can drink, even to excess, but still harm only himself. He can drive drunk, certainly, or commit crimes while intoxicated, but provided he does only what another citizen might do while drinking, his abuse of his right to drink does not affect others.

Voting affects others. The effects of voting, therefore, inherently affect others, and society, in ways that drinking (for example) do not. Thus the Constitution, which (or should be) concerned largely with the effects the federal government is allowed to have on citizens, disallows felons from exercising those rights that affect others by affecting the government, and the selection of the leaders of that government.

You can argue that felons ought also to be excluded from drinking or owning guns, but the rationale for these are the same as for voting.

Regards,
Shodan

[Liberal]

It's not just that it's not a perfect system. There can't be a perfect system. It's that it's such a terribly, terribly flawed system. It is a system that makes laws, not to protect citizens from their government, but to protect government from its citizens. It is designed for political expediency, and those who prosper in it are those with political clout. The inequities are not rare; they are routine. Vast numbers of the disenfranchised are convicted over nothing more than frivolous prohibitions. A society of free people cannot exist when a system of coercion is engineered to propogate itself.

[Lightnin']

Voting affects others. The effects of voting, therefore, inherently affect others, and society, in ways that drinking (for example) do not.

What harm do you foresee an ex-felon voting into office, especially since they're unlikely to be any sort of majority?

[Shodan]

It's not just that it's not a perfect system. There can't be a perfect system. It's that it's such a terribly, terribly flawed system. It is a system that makes laws, not to protect citizens from their government, but to protect government from its citizens. It is designed for political expediency, and those who prosper in it are those with political clout. The inequities are not rare; they are routine. Vast numbers of the disenfranchised are convicted over nothing more than frivolous prohibitions. A society of free people cannot exist when a system of coercion is engineered to propogate itself.
I guess my point is that even in a purely libertarian republic, the disenfranchisement of felons is justifiable, IMO. If I demonstrate my inability or unwillingness to exercise my rights, without using them to the detriment of others, I lose them. IYSWIM.

I can see your point about laws to protect government from citizens. The disenfranchisement of felons is a law to protect citizens from each other. It is similar to prohibitions from children from voting. What harm do you foresee an ex-felon voting into office, especially since they're unlikely to be any sort of majority?Do you mean electing an ex-felon to office, or ex-felons voting for someone else?

In either case, majority doesn't matter. My vote counts the same whether I am part of the majority or not. Voting is the exercise of a civil right, and it is not legitimate to decide whether or not to allow it based on whether or not it is in accord with the majority. Therefore it makes no difference to the justice or otherwise of disenfranchisement of felons whether or not they are the majority (or if they vote Democratic or Republican or not at all - that was a smear of Mr. Moto by Czarcasm).

If you are going to ask for a cite next on the harm caused by felons voting, that will be difficult to produce, since felons (by and large) don't vote now. But the prohibition is currently part of the Constitution, and returning the vote to felons is a change. Thus the burden of proof for the change lies with proponents of the change. It is necessary to argue in favor of the automatic return of voting rights to felons, not merely to claim that the change must be made by default. So feel free to make a case in favor.

Regards,
Shodan

[Liberal]

It's just shit like this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8545348&postcount=10), Sho.

[Kalhoun]

You are clearly correct that weasels, idiots, and ignoramii get to vote. After all, Cynthia MacKinnon had to draw her support from somewhere. And some felon convicted of a crime of conscience would not. But the blunt instrument of the law can do no better than to distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors, and assign greater penalties to the one than to the other. Even if some felonies are not nearly as serious a breach of the social contract than perhaps some misdemeanors.

Felons and ex-convicts, for the most part, are, in my experience, less capable of displaying good judgement and a commitment to the social good than the average schmuck with nothing on his record worse than a parking ticket.
I think they are a topic that some people bring up when they would like to change the subject. :D In my opinion, anyone who voted for Bush displays no judgement or commitment to the social good. How could an ex-con do worse than the entire republican party?

If you can point to the Constitutional clause disenfranchising cripples and old people from voting, I would be glad to discuss the case. Otherwise, perhaps we could stick a little closer to the subject. I'm suggesting we DO disenfranchise them under your logic. They're a drain on society if they're not working and just sit there using our tax dollars. They have no civic worth (over and above an ex-con, anyway).
Err - if you read a little more closely, the "mechanism" to which I referred was the mechanism of pardon, and restoration of voting rights, upon some meaningful demonstration that the convict was now a responsible person - acting like a normal citizen for a number of years. So I would disagree that the mechanism demonstrates nothing. Exactly what is the meat of this vague mechanism? "Do you solemnly swear to never be a bad boy again?" Puh-leeze. Show me the substance behind the great plan. Show me what measure of assurance a person could present that couldn't be presented the day they get out of prison. There is no qualification benchmark for any other voter. The ex-con should not be set to a different standard than the rest of the civilly irresponsible public. The "scarlet letter" mentality serves no one.

Well, no, as Mr. Moto has pointed out. He is not free to exercise his rights under the Second Amendment. Would you agree that he should automatically be allowed to? Do you support this enfringement of his right to keep and bear arms? Well, I don't think we should allow 95% of the population to own guns, but that's another debate. I believe that an ex-con should have his rights restored if his crime was not gun-related (and maybe even if it was).

I also believe that many licensed professions are also barred to those with felony convictions. Do you believe that this also is a serious violation of rights? For example, would you agree that no doctor convicted, say, of stealing drugs should be deprived of his right to practice medicine?Well, at least the punishment has a direct link to the crime. But no, I do not think a blanket barring is in order. People can turn over a new leaf (or not). There is no test that will definitively determine that either way.

[Lightnin']

In either case, majority doesn't matter. My vote counts the same whether I am part of the majority or not.

Clearly you haven't lived in Texas, and attempted to vote for anyone other than Bush in the last two elections.


If you are going to ask for a cite next on the harm caused by felons voting, that will be difficult to produce, since felons (by and large) don't vote now. But the prohibition is currently part of the Constitution, and returning the vote to felons is a change. Thus the burden of proof for the change lies with proponents of the change. It is necessary to argue in favor of the automatic return of voting rights to felons, not merely to claim that the change must be made by default. So feel free to make a case in favor.


Nope, I clearly said "ex-felons". As in, voting by people who have served their time. Some states won't allow that sort of thing, you see- once a felon, even after you served your time, you don't ever get to vote again. That's what I was asking- what harm do you see in allowing ex-felons to vote?

However, you've raised an interesting point. Are you saying that you don't think felons (current, out on parole) shouldn't get to vote because they don't currently get to vote? Then allow me to change my question- what harm do you see in allowing felons out on parole the opportunity to vote? Constitutionality aside, what harm do you think would result from allowing current felons to vote?

[Kalhoun]

Clearly you haven't lived in Texas, and attempted to vote for anyone other than Bush in the last two elections.



Nope, I clearly said "ex-felons". As in, voting by people who have served their time. Some states won't allow that sort of thing, you see- once a felon, even after you served your time, you don't ever get to vote again. That's what I was asking- what harm do you see in allowing ex-felons to vote?

However, you've raised an interesting point. Are you saying that you don't think felons (current, out on parole) shouldn't get to vote because they don't currently get to vote? Then allow me to change my question- what harm do you see in allowing felons out on parole the opportunity to vote? Constitutionality aside, what harm do you think would result from allowing current felons to vote?
(We keep asking, but we never seem to get an answer to this. Maybe it's "because dad said so.")

[Cervaise]

My vote counts the same whether I am part of the majority or not.Robots vote?

[Ensign Edison]

Can I just say I find the title of this thread deeply funny every time I see it, for some reason? I think it's because Kalhoun is so dry and sardonic and self-possessed, the image it brings is someone delivering really cuttingly backhanded compliments to everyone at a gallery opening. Get ahold of yourself, woman! Hee hee hee.

[Kalhoun]

Can I just say I find the title of this thread deeply funny every time I see it, for some reason? I think it's because Kalhoun is so dry and sardonic and self-possessed, the image it brings is someone delivering really cuttingly backhanded compliments to everyone at a gallery opening. Get ahold of yourself, woman! Hee hee hee.
I picture myself running around with my hair on fire, smoking pot, drinking straight whiskey and popping pills.

Wait...isn't that what I...oh, never mind.

[Shodan]

It's just shit like this, Sho.I'm not following you (possibly because I didn't read the thread from which the post came). It seems to be about divorce and bigamy. Does that affect voting rights? I'm suggesting we DO disenfranchise them under your logic.My "logic" is the Constitution, as mentioned. Could you please cite the clause disenfranchising the elderly and infirm?
They're a drain on society if they're not working and just sit there using our tax dollars. They have no civic worth (over and above an ex-con, anyway).Back to this stuff again, are you?
Exactly what is the meat of this vague mechanism? "Do you solemnly swear to never be a bad boy again?" Puh-leeze. Show me the substance behind the great plan. If you aren't familiar with the pardon mechanism, I wonder why you are debating it.

Fuck it, you aren't reading anything even if it is right in front of you.
Clearly you haven't lived in Texas, and attempted to vote for anyone other than Bush in the last two elections.
I have no idea what point you are attempting to make here.
Nope, I clearly said "ex-felons". As in, voting by people who have served their time. Some states won't allow that sort of thing, you see- once a felon, even after you served your time, you don't ever get to vote again. That's what I was asking- what harm do you see in allowing ex-felons to vote?Well, congratulations on your ability to restate the question under debate for the last several days, Captain Obvious.
However, you've raised an interesting point. Are you saying that you don't think felons (current, out on parole) shouldn't get to vote because they don't currently get to vote? No, I am saying that I agree with what I believe is the logic underlying the Constitutional provision for disenfranchising ex-felons, and requesting that you make a case for changing the Constitution.

You aren't really reading for comprehension here, are you?

Here -
If you are going to ask for a cite next on the harm caused by felons voting, that will be difficult to produce, since felons (by and large) don't vote now. But the prohibition is currently part of the Constitution, and returning the vote to felons is a change. Thus the burden of proof for the change lies with proponents of the change. It is necessary to argue in favor of the automatic return of voting rights to felons, not merely to claim that the change must be made by default. So feel free to make a case in favor.
Try to read this. Let us know which words you are having trouble with.

Regards,
Shodan

PS to Liberal - No offense to you, but I rather doubt that this is going to be a productive thread from this point, as most of the participants (besides you) are either incapable or unwilling to make a coherent point, or understand one from someone else. So don't take it amiss if I DFTTs.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Hey, didn't you know Liberal was a registered Bush hater? That being the case, why doesn't he come in for the same opprobrium as the rest of us?

[Liberal]

Sho, the reason I gave the link was to illustrate how frivolous and arbitrary many — not just a few rare birds, but many — of our laws can be. There is a difference between a man who was imprisoned for murder and a man who was imprisoned for remarrying after a divorce (as in the link). You would deny the vote to both.

The exercise of power by the governing elite can be massively destructive to everyone in its wake. What I'm saying is that if you want to draw some line, then "felon" is a poor one to draw. As I said in my first post, there are too many felons who have done nothing wrong. The laws they broke were idiotic and Neanderthal in their conception. They are no danger to society; rather, the danger is posed by the forces that made the laws and imprisoned them.

You need to draw a different line.

[Lightnin']

Well, congratulations on your ability to restate the question under debate for the last several days, Captain Obvious.

And yet you keep dodging the damn question. We know you don't want ex-felons to vote. We know that ex-felon disenfranchisement is allowed by the Constitution. What we don't know, however, is why you feel that disenfranchisement is a good idea.


No, I am saying that I agree with what I believe is the logic underlying the Constitutional provision for disenfranchising ex-felons, and requesting that you make a case for changing the Constitution.

I'm not asking to change the Constitution, so you can just drop that shit right there. What I'm asking for is your view on the logic behind the disenfranchisement. I'm asking WHY you think it's a good idea to disenfranchise ex-felons.


You aren't really reading for comprehension here, are you?

Dude, you are so fucking full of it. Here, let me rephrase, YET AGAIN.

WHAT HARM DO YOU THINK WILL COME FROM ALLOWING EX-FELONS TO VOTE? I'm not asking if disenfranchisement is something that's allowed by the Constitution. I'm not asking you if you think that's a good idea, or not. I'm asking you WHY you don't think ex-felons voting is a good idea.

If you're not going to answer, just say so, asshole. Own up to it. Be a man.

Fuck you,
Lightnin'.

[Kalhoun]

I'm not following you (possibly because I didn't read the thread from which the post came). It seems to be about divorce and bigamy. Does that affect voting rights? My "logic" is the Constitution, as mentioned. Maybe you should review the thread, because we aren't talking what the law IS. We're talking about what the law SHOULD be. The constitution has nothing to do with the appropriateness of disenfranchisement; only that there is a document that backs it up. That doesn't make it right or logical.

Could you please cite the clause disenfranchising the elderly and infirm? You really aren't getting this, are you. Go re-read what I said and see if you can grasp it.

Back to this stuff again, are you?
If you aren't familiar with the pardon mechanism, I wonder why you are debating it. I don't need to be familiar with it to know that there is nothing in it that can 1) prove that someone is civilly responsible, or 2) that civil responsibility is a requirement of the right to vote. There is no standard for the reviewers to base their finding on. The pardon process should not be part of a person's right to vote once their sentence has been fulfilled.

You still haven't shown what harm is being done to society by letting ex-cons vote.

Fuck it, you aren't reading anything even if it is right in front of you. Now that I've again stated that the discussion isn't about the constitution, can you take a moment to answer the question.

[Shodan]

See what I mean, Lib? They simply don't read.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

See what I mean, Lib? They simply don't read.

Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, well maybe we're just too stupid. Can you point out the part about what the harm is in letting ex-cons vote? You actually might have an argument if you do.

[Shodan]

Yeah, well maybe we're just too stupid. Can you point out the part about what the harm is in letting ex-cons vote? You actually might have an argument if you do.
If you didn't read it the first time, you won't read it the second either.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

If you didn't read it the first time, you won't read it the second either.

Regards,
Shodan
Then a simple link would be sufficient for those of us that would like to see your personal opinion on why ex-cons shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

See what I mean, Lib? They simply don't read.

Regards,
ShodanA classic Sho-bot contentless-yet-contentious partisan one-liner.

[Bosstone]

A classic Sho-bot contentless-yet-contentious partisan one-liner.This is simply another example of the usual suspects' inability to read even what they quote. You accuse Shodan of delivering a one-liner, yet he clearly wrote three lines. You're even more wrong if you include the blank; that's FOUR whole lines. God, how can you be so stupid? :rolleyes:


That's two years of Shodan posts summarized right there.

[Shodan]

Then a simple link would be sufficient for those of us that would like to see your personal opinion on why ex-cons shouldn't be allowed to vote.
OK, here you go. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=419298&page=3)

Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

It still doesn't show what the harm connection IS. Only that you have an opinion that ex-cons are less responsible about voting than other members of society. As I said earlier, That's all it is, though...an opinion. Since you don't (and can't) know how an ex-con will vote, and since there's no such thing as a "wrong" vote in the United States, there is no connection between harm and voting. That is unless you count all the republicans who put us in the clusterfuck we're in today.

[Mr. Moto]

But I illustrated for you numerous freedoms that may be denied a felon, most of which you don't have much issue with. The thinking is that until they demonstrate some level of rehabilitation, however measured by the state, they don't get to vote - again, not controversial at all, and most states differ here only in the degree to which they impose this sentence.

A couple do not impose this penalty at all, as discussed. Others impose it for the period of direct supervision only, while others make it longer.

This is clear law, plainly constitutional, and ought to be taken into account by people contemplating committing a felony. Again, you have allowed as other punishments can plainly be lifelong ones (like the firearms prohibition or the criminal record) so I don't know how this particular point is debatable either.

Is it a good idea to do so? I think it is to a further extent than you do, though not to the extent some take it. For this you have to turn the debate personal? I don't get that at all.

[wring]

But I illustrated for you numerous freedoms that may be denied a felon, most of which you don't have much issue with. .
Most, IME, are for the duration of the sentence.

[Mr. Moto]

Most, IME, are for the duration of the sentence.

And some are not.

A felon may be denied certain jobs as a practical matter for the rest of his life solely because of his arrest record. This is of course legal. Do you find it as unconscionable as the voting restrictions?

[Kalhoun]

Pretty poor analogy, I'd say. How about "what is it hurting to prevent to prevent four-year-olds from voting?"

The ban on voting for ex-felons is behavior-based. The ban on blacks voting is not. That is to say, an adult citizen is presumed worthy of the right to vote until and unless he proves his unworthiness in his other relations with a civil society. This was not the case with blacks - they were presumed unworthy even if they proved they were capable.
Actually, in many places it was instituted specifically to keep blacks from voting (I also posted this in the other thread). It wasn't behavior-based at all. From The Free Press:

At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, lawmakers who opposed African American voting rights desperately considered ways to remove large numbers of blacks from their state’s electorates without appearing to violate their constitutional rights. In the 1960s, many southern and some western states figured out how to accomplish this: by passing state constitutional provisions, or state laws, barring individuals convicted of a felony from voting for the remainder of their lives. Since African Americans were disproportionately prosecuted and convicted of felonies in most state courts, the loss of voting rights would hit blacks hardest.

This racist scheme – using the criminal justice system not to "rehabilitate" prisoners, but to strip them of their democratic voting rights for life – was successful. In 1968, Florida barred ex-offenders from voting for life. By 2000, approximately 818,000 Florida residents who had prior felony convictions, but who were no longer incarcerated, were disenfranchised. The vast majority of this disenfranchised population was African-American. None of these citizens were permitted to vote in Florida’s contested 2000 presidential election, which George W. Bush narrowly "won" by only hundreds of votes.

[wring]

And some are not.

A felon may be denied certain jobs as a practical matter for the rest of his life solely because of his arrest record. This is of course legal. Do you find it as unconscionable as the voting restrictions?
the only results that I'm aware of that are post sentencing are:

Some employment restrictions (you mention)
Sex offender registry and restrictions
voting.


I find voting restrictions to be unconscionable. The employment restrictions - if the offense is connected to the employment I have no problem (ie child molesters shouldn't work at a day care, drunk drivers shouldn't be bus drivers). I won't derail the thread more to get into the so registry issue.

The employment issue is one I deal w/on a daily basis. Using data base records (like state police criminal files and population records), I estimate that about 28% of the adult population in my state have a criminal record. Most of those are not currently incarcerated (less than 50 k in prison for example), so most are out. They have tremendous difficulty securing employment because many companies are now routinely screening out offenders.

Now, given that they still would be out and needing to support themselves, the options are:

1. revert to criminal behavior. I don't like that option (obviously some will do so regardless of my desires) Ultimately, it makes for more victims and we still end up supporting them in their new incarceration.

2. subsist on some level of state support. again - I'm supporting them. not happy w/that alternative either.

3. Underground economy - under the table jobs. I've seen the data on the real cost to my state for that, and again, IMO, it's just another level of me and other tax payers footing their (tax) bill. not in favor of that.

4. unsubsidized employment - make 'em earn their own living. Of course, this can only happen if employers actually hire them

So, no, I am not particularly in favor of routine exclusion.

And I"m sure some idiot will then twist my words to mean that I'm in favor of bank robbers becoming bank tellers.

[Kalhoun]

And I"m sure some idiot will then twist my words to mean that I'm in favor of bank robbers becoming bank tellers.
Or rapists going into gynecology!

[TV time]

I picture myself running around with my hair on fire, smoking pot, drinking straight whiskey and popping pills.

Wait...isn't that what I...oh, never mind.So, are you admitting you're Richard Pryor? No, his whole body was on fire. It was Michael Jackson whose hair was on fire...and he was drinking Pepsi.

I get so confused.

[Kalhoun]

So, are you admitting you're Richard Pryor? No, his whole body was on fire. It was Michael Jackson whose hair was on fire...and he was drinking Pepsi.

I get so confused.
Maybe I'm Michael Jackson with whiskey in a pepsi bottle!

[Zoe]

Ensign Edison
Can I just say I find the title of this thread deeply funny every time I see it, for some reason? I think it's because Kalhoun is so dry and sardonic and self-possessed, the image it brings is someone delivering really cuttingly backhanded compliments to everyone at a gallery opening. Get ahold of yourself, woman! Hee hee hee.

Kalhoun: I picture myself running around with my hair on fire, smoking pot, drinking straight whiskey and popping pills.

Wait...isn't that what I...oh, never mind.

Kalhoun, not only are you "out of control," but you are also "out of line" and your choice was "uncalled for"!

I can't quit grinning. The exchange between you and Ensign Edison nailed this one perfectly.

[Bricker]

The employment issue is one I deal w/on a daily basis. Using data base records (like state police criminal files and population records), I estimate that about 28% of the adult population in my state have a criminal record.

I refuse to believe that any state has a 28% adult population with a criminal record. (I exclude matters like traffic citations, which are not "criminal;" but in the nature of violations).

[Kalhoun]

I refuse to believe that any state has a 28% adult population with a criminal record. (I exclude matters like traffic citations, which are not "criminal;" but in the nature of violations).
Could that figure include misdemeanor assault (husband-wife slap fights, etc.) and shoplifting? That figure seems awfully high to me, too.

[wring]

I refuse to believe that any state has a 28% adult population with a criminal record. (I exclude matters like traffic citations, which are not "criminal;" but in the nature of violations).
refuse all you want, the state police reported to me the number of criminal records (Ie persons w/record) and it was about 28% of the number of adults in my state. records were for any criminal charge that could result in a sentence of more than 93 days in jail. So the percentage of those w/records is probably higher. (yes, it doesn't remove folks who've moved, but it also doesn't incude folks who have records elsewhere but move here- I figure that's likely a wash).
eta: this did not include routine trafffic citations, but does include various drunk driving type of things as well as driving w/o a license, which are, of course, criminal.

[Kalhoun]

refuse all you want, the state police reported to me the number of criminal records (Ie persons w/record) and it was about 28% of the number of adults in my state. records were for any criminal charge that could result in a sentence of more than 93 days in jail. So the percentage of those w/records is probably higher. (yes, it doesn't remove folks who've moved, but it also doesn't incude folks who have records elsewhere but move here- I figure that's likely a wash).
What state are you from?

[wring]

Michigan.

[Kalhoun]

Michigan.
Thanks. Do all states keep records like that? Could I google the stats for Illinois?

[Kalhoun]

Okay, I'm looking around a little. The arrest rate is 810.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. That's quite a bit lower than your rate. Why is that?

PDF File: http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/cii/cii05/execsummary05.pdf

[zut]

This seems to be germane: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sschis03.htm) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Table 2 (in the pdf file) shows 1.5 million individuals in the "state criminal history file" in Michigan in 2003; the adult population is about 7.5 million (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html), for a 20% rate. For Illinois, 4.2 million individuals are in the "state criminal history file", with an adult population of 9.3 million (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000.html), for a 45% rate.

Forty-five percent seems awfully high to me (and I can't believe Illinois is that much more criminally-minded than Michigan), so I suspect there's a difference in the definition of "criminal history file." In any case, I'm not sure exactly how these numbers are arrived at, but the percentages bracket wring's 28%.

[Kalhoun]

This seems to be germane: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sschis03.htm) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Table 2 (in the pdf file) shows 1.5 million individuals in the "state criminal history file" in Michigan in 2003; the adult population is about 7.5 million (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html), for a 20% rate. For Illinois, 4.2 million individuals are in the "state criminal history file", with an adult population of 9.3 million (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000.html), for a 45% rate.

Forty-five percent seems awfully high to me (and I can't believe Illinois is that much more criminally-minded than Michigan), so I suspect there's a difference in the definition of "criminal history file." In any case, I'm not sure exactly how these numbers are arrived at, but the percentages bracket wring's 28%.
I had no idea our populations were that close in number. That's rather surprising. I can't believe those numbers, either.