But tell me – why do you not also take to task those folks on the left that you think acted poorly?
It’s as though you expect me to act like a grownup. That’s not an unreasonable expectation – I am a grownup.
But it also seems – again, possibly just to my biased and flawed perception, and inviting you to correct me – that you don’t expect the same from them.
See, part of what’s in play here is when I respond to hyperbole with disbelief and scron, and the person immediately comes back --as you would, I expect – with a clarification, the situation is defused, and there’s no on-going discussion. Insteda of pages, we have two posts, and the matter is settled, or at least redrawn so that we are both arguing about the same actual issue, rather than an exaggerated version of same.
Sure, your points are aboslutely correct: by responding with kind patience and beatific ignorance of insults tossed at me, perhaps we could more quickly reach that same nirvana in other discussions.
I get the sense that in the Bricker household, when he was growing up, there was a disproportionate focus not on the right or wrong of a given situation, but on whether punishments were handed out in equivalent measure. The latter probably in reference to some established household rules to govern such situations.
Why are you so concerned about how two other posters interact? Is it not enough to get people to treat you in the way you think is correct? Must you control other people’s relationships too?
Frankly, it sounds like your whining about how it’s not fair. My daughter has stopped complaining about that, and she’s 9.
All this tells me is that you can’t tell the difference between voting access rights and how nice people are to you on the internet. I think a spirited discussion about the laws on voting access is fine and people can say what they want up to and including that people are big whiners about it.
But now that this is all about you and your feelings:
If we’re all nicer to you will that make you feel better? I’m sorry if some mean person hurt your feelings. You’re our little special snowflake!
The Cato institute recently tweeted an article stating the libertarian stance on immigration is open doors to all and the invisible hand will sort things out.
But my first post to the thread I did comment about how this was a Bricker pile on. I should have added that it was undeserved and he was handling it with good grace, but anybody paying attention would already know that.
That post just really rubbed me the wrong way. You’ve got Bricker responding to MaxTheVool’s thoughtful post about his views on things and admitting that the criticism has merit. He’s pushing back on some of it, but it is exactly the sort of interesting conversation that makes this board unique. Then dumb-shit comes along lobbing insults with the safety of knowing he has the mob on his side.
In addition to being such a jerk move, it’s just so cowardly.
No. This is about what WE say about voting rights. And what WE say about treating people even-handedly on this board.
You can’t have it both ways. Either these discussion are about serious matters and deserve fairness in their conduct, or they’re a bunch of assholes yammering on the Internet. You cannot credibly leap between models as they convenience you, demanding fairness when discussing voting rights and hand-waving it away when discussing how you treat other participants of that same conversation on voting rights.
Actually, you’re right. But that’s because you don’t appear to have said what you meant. This hinges on the difference between demanding that voting be conducted in a fair manner, and “demanding fairness when discussing voting rights” - demanding that the discussion be conducted in a fair manner.
The way you’ve worded it, it’s all apples to apples: if this discussion on a message board should be conducted fairly, then that discussion on a message board should be conducted fairly. It’s hard to argue with that.
But if you meant to say that if I’m arguing that our government should have voting procedures that are fair to all, I am under an obligation to argue fairly, I think that’s bullshit. I have a right to expect things of my government that I don’t have a right to expect of my fellow citizens, because the consequences of governmental malfeasance are so much greater. For instance, I expect the government to speak responsibly, but I expect the right to freedom of speech to be there for those citizens who use it irresponsibly.
So counselor, please quit crapping on others for imprecision in their arguing. You’ve been tripping over yourself repeatedly in this thread in your own failures in this department. It’s ceased to be an outlier.
Or its a discussion about serious adult matters that are being discussed by serious adults and a couple of yammering assholes as well. Or its a serious argument being lost by a yammering asshole who want’s to change the subject. And would like to believe that the failure of the serious adults to treat him with equal respect and admiration means that the serious adults are stupid meany-pants.
I don’t think you are stupid, I think it takes considerable intelligence to perform the mental gymnastics that your complex rationalizations demand. Don’t know if I could do it, but happily, I don’t need to. I think its rather a pity that such intelligence is squandered on obfuscation and pettifoggery but hey! its your rubber ducky, isn’t it?
Though if I were trying to be precise I would say that you should argue fairly in the context of the argument you are having, but not feel obligated to act in the same manner all the time to all posters in all arguments (as an adjustment to the first two sentences). But that’s not something I think we should have laws about. Like we do with voting.
There appears to be an effort afoot to challenge the practicality of our efforts, with the precious insinuation that Some People are silly, wooly-minded liberals, who have really good intentions, bless their hearts, but are simply too naive and stupid to grasp the complexities.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
Its a logistical problem, nothing more. It may be a complex logistical problem, but it ain’t the invasion of Normandy. It ain’t even the invasion of Grenada. The number one stumbling block to getting more people to vote is the people who don’t want more people to vote. Because they will lose. Starts with an “R”.
