Sue over the switch? I think so, yes. People bought the plates with the intention of funding X and instead the funds go to anti-X organization Y? Sure, I think there’s a successful lawsuit in there.
No – because that was in place when the plates were issued.
The state’s position is: I won’t collect money for you if you use it for abortion. That doesn’t make the money it collects for you into state money.
If I ask you to hold the stakes for a bet between Bryan Ekers and me, and you agree, does that money become yours?
And if you refuse to hold those stakes because you can’t stand the thought of paying me if I win, does THAT make it your money?
Even if it’s a completely meaningless point? Fine, it’s wrong to call it state money.
And it’s also wrong to NOT call it state money. In fact, I propose that state money is neither stately nor monetary, discuss.
Although mockery aside, I’ll gladly concede any meaningless point you want, if you’ll concede everything of ACTUAL significance. You’ve pretty much done that already anyway.
That is a good argument, but I don’t that your analogy exactly matches the situation as I understand it. The state isn’t ‘refusing to hold the stakes’ until all sides agree to its stipulations. The state is saying ‘okay I’ll hold your stakes’ ie. “Trust Women/Respect Choice” plates will be issued, and then unilaterally adding on the no-abortions restriction on funding.
If there was negotiation between PP and the governor’s office and the no-abortions funding amendment was agreed to by PP to avoid a veto then your analogy is a good fit. And I agree that calling it “state funds” at that point would be wrong.
Personally, I think some kind of warning to potential plate purchasers of the (unique) funding restrictions at the point of sale would be fair.
The funding restriction was passed before the plates were ever issued.
I don’t disagree that a warning about the abortion restriction would be fair. However, the restriction matches a number of similar funding restrictions across the board in Virginia law. For example:
§ 32.1-326.3(I) - forbidding the Department of Education and the Department of Medical Assistance Services from using any state funds to fund abortion services
§ 32.1-325(A)(7) - state pass-through of Medicaid funds cannot be used for abortion
§ 38.2-3451 - funds from Obamacare health plans cannot be used for abortion
So while I agree that more transparent disclosure of the license plate funding would be better, the restriction is in line with all other cases of Virginia accepting pass-through money, such as federal Medicaid dollars, but refusing to use it for abortion.
Yes, but it not like PP could, if they found the restriction unacceptable, stop the government from issuing the plates and collecting the fees. The state is going to ‘hold the stakes’ to use your analogy whether PP likes it or not. It’s the ultimate and seemingly unilateral control of how the money is spent that makes it look like it’s the government’s money.
Bolding Mine
Your not suggesting that the portion of plate fees going to PP are state funds are you?
Ah, I was using ‘state’ in ‘state funds’ in more of a pol sci sense than in the American ‘state’ sense (I really should be more careful with that when discussing American issues). But I meant unique in terms of restricting the plate fee money, not unique in terms of other state sources of money not being available for abortion.
No, I disagree. The plate issuance started with PP’s request to issue them. And they can stop them: simply stop using the plates – the law provides that plates don’t get continued that have fewer than 200 active sets of plates.
Not at all – I was simply illustrating the animus in Virginia law against abortions, period.
Got it. I agree: the treatment of these fees is unique. Virginia has a boatload of other fee recipients; not one of them is restricted. The list is quite varied, and includes supporters of:
Virginia lighthouses
Pharmacists
Civil Air Patrol
Coast Guard Auxiliary,
Class-J No. 611 steam locomotives
Sons of Confederate Veterans (restricted in the sense that the Confederate Flag logo of this group is not allowed on the plate)
Virginia Breast Cancer Foundation
Chesapeake Bay preservation
Virginians for the Arts
naval aviators
Family and Children’s Trust Fund
Boat U.S
FOX HUNTING
UNLOCKING AUTISM
victims of attack on USS Cole
Parrothead Club
supporters of the Washington Redskins football team
United We Stand (911)
EDUCATION BEGINS AT HOME
NASA Langley Research Center
Urban League of Hampton Roads
FRIENDS OF TIBET; fees
organ donor program
Virginia Sheriffs’ Institute
bicycle enthusiasts
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; fees
Surfrider Foundation
Jaycees
Kiwanis
Lions of Virginia
Rotary International
Ruritan National
Freemasons
Shriners
Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia
Order of the Eastern Star
Sure, they are not overtly religious, just like how Intelligent Design is not overtly religious (well to me it is, but it was designed not to be), but I wouldn’t just accept an argument at face value. It seems you want people to think that just because somebody doesn’t mention god in his argument, that one cannot poke at it and expose the gooey god-ness within.
Like a later poster said, how many of them are for free birth control? There are a lot of ways to reduce abortion and it the most religious people favor only stopping it at the door. Rather, all of their efforts to reduce abortion can actually be more effective by supporting health care, birth control, contraceptives, and sex education. One cannot be secularly against abortions and still be against those things. It ties together
That’s sort of what I mean, but there are nuances. As you may know, some religious people consider atheism to be a religion. For the purposes of this debate, do you think there are those who would invalidate an argument if its based on atheism, if they count atheism as a religion? Just as I discount an argument based on religion, those religionists might discount my argument thinking, falsely, that atheism is a religion.
How that ties into the argument is that atheism is most definitely not a religion, and anything grounded in atheism should be strictly logical and grounded in secular objectivity. Atheism isn’t a religion so it can’t make a religious argument; it is a neutral, objective one. I ask you if you think that religious people in general would accept that, or would they consider atheism to be biased (especially biased against their religion) rather than neutral. Because if they do, that’s bad logic and they are objectively wrong.
I personally think that a lot of people are familiar with Bricker’s debate style and therefore assume, with some objective confidence, that he will tie it back to religion. If he doesn’t want that to happen, then it should be up to him to make a purely secular argument because that is the neutral and objective argument
When, in ANY debate not about religion, have you ever seen me tie the debate back to religion? I have been on this board for thirteen years, and made nearly 40,000 posts. Find me one debate (that wasn’t about religion in the first place) that I “tied back to religion.” ONE.
I do. The purely secular demand cuts both ways. I think it is incumbent that people argue from a purely secular position and leave God and religion out of it. Conversely, if someone does that, you don’t get to revert to nonsense like, “yeah, you SAY that, but I know what you really mean” or to point to their motivation. The motivation is immaterial. And if they can argue without bringing God or religion into it, I feel it is incumbent upon you or me to not then bring religion into it on our own.
Oh, come on. While I agree with your overall point, I don’t agree that someone who opposes abortion must necessarily sign on for every single thing that may contribute to reducing them. There are costs associated with each item, both monetary and societal. Each needs to be weighed on their own.
While I’ve seen some people claim that strong atheism can be viewed a religion, I never—not once—seen anyone seek to win argument by claiming that the atheist is arguing from a point of religion.
I agree completely. I also think it is objectively wrong to not argue directly against the argument being made. If a religionist does not bring God or religion into it—even if it’s The Pope—you need to counter similarly.
It matters not one iota. If you’re right, then he’s really saying that his position IS based on religion. But until he does so, it is incumbent upon those arguing with him to argue against what he presents. Not what they think he might be holding in his hand behind his back.
Calm down. I’m not actually arguing with you or your debates, I’m arguing with magellan about your debate style. I didn’t even read what you wrote in this thread, my first post was a support of how some people find your style to be overly religious
I still don’t see how that could be, unless people are simply saying to themselves, a la Lobo sans exemplica, “He’s Catholic, therefore he must be resting his debate on Catholic principles.”
In fact, I am careful to rest my debate on legal principles, and it’s that tendency that has earned me much criticism. Many times, debate opponents will exasperatedly say, “But what’s your opinion? Forget the law – what’s RIGHT?”
Those are the kind of questions that lead to answer which might well be derived from a religious base, and which I am careful not rely upon. I rely upon the law as a proxy for questions of right and wrong, not because I believe the law is always right, but because the law is a source of objective finality. We probably disagree on the origins of morality and the calculations of what actions are moral or immoral – but that’s why the country has a system of crafting public policy when people disagree on what it should be.
I am happy to debate religion when the subject is religion – but no one has ever seen me say, “This should be law because that’s what the Catholic Church says is right,” and so I’m surprised indeed to hear you say that “…some people find [my] style to be overly religious.”
I can’t see how this statement “killing humans is wrong because humans are special” can be discarded as semi-religious an the tautology “Killing humans is wrong because killing killing humans is wrong” can be used as an argument.
By definition, tautologies are not valid as proofs.
