# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 258
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5141 "2014-06-02T23:47:44Z")
> [@](#): > > See, Bricker? You’re not alone against the “horde.” The bad news is, you are unwillingly selected for a Tag-team Steel Cage Death Match. The good news is, you get Stephen Hawking for your partner! Actually, guess that’s not especially good news… ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5142 "2014-06-02T23:56:48Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Going back to the OP, 5100+ posts later, someone finally encapsulated a very accurate precis of BG’s entire problem: > > [http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-05-29-29a6b960\_large.jpg](http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-05-29-29a6b960_large.jpg) Your problem is, you’re so gullible that you live in a fantasy world based on lies and misinformation. If you had actual knowledge of the real world, you’d be really embarrassed that you’re the person you are. That makes you way better than Bricker. You’re a victim tricked into doing wrong, he’s actually knowingly doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5143 "2014-06-03T00:41:27Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > And you keep making the accusation that people who object to what they see as patently immoral laws are somehow arguing that they should be king. Please dispense with that nonsense. It’s very simple. You and I disagree on what laws should exist. You claim these laws are immoral. I say they are not. I ask you what mechanism you propose to resolve the disagreement. I don’t accept your judgement that the Voter ID laws are immoral; you don’t accept mine that they are not immoral. Here is where we go off the rails. What, if anything, **specifically** , are you proposing? It seems to me you – and I use “you” in its indefinite sense – are proposing some mechanism whereby the immoral law is scrapped, because it is immoral. But this is never specifically admitted. Instead, your response is to continue to inveigh against the law, the supporters of the law, and continue to announce how to law “can’t be” accepted unless your conditions are met. So SPECIFICALLY, what are you proposing? ETA: > [@Acsenray](#): > > Believing a law is wrong and should be remedied the through normal constitutional processes and that its supporters ought to be criticized and its enactors removed from power through the normal constitutional process has NOTHING to do with cleaving to oneself the individual authority to annul the law by fiat. That last bit is something you have created out of your own imagination and brought to every policy discussion. It’s not even a straw man or hyperbole. It’s a Big Lie. Is that in fact what you’re proposing? OK. Well, the normal constitutional processes end in the federal sphere with the Supreme Court. They have already spoken on the issue. What else, if anything, are you proposing on that front? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5144 "2014-06-03T00:42:29Z")
Now Clotha’s weighing in? Seriously, Bricker, if you ever say you’re fighting a lone battle, you’re _really_ doing a disservice to your, well… “ilk” is so over-used on this board so I hesitate to say it. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5145 "2014-06-03T00:42:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This seems like an astoundingly odd criticism of someone participating on a debate board. Why in the world would anyone want to spend time discussing all that they agree with. That seems like a gross waste of time for all parties. But if that’s what someone likes, they’re are plenty of places to discuss things when everyone agrees. It appears to me that your premise is that the point of a debate board is to demonstrate how much a group of people are in agreement. That seems exceedingly odd. > > Tied to this is the feeling that one should minimize his or her differences of opinions, lest they anger or outrage the majority. I must say, I’m quite surprised to see this coming from you. If someone sees disagreement on a debate board about a particular position, and responds with anger, would you say the problem is with the writer or the reader? To quote myself from [this OP:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=593933) > [@](#): > > He goes into a thread where people are talking heatedly about an issue that they are passionate about, and takes an opposing viewpoint. Which is fine. Except that he’s not really taking an opposing viewpoint. Rather, his disagreements are about semantic issues of some sort, not the meat of the issue, BUT he doesn’t go out of his way to make this clear. Best recent example is this [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=593792). As far as I can tell, Bricker is basically arguing that the police action was not ILLEGAL. Which might well be true. But pretty much everyone else is enraged about what they see about an innocent person being shot, and while people are tossing around some hastily phrased (and in some cases clearly factually incorrect) statements, the main thrust of the thread is not “police officer X should be charged with the follow crimes and here is legalistic arguments why that is valid”, it’s “this is totally outrageous”. > > In other words, the “consensus opinion” of most people in that thread is something like “this was a tragedy, the police should have acted differently, we should examine police procedures and stuff, the poor guy basically did nothing wrong, and the cop should be charged with (some crime)”. And as far as we know, Bricker’s opinion might well be “his was a tragedy, the police should have acted differently, we should examine police procedures and stuff, the poor guy basically did nothing wrong, but legally I claim the cop was not guilty of any crime”. (Granted, it might not be, but of course part of the issue here is that Bricker is merely taking specific things that other people have said and pointing out (accurately, as far as I know) that they’re false, not actually ever laying out his position on the topic as a whole… it’s always easier to snipe and criticize than it is to actually state one’s own case…) > > If Bricker had entered the thread by saying “I certainly agree that events were tragic, and that the police acted incorrectly in many ways, I believe that, according to the letter of the law, no actual criminality on the part of the police occurred because…”, I, at least, wouldn’t have been irritated. > > I think that at some level Bricker knows that, because he’s both very smart and an actual lawyer, he can soundly defeat 98% of the board population in a purely legalistic debate. And he likes winning arguments with liberals. (As do we all, replacing “liberals” with the appropriate term). So he picks situations where he can enter debates and presumptively frame them in legalistic ways even when that’s really not the argument anyone else wants to have, and he doesn’t even add a nice “the whole event was a tragedy, yada yada yada” disclaimer; and presto, instant clusterfuck of a thread. Does that make more sense? I’m not saying Bricker shouldn’t have opinions, or shouldn’t disagree with orthodoxy. I’m saying that when you’re entering a passionate debate full of upset people and you actually want to meaningfully communicate your position and opinions rather than just getting into the umpteenth consecutive shouting match, there’s some benefit to making very clear exactly what your opinion is, and what its limits are, lest people leap to the conclusion that you are saying something more combative than what you are in fact saying. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5146 "2014-06-03T00:45:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Morality isn’t something writ in physics. It’s what we agree it is. And most people, if they really looked at your stance would find it vile. Two hundred years ago, you’d have been astonishingly progressive, but times, they change. In this society, in this time, you’re a festering asshole. The problem with this blanket assertion is that it fails when we see how strong the public support is for Voter ID laws. It is not I in the minority on this position: it is you. My position is consistent with a strong majority. So your claim is demonstrably false. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5147 "2014-06-03T00:50:32Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I see your point, but… I think you’re conflating two different things: > (1) always being polite and respectful and friendly and never lashing out > and > (2) making it clear that your position is a nuanced and specific one, not a broad one > > I’m not saying that you’re under any obligation to always be friendly and turn the other cheek and so forth, but I think you have a tendency to state your position in a way which emphasizes the differences between your position and the majority rather than the similarities. At which point you end up in a vicious cycle, because people immediately respond with anger, at which point you respond in anger (as is only human), and the gap just gets wider. Of course, my responses that have been tinged with anger – and they certainly exist – have not once crafted conditionals that involve the smell of the cunt of the daughters of my opponents. So, there’s that. Now, to your main point: this is a area for debate. Yes, of course I emphasize the areas in which my disagreement lie. It’s my forlorn belief that people should be able to advance their respective positions without recourse to these kind of vicious cycles you describe. And your request that I moderate my initial entry into the debate, when I am faced with an OP that reads: > [@](#): > > You’re all worthless motherfucking liars with the civic virtue of a sewer-rat’s tapeworm. “Voter fraud” is a non-problem and you know it. The Dems don’t want undocumented immigrants to vote any more than you do, and you know that, too. This is all about disfranchising the poor and minorities. Shame on you all, and STFU forever. It seems you expect the liberal side of the debate to be children, and are aghast that the conservative isn’t the grownup. Why are you directing this guidance at me, and only at me? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5148 "2014-06-03T00:51:52Z")
> [@](#): > > …My position is consistent with a strong majority… I trust you are not asserting that public support is the be-all and end-all. Because if you are, you are going to find yourself “clarifying” like a motherfuck. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5149 "2014-06-03T00:53:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s very simple. > > You and I disagree on what laws should exist. > > You claim these laws are immoral. > > I say they are not. > > I ask you what mechanism you propose to resolve the disagreement. I don’t accept your judgement that the Voter ID laws are immoral; you don’t accept mine that they are not immoral. > > Here is where we go off the rails. What, if anything, **specifically** , are you proposing? > > It seems to me you – and I use “you” in its indefinite sense – are proposing some mechanism whereby the immoral law is scrapped, because it is immoral. But this is never specifically admitted. Instead, your response is to continue to inveigh against the law, the supporters of the law, and continue to announce how to law “can’t be” accepted unless your conditions are met. > > So SPECIFICALLY, what are you proposing? > > ETA: > > Is that in fact what you’re proposing? > > OK. > > Well, the normal constitutional processes end in the federal sphere with the Supreme Court. They have already spoken on the issue. What else, if anything, are you proposing on that front? So once the Supreme Court has spoken I (in the indefinite sense) am supposed to shut up about it? And if I don’t then I am appointing myself king? What I propose to do is to continue to inveigh against it until enough members of the polity agree with me to overturn that law and put a legislature and executive in place that will overturn it and – eventually, through the slow process of appointments – put a majority on the Supreme Court who will overturn that decision. Because regardless of what the political system has produced for now, I still believe that the law is immoral. It just happens to be constitutional … For now. That’s what happens with every political issue. That’s the way the system is supposed to work. And it’s exactly what the anti-choices do as well. So who is demanding to be king in this scenario? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5150 "2014-06-03T00:58:29Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Two responses: > (1) It’s entirely possible to say that a law is wrong, and have a thread on a message board about how that law is wrong, and have people ranting and saying that that law SHOULD be changed and that the people who supported it ARE DOUCHEBAGS, without their being an underlying subtext of “and because we all in this thread agree then hey presto, the government of the US is obligated to obey our will”. So if I entered a pro-life thread and people were saying things like “Roe vs. Wade is unAmerican and horrible, and it’s a massacre, and it should be overturned” I might argue with them why I think Roe is in fact a good idea, or perhaps why I think it’s constitutional, but I wouldn’t start it on “what, you people think you are kings or something?” just because they were using words like “should” or even “need”. That’s just a silly distraction. I disagree. At its heart, the question is always: _what do you propose to do to fix the problem?_ Express or implied, that question is the natural antecedent of nearly every discussion here. You would have every right to enter a Roe v. Wade thread and ask such a question. And guess what, **Max**? _That’s essentially what people do here in Roe v. Wade threads._ Virtually every abortion thread is, at some point, trumped by some variant of “…and that’s the law.” As well it should be. > [@](#): > > (2) Any law which potentially modifies elections does NOT necessarily fit into your neat little model. For me, at least, a major theme of this debate has been whether these voter ID laws are sufficiently close to disenfranchisement/poll taxes that they should NOT simply be “well, majority rules, that’s how a democracy works”. (And note, by the way, that the supreme court ruling that by the current set of precedents these laws are not-disenfranchisement-and-not-poll-taxes doesn’t necessarily invalidate any particular argument I might be making along those lines, unless I was claiming “here is what the supreme court will rule”.) Then what’s your proposal? How do you say we should resolve debates over how to modify election laws, if the normal process of law making and resolution is somehow invalid? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5151 "2014-06-03T01:05:09Z")
Are you suggesting that it is – unconstitutional? Undemocratic? Anarchical? – to argue that there are people holding political power who act with bad intent? Because I believe that. I believe that the large proportion of Republicans who have supported these laws are acting with bad intent to fix the election system. And to the extent that there is any broad support for these laws or any broad lack of confidence as you describe – it is because people with bad intent have perpetrated lies and propaganda to effect such. You might disagree with me but do you really mean to say that my attitude makes me wish for kingship? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5152 "2014-06-03T01:07:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Why are you directing this guidance at me, and only at me? For one thing, you have a genius for exasperation. If Gandhi had spent an hour arguing with you, he would have strangled you with his _dhoti._ ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5153 "2014-06-03T01:14:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then what’s your proposal? How do you say we should resolve debates over how to modify election laws, if the normal process of law making and resolution is somehow invalid? Personally, I suggest you be more Canadian about it. Giving elected officials direct control over how the electorate is defined and qualified and delineated and exercised is a recipe for corruption and manipulation. Turn election regulation over to a nonpartisan agency with the limited mandate of making sure voters are convenienced and votes are counted accurately and districts are defined solely by population density. Your “normal process” has given you a congress of near-lifetime incumbents and their natural inclination to want to stay that way. I think the Tea Party is a bunch of buffoons, but at least they shook things up a little by exploiting public discontent that was otherwise being gerrymandered into silence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5154 "2014-06-03T01:17:15Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > So once the Supreme Court has spoken I (in the indefinite sense) am supposed to shut up about it? And if I don’t then I am appointing myself king? > > What I propose to do is to continue to inveigh against it until enough members of the polity agree with me to overturn that law and put a legislature and executive in place that will overturn it and – eventually, through the slow process of appointments – put a majority on the Supreme Court who will overturn that decision. That’s fine. But I cannot help but notice that your rhetoric in support of your position does not spend much, if any, effort carefully delineating the steps you describe above. Instead, you, and others sharing your position, offer much more confusing statements that are easily read to say that you are not simply pushing for change of existing law but somehow claiming the existing law is itself unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise anemic. And because I wish to deny you the use of that particular rhetorical technique, and force you to explicitly argue for the change to an existing valid law as opposed to confusingly denouncing a law ina way that leaves your audience unsure of the law’s validity, I will continue to point out every single time you, or those with you, employ that tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5155 "2014-06-03T01:27:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with this blanket assertion is that it fails when we see how strong the public support is for Voter ID laws. It is not I in the minority on this position: it is you. My position is consistent with a strong majority. So your claim is demonstrably false. People support Voter ID, not tailoring it to dissuade one party from getting votes. Your position, that putting hurdles in front of poor people for partisan reasons is perfectly fine, is almost certainly a minority one. I’ve said several times, I’m not against Voter ID, I’m against using it as a hammer to beat down the weaker among us. So no, people don’t agree with you. They agree that Voter ID in concept is laudable. Much like I can like bananas, but I don’t think you should poke them in people’s eyes. Also, because of liars, like you and the people you vote for, people have the misguided belief that voter fraud is much more common than it is. You yourself have tried to blur that line in the past: ["ACORN did absolutely nothing wrong" no longer true - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603677) You need dishonesty to save face, I get it. That’s what happen when you argue horrifying shit. \*\*Note that Bricker responded to only a random (and incorrect) nitpick, creating a distracting tangent. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5156 "2014-06-03T01:30:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s fine. > > But I cannot help but notice that your rhetoric in support of your position does not spend much, if any, effort carefully delineating the steps you describe above. Instead, you, and others sharing your position, offer much more confusing statements that are easily read to say that you are not simply pushing for change of existing law but somehow claiming the existing law is itself unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise anemic. > > And because I wish to deny you the use of that particular rhetorical technique, and force you to explicitly argue for the change to an existing valid law as opposed to confusingly denouncing a law ina way that leaves your audience unsure of the law’s validity, I will continue to point out every single time you, or those with you, employ that tactic. And fail utterly to persuade anyone but mouth-breathers like Clothy and Magellan. Good show, old chap! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5157 "2014-06-03T01:41:17Z")
I feel more confident already. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5158 "2014-06-03T02:09:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > People support Voter ID, not tailoring it to dissuade one party from getting votes. > > Your position, that putting hurdles in front of poor people for partisan reasons is perfectly fine, is almost certainly a minority one. I’ve said several times, I’m not against Voter ID, I’m against using it as a hammer to beat down the weaker among us. So no, people don’t agree with you. They agree that Voter ID in concept is laudable. Much like I can like bananas, but I don’t think you should poke them in people’s eyes. > > Also, because of liars, like you and the people you vote for, people have the misguided belief that voter fraud is much more common than it is. > > You yourself have tried to blur that line in the past: ["ACORN did absolutely nothing wrong" no longer true - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603677) > > You need dishonesty to save face, I get it. That’s what happen when you argue horrifying shit. > > \*\*Note that Bricker responded to only a random (and incorrect) nitpick, creating a distracting tangent. \*\* Absolutely untrue. Here is your entire post: > [@Lobohan](#): > > Then I’m wrong, you are fucking stupid. Colossally fucking dipshitty. In fact, I wonder how you can function in every day life. > “You \*need \*to try Chipotle if you haven’t. They are a damn good burrito, for a chain.” > > “You \*need \*to call her bro, you can’t just hook up with a friend and not say anything the next day.” > > “I \*need \*to be there, I just want to say goodbye. I \*need \*that closure.” > Riddle me this, Bricktop, do those sentences get through the thick fucking wall of stupid you’ve erected to protect your craven ideology? > > We are social animals conditioned by evolution and society to have fairly common ethical standards. Your parents, or your genetics have utterly failed you and produced a semblance of civility, piled atop a sneering contempt for people smaller than you. If you can’t understand playing fair, your ineptitude began at the playground. > > Morality isn’t something writ in physics. It’s what we agree it is. And most people, if they really looked at your stance would find it vile. Two hundred years ago, you’d have been astonishingly progressive, but times, they change. In this society, in this time, you’re a festering asshole. I responded to the only paragraph that contained an argument that was not a blatant ad hominem. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5159 "2014-06-03T02:11:29Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And fail utterly to persuade anyone but mouth-breathers like Clothy and Magellan. > > Good show, old chap! I don’t believe you are amenable to persuasion. I cherish the hope that there’s a lurker or two reading the discussion, disgusted by your tactics, and able to see your use of fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5160 "2014-06-03T02:13:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely untrue. > > Here is your entire post: > I responded to the only paragraph that contained an argument that was not a blatant ad hominem. So you don’t understand how humans use the word “need” yet? You need to figure that out.\* \*I am not suggesting that this is required by law, or stuff. Keep fuckin’ that chicken Bricker. Keep fuckin’ it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=257) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=259)