[QUOTE=Bricker]
Here’s how I propose we do it. Each of us create a list of candidates. If the same candidate appears on both lists, we’ve both agreed to him (or her).
If not, we can bat the issue around more, or assume that no person will be acceptable to both of us.
[/QUOTE]
I just don’t see how you are going to prove I am a fucktard. I don’t even think that is in Black’s Dictionary.
The same arguments can be made about the act of voting itself.
Yawn.
Go ahead – whine as much as you wish. Meanwhile, Voter ID laws continue.
You bring up this voodoo analogy all the time, and I think it’s leaving out a fundamental question, which is whether the person making this voodoo announcement is an elected government official acting in some official context or not. There’s also the issue of whether voodoo is a religious belief, because of course if it is it receives special legal status. For instance, if I were overseeing elections in a district where one party had a lot of orthodox Jews and I announced, with some legal-seeming pretext, that the polling place was going to be in the lobby of a pork slaughterhouse, I believe that would be clearly wrong.
To me, here’s a better analogy: There’s a district in Chicago where the north side of the district is heavily democratic, and they’re mostly White Sox fans. The south side of the district is heavily republican, and they’re mostly Cubs fans. This district is tight on money, and has been looking to cut costs. So it happens that on election day, there’s a cubs game in the morning and a sox game in the evening, and gosh darn it, wouldn’t you know it, the Democratic elected official who is in charge of things decided to reduce hours for polling place, which will now be open only in the morning, largely overlapping with the cubs game.
To me, that’s clearly unethical, because it places a heavier burden on Republicans to vote than it does on Democrats, even though that burden is not really all THAT heavy at all (just skipping watching a baseball game, or hurrying out before or after it). And of course it’s not like it will reduce turnout by 50% among Republicans, and it’s not like there’s a perfect correspondence between Republicans and cubs fans anyhow, but it’s a question of shaving off a few percentage points here and a few percentage points there.
On the larger issue of whether we’re arguing about morality vs. legality here, well, I think we’re clearly arguing about morality, by default, because we’re obviously not arguing about legality. That is, there are very few if any people in this thread who are quoting supreme court arguments about disenfranchisement, yada yada yada. I kind of vaguely would like it to be the case that some random voter ID law in Mississippi (or wherever) was illegal, but to be honest I don’t remotely have the knowledge base necessary to really analyze whether that was the case. So I sadly assume that they are legal. If this thread were titled “voter ID laws… are they strictly speaking legal, ignoring morality” I would hardly have bothered to read or post in it at all. Ergo, we ARE discussing the morality of these laws.
A fucktard is defined as someone who believes there is an objective definition for “fucktard.”
The definition may be found here.
Well, I’ve taken a minute to glance over it, using the search feature, can’t even find the word “lazy” in the Constitution Certainly nothing that states that “laziness” is sufficient and just cause to deny someone their civil rights.
Can you help me out with that?
So, it takes one to know one?
“No, YOU"RE out of order!”
I’ve already explained it too many times to believe that once more would have any effect.
But perhaps there’s a reader who is new to the discussion.
We all agree that if a person is too lazy to get to the polling station, he doesn’t get to vote.
This is but one of many examples in which a person must take some small, but measurable, positive step to claim a right.
A person too lazy to speak is not being “denied” free speech rights. He’s simply not exercising them. And a person too lazy to secure free ID to vote is not being “denied” voting rights; he’s simply not exercising them.
Because I think you’re implicitly weighing the perceived benefit of the law. If it was a complete negation, even a completely worthless law with terrible effects would be fine so long as the effects could be avoided by a small amount of personal effort and the law was passed by people with sincere motives.
Example: Kentucky legislators sincerely believe that the children of red-haired men mostly become serial killers. Red-haired men are required to present themselves to a government clinic to be sterilized UNLESS they hand-deliver an photograph of their oldest living relative, or themselves if they have no older living relatives.
Moral or immoral law?
If it’s true that the small amount of personal effort needed to negate the harm *completely *negates it, then it’s morally neutral, right? (I guess you could make some argument about stigma or something, but putting that aside, I think you’d be forced to call that law neutral.)
There’s going to be a lot of angry, old, white people who are going to be surprised you won’t let them cast an absentee ballot for the old white guy of their choice.
Bricker there is no Nobel Prize for Weaselthink. You’d already have one if there were.
And if “we all agree” that the Constitution clearly states that wombats can vote, does that make it so?
And this:
We do? The lazy person in the “vote by mail” district is not hindered. Why is that, do you think?
And where is the objective criteria, here? If someone is too lazy to walk a mile to vote, is he more lazy than the man who can afford to take a taxi?
ahem
No doubt.
But of course, those people are not checking the box that says “Too lazy,” when they request an absentee ballot, are they?
I’m sure most states have slightly differing requirements – in my state, the allowable reasons for voting absentee are:
[ul]
[li]Student attending college or university outside of locality of residence [/li]in Virginia (must provide name of college or university)
[li]Spouse of student attending college or university outside locality of [/li]residence in Virginia (ditto0
[li]Business outside County/City of residence on election day (must provide name/nature of business)[/li][li]Personal business or vacation outside County/City of residence on [/li]election day (must provide place of travel: VA county/city or state or country)
[li]I am working and commuting to/from home for 11 or more hours [/li]between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM on election day (must provide name of employer or business and election day hours of working and commuting, AM to PM)
[li]being a first responder (member of law enforcement, fire fighter, emergency technician, search and rescue)[/li][li]disability or illness[/li][li]primarily and personally responsible for the care of a disabled/ill [/li]family member confined at home (must provide family relationship)
[li]Pregnant[/li][li]Confined, awaiting trial (most provide name of institution)[/li][li]Confined, convicted of a misdemeanor (ditto)[/li][li]Being an electoral board member, registrar, officer of election, or custodian of voting equipment [/li][li]a religious obligation (must provide the nature of obligation)[/li][li]Active Duty Merchant Marine or Armed Forces Branch of service (must provide branch)[/li][li]Spouse or dependent living with a member of Active Duty Merchant Marine or Armed Forces Branch of service (ditto)[/li][li]Temporarily residing outside of US (must provide your last date of residency at your Virginia [/li]voting residence if you have given up that address permanently or have no intent to return)
[li]Temporarily residing outside of US for employment or spouse or dependent residing with employee (must provide name of business or employer)[/li][li]Authorized representative of candidate or party serving inside the polling place[/li][/ul]
Which state allows the lazy to vote absentee? A liberal one?
Which state were you imagining when you posted that drivel?
Is this Bricker’s meltdown? It’s less sweet than I thought. Kinda sad.
Ahem.
You did?
Why?
What post in this thread discusses a state with pending legislation?
California, but we can all agree the Sunshine State is not liberal.
How is a law that explicitly targets only the children of red-haired persons remotely described as “neutral?” (To say nothing of being a bill of attainder).
If true, that explains California’s teetering on the edge of insolvency. The lazy vote for more free shit.
But that’s democracy for you. California is welcome to make laws that enable – encourage, even – the lazy to vote, if that’s what they’ve done.
It would have to be applied cautiously, carefully. Gingerly, if you will.
Which California are you talking about? The one with Governor Moonbeam is currently running a surplus.
And yes, it be true:
Your argument was that so long as a law has some sincere morally neutral or beneficial objective, and any bad results can be avoided with a modicum of personal effort, that law is, at worst, morally neutral.
Obviously that is not true.