The last time I saw that many excluded middles, a busload of fat people were lying about their weight.
Why, looky, here! A delicious, squirmy worm hanging in the water on a string! Yummy! But whats that shiny thing, there? Well, no worries, snack time!
I’m probably not as smart as I think I am. But, thank the Goddess, I’m not as dumb as you think I am.
What is your proposal again?
True, and that was completely over the line, and inexcusable. (Although don’t forget in your anger that far more of the people arguing with you in this thread did NOT engage in that particular behavior than DID engage in it.)
One thing I respect about you is that you deliberately argue your positions on the SDMB, where they will face a crucible of disagreement. Assuming that doing so is at least part of your aim, are you going to get a better crucible of actual debate and actual ideas in a thread in which everyone is pissed off and yelling at you and insulting you, or one in which people are calm and respectful? Now, obviously the only person you can REALLY control is yourself, but if, at the end of the day, you really want to feel like “well, my ideas were certainly tested against a bunch of smart people” as opposed to “man it was sure fun to piss off all those mean liberals, and they sure deserved it, given how insulting they were!”, well, it’s possible that a different approach to debating would you get you where you apparently want to go more efficiently.
And here I think you’re seeing the trees and missing the forest. There are two important points here:
(1) this thread is in the BBQ pit
(2) this is a topic about which one side is at-least-plausibly-justifiably angry, and that is not your side. It’s not like there’s a minor disagreement over tariff policy, and the two sides start out with gentlemanly discourse and then suddenly one side just starts throwing out unprovoked insults and personal attacks. Rather, it’s a situation where one side of the debate feels aggrieved. And, even if you disagree with the left’s position on this topic, I hope you’d realize that each individual step of it is a plausible one. A position of “rich Republicans are trying to win elections by disenfranchising poor people” might be one that you disagree with, but I hope you’ll admit that it’s not prima facie ridiculous. And that’s a position that SHOULD provoke anger. It’s unfair for you to hold up your own lack-of-initial-anger as something which makes you superior when your side has nothing to be angry about in the first place. If there’s a big sports game between heated rivals and team A wins because of a very very controversial refereeing decision, then team B fans are likely to be really angry afterwards, and it would be awfully obnoxious for team A fans to be like “hey, can’t we have a civil discussion of this? u mad, bro?”.
Because you’re the person I’m engaging in dialog. The fact that I’m discussing your posting style and so forth doesn’t mean that you’re the worst person in this thread and the one most in need of correction, it just means that you’re the person I’m talking to.
Note, for instance, that there have been obnoxious drive-by posts by other conservative posters that I have not commented on either, so it’s not like I only attack the conservative posters and let the liberal ones slide.
Anyhow, on to the other recent topic of conversation, you’ve recently said something that I find truly baffling, which is that you seem to think it is in some way illegitimate to either (a) discuss whether something is a good idea, without discussing whether it is legal, and (b) claim something is a bad idea without being able to suggest a solution to it. I think you’re completely wrong about both of those positions.
So, for (a), imagine I go into an abortion thread and start arguing. Now, I’m pro-choice. I think that the US is better right now with legal abortion than it would be without legal abortion. It’s also the case that Roe v. Wade is the current law of the land. And in fact, it’s pretty much indisputable fact that Roe. v. Wade is the law. So if the debate was simply “hey, is abortion legal?” the thread would be over in about 2 posts and one cite. I suppose it’s possible that there could be a very legalistic “was Roe v. Wade wrongly decided” thread that did NOT talk about what is actually good for the country, but instead talks about penumbras and privacy rights and precedents, but that would be a thread that only a fraction of people would be able to really meaningfully contribute to. Instead, what I would expect would be for people to attempt to convince me that the USA would be a better place with less, or none, legal access to abortion. At no point would the end point be me saying “wow, abortion is actually illegal, and I didn’t realize it”. But one might imagine it being “wow, I’m now convinced that abortion SHOULD be illegal… I guess I’ll start voting in future elections for candidates who support that position, and hopefully the law of the land will change”.
In fact, wasn’t that more or less what happened with you and support for Gay Marriage? Or was your switch in position not from “it is morally wrong for gay marriage to be legal” to “it is morally right for gay marriage to be legal”, but from “constitutionally, gay marriage should not be legal right now” to “constitutionally, gay marriage should be legal right now”?
As for (b), well, first of all, (b) doesn’t really apply to the current debate at all. If we’re complaining that the current spate of voter ID laws are bad, then the way to fix them is to not have the current spate of voter ID laws. That said, there are certain situations in which it is somewhat reasonable to say “you don’t like X? Well, can you suggest anything better?”, but they require some problem that everyone agree absolutely needs to be solved. If we all agree that it is essential that we fix X, and I propose a solution to it, and you then tear down my solution, I might respond with “yeah, I know, it has problems, but it’s a difficult situation overall, can you suggest anything better?”. But that’s not the case here. It’s not like there was an agreed-upon national consensus that voter confidence is a problem that HAS to be solved.
Another flaw with your position is that it’s entirely reasonable to criticize specific aspects of very complicated things without being able to propose alternatives. For instance, I don’t have the knowledge base necessary to propose a comprehensive plan that addresses the national debt. I can toss out some random general concepts, but I can’t (and certainly won’t) come up with a specific and detailed plan that would fix things. That doesn’t mean that if someone else does propose a plan I’m in some way forbidden from saying “hey, I notice that your plan gives massive subsidies to fast food restaurants and will make childhood obesity worse” or something like that.
Keep being reasonable and you’ll find yourself dehorded, too, Max.
Some crucibles are just a little *too *hot for him.
No it isn’t. And you’re being willfully stupid if you say so.
You not having an abortion because you believe God doesn’t want you to, isn’t analogous to you not having an abortion because there are mandatory waiting times in your state and the nearest abortion clinic is 300 miles from your house, so you can’t afford to travel there and stay the night.
That’s far more analogous to the Voter ID situation that the GOP is creating.
See above, you’re saying that being afraid to do something is analogous to creating real-life barriers to do it. Simply not true, and if you think it is, I am beginning to understand why you’re so profoundly bad at arguing your case.
Most people who are able to vote at all can manage ten minutes. The GOP is asking for several hours at the least. Not to mention the task of navigating a bureaucracy.
You stated upthread that five hours was fine. I think that’s evidence that you simply don’t give a shit.
If I took say 5% of likely GOP voters and forced them to do five hours of labor to vote, I’d say that would dissuade some of them.
No moron. My argument is very, very simply. Don’t make problems worse when trying to fix them.
You’re such a coward that you don’t address that. You’re supporting fixing a handful of in-person voter fraud cases by making it harder for thousands of people of one party to vote. That’s the solution of a stupid person, or a scoundrel.
Although, I suppose you could be both.
You are a coward and a liar. And no matter how hard you try to pull this into me wanting to be king, you fucking know it.
<3
Translation: It’s the law! HAW HAW HAW!
One thing for sure, if I ever see Bricker offering to bet on something as a means to try to demonstrate someone doesn’t have the courage of his claimed convictions, I’ll be reminded of this thread and will probably helpfully link to it.
By the way, he and I have (or had) a two dollar bet on SCOTUS’s eventual ruling on Wisconsin’s ultrasound abortion requirement. I’m not sure of the wager’s status if he has me on ignore. If I lose, I’ll donate the two bucks in Bricker’s name to Atheists For Justice. If there is no such organization, I’ll found it, also in Bricker’s name.
Here’s where I think you have a blind spot. Why is it that only people on one side of the debate can enter it with justified passion? You imply the same thing in your most recent post, #5184. What it comes down to is that—and this is a doozy—that Bricker’s style of argument isn’t civil enough. Saying that his style, as annoying as some might find it, is not civil as laughable.
Why is it incumbent upon him to temper his passion, to hold hands with people and pat them on the back as he makes his point? Sheeze, isn’t their enough of a hive mentality around here? I rarely if ever, see you participate in show lowness, so it is surprising to me that you would be arguing for it.
Bricker’s position is based on fantasy. The rest of us base ours on fact. Only one side is entitled to passion or outrage, and it isn’t his.
Got it now?
I’m not sure what relevance has Bricker’s civility while he remains determinedly wrong.
To quote the Bard: One may smile and smile and be a douchebag.
Bricker! Get yourself to Alabama! Republicans there are offering $1,000 for any examples of voter fraud.
$1,000! Does that sound like a good rate for something that occurs so often the very foundations of our electoral process are at risk?
“show lowness”? I don’t know what you mean by that.
Strawman. I have repeatedly said that the numbers of illegal voters are very low, so low that the only times they could possibly affect an election is in case of an ultra-close election, an event very rare in itself.
Did you realize I had said that the number of illegal votes in any election is so low that they would only affect the results of an ultra-close election? Does that sound familiar, coming from me, or are you surprised to learn that this is my position?
I would be fascinated to learn if anyone is still lurking and reading this thread apart from the posting participants.
Does that lurker see that MaxtheVool is doing an excellent job of understanding the parameters of debate and raising excellent points…and that practically no one else is?
I wonder if that’s coming across at all.
Two people engaged in it. Four people spoke against it. Everyone else took no position.
It’s true that I post here in large measure for the ready-made crucible. But I also post here for an ancillary, related benefit: I can demonstrate to the more reasonable, less vitriolic lurkers who read but (generally) do not post that particular arguments used by the left are bereft of solid underpinning. That requires that I don’t leave the Pit untouched. And frankly, I feel that the contrast between my approach and theirs – while distasteful for me to experience – is of some benefit when read by those lurkers. Perhaps someone who reflexively leans left will be so discomfited by the comments dragging my family into the discussion that they’ll examine the alliance a bit.
All told, mind you, I would happily forgo that speculative silver lining if the cloud generating it were to dissipate.
Sure it’s in The Pit. But as noted above, I think the Pit becomes a refuge for people with extensive command of insults and no command of logical debate to advance their foolishness, unchallenged. Moreover, why should I concede to only one side of the debate the right to feel aggrieved? A position of “big-city machine politics Democrats are trying to win elections by voting the graveyard and paying for fraud” might be one that you disagree with, but I hope you’ll admit that it’s not prima facie ridiculous.
Only one side is permitted to feel indignation at their poorly-supported, non-factual stereotyping?
Yes, but that dialog take place in a message board format where others can see it. You haven’t suggested we take this discussion to e-mail, of set up a time to exchange Skype info and hash it out face to face (so to speak). So it’s not just me you’re speaking to and it’s not just you I’m speaking to. In this format, your decision to upbraid me for what I hope you concede are comparatively minor sins (at least, “minor,” when daughter’s cunt is in play) when so much worse abounds has an effect beyond the exchange of words between you and me.
Continued in my next post.
Do any lurkers see that Bricker is advocating making it harder for thousands of poor people to vote, so that he can keep a handful from voting improperly? Cutting off an arm to cure a hangnail. It is not something a rational person would do.
As I said upthread, I’m abrasive and confrontational. Bricker is civil and calm. That doesn’t equate to one or the other of us being correct.
“such lowness.”
Sorry.