Wow, recognition.
And it’s true that I haven’t delved into specific state implementation plans (although I have asked about proposed implementation plans several times, to no avail), in part because the whole issue is quite obviously ridiculous.
I would say that pointing out a level of burden necessary to obtain an id which they find unacceptable is identifying a specific element. You may not agree the level of burden is worrisome but I doubt they agree that voter confidence is at a level that requires the measures called for. And yes, we all know how disagreements are solved and nobody is declaring themselves King. They are venting on a public message board partly to entertain, partly to let off steam and partly to raise awareness, just like you are.
** Bryan** has made a clear point that he objects to any legislation that may prevent more legitimate voters from voting than illegitimate ones. I’m pretty sure if you could show either an increase in convictions or a significant decrease in suspected illegal voting in a state with voter id you would have a much stronger case against him than your current “doesn’t bother me” and might even begin to change his mind. Of course he is having a lot of fun mocking you so that may be right out. He’ll, given he is Canadian and shows id whenever he votes (and hasn’t spoken out against it and has even recommended you guys take a page from our book) I feel safe saying that he is not against voter id as a concept but questions the usefulness of the implementation as reported in this thread.
So, just to be clear, you think it’s perfectly fine and reasonable to make non-legalistic moral/ethical arguments… as long as it’s very clear precisely what type of argument it is?
Because honestly, I think “non-legalistic” is the default. Generally speaking, there’s no point in making legalistic arguments on the SDMB, because it doesn’t matter how good a legalistic argument is, there ends up being only one opinion that matters about legalistic things, that being a court. Whereas moral and ethical arguments have much more of an immediate potential to ignite passions and sway people’s positions.
I believe I have addressed this in post 5282, and I don’t think your description of my position is fair.
There’s probably some truth to that… but I guess I’m not sure where we go from there. What’s your overall point?
Interesting! So, those “some Republicans” who operated the legislative levers with malign intent…they failed? The tried to cook up some scheme to trim away Dem voters, they even passed their scheme, but it didn’t work?
Well, OK. Who’s going to stop them from trying again?
Heck, even if they think they did a bang-up job, what’s going to stop them from going for more?
When the subject under discussion is a law…call me crazy if you must, but surely legalistic arguments would seem to be relevant.
If moral and ethical arguments are made to a person that dies not share an agreement with you concerning how to evaluate ethical or moral arguments, of what value are they?
If my moral rules are going to apply, that’s great. But I don’t want to accept Bryan’s, and I assume he does want to accept mine.
That’s why we have a system to craft laws where there is not widespread agreement as to what principles should hold sway.
My opponents have tried repeatedly to simply declare that my position here is immoral. Since I don’t agree, how do you suppose they should prove their position? Bryan, or maybe Lobohan, at one point sought to invoke the general societal agreement to show morality. When I pointed out that wide-spread support for Voter ID laws existed, he claimed that such support was obtained by misrepresenting the particulars. But that’s the kind of slippery argumentation that ought to be anathema here to everyone: the burden should be on the proponent of the proposition to show the truth of his claim. You cannot call me immoral, define morality as general consensus, and then claim your position would have general societal support if only its opponents told the truth about it.
Yes, moral arguments have more chance to inflame passions, primarily because they relieve the rhetor of his burden of proof and allow the lazy rhetor free reign.
From your post 5282:
Right. You’re saying, “IF you’re correct, you have more reason to be upset.”
But, Max, I don’t agree you have more reason to be upset, because I don’t agree you’re correct. (Using “you,” in its indefinite sense here, of course).
You’re trying to show it’s more reasonable for liberals to be upset by assuming they’re correct.
Bricker gets annoyed when we don’t call each other on our errors, so let me set you straight on this. Bricker has convinced me of something.
When I first started reading SDMB four years ago, I noticed Bricker and thought “Wow! An intelligent right-winger. This is something new.” I used to go out of my way to read his posts, and often found myself agreeing, or at least appreciating his logic. But he’s gone downhill from then, faster and faster, and in this thread has become a laughingstock. Bricker has convinced me that he’s a pompous mean-spirited twit who posts in threads like this because he enjoys the smell of his own farts.
I’m not nearly as eloquent as Bricker, and often throw out lazy words like “idiotic” but Bricker is not stupid. He was probably the king of his junior high school debate club and thinks he’s winning these debates also. He’s smirking inside at the way he can keep changing the subject. For example, I was sincerely curious to understand why he thought Bush’s War against Gog and Magog and Clinton’s Blowjob were blunders of comparable magnitude. But all he could offer on that topic was to point out how stupid I was to misuse the word non sequitur. (And then, like a good legal clerk, he noted that Clinton was impeached by bitter partisan foes, while Democrats looked forward to a better future rather than hold useless hearings about the Iraqi Misadventure. Bricker’s not stupid enough to think that argument made sense to anyone. He just likes to smell his own farts.)
Bricker smirks along in this thread, convinced that his 7th-grade debate coach, Miss Primpsting, would give the win to him over all of us. He’s probably right about that. Why can’t he decide that that that’s not what this is about? We’re hoping to steer America toward a better future. He’s still kissing up to Miss Primpsting from long ago.
Of course there are smarter GOP thinkers than Bricker – Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck come to mind – but on this Board only Bricker and Sam Stone seem to have above-average intelligence. (Anyway, Limbaugh and Beck are professional entertainers. Are you thinking of going into radio, Bricker? Or is all this just practice for when you face dumb juries or senescent judges?)
His insistence that “left-wingers” are ganging up on “right-wingers” suggests part of the problem: he lives in a time-warp. I’m a centrist myself and would probably be voting for the right-of-center party in many European countries, but the GOP has mutated in recent decades from centrist, to extreme-right-wing, to batshit-insane. Plenty of sensible Republicans, in Congress and here at SDMB, have abandoned their dissolute party. Those that remain are mostly lunatics, imbeciles, or grossly under-informed. It’s not at all clear that Bricker is any of those things – I think for him it’s almost literally all about relishing his own farts.
Bricker asked me if there were any GOP policies I supported; I mentioned the Clean Air Act with no sense of irony. I don’t follow the details of politics much, and it was only after I made that response that I learned that the present GOP wants to repeal cap-and-trade.
Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of cap-and-trade. That lets me segue into comments and questions for the other intelligent right-winger at SDMB.
Sam Stone, in U.S. the Democrats support Friedman’s cap-and-trade program; the GOP wants its repeal. Which side are you on?
I’ll admit that it is with some reservation that I label you the "Board’s other intelligent right-winger, " especially with your gibberish about “Nash equilibrium” to avoid backing up your stupid comment on Braess’ Paradox. But do you agree, as I do, with Friedman about cap-and-trade? Or does your hatred of government override?
(Oh wait – you’re the blowhard who brags that all the world’s petroleum will soon be burned up. I’ve got one word for you, from on old Dustin Hoffman movie. “Plastics!”)
You’re right, I phrased that very poorly.
The point I’m trying to make is that when there is a situation that people are reacting to, they react to something based on the information they currently have, they don’t (nor should/could they) just not react until all the judgments are passed.
So people’s emotional reactions are based on what they honestly believe to be the truth. Therefore the liberal ANGER is at some level justified even IF it turns out that all the liberals were wrong about Bush.
Does that make more sense?
There’s a weird tension there… for instance, if conservatives believe that Obama was born in Kenya and is an illegitimate president, they’ll presumably be upset about that. I think that’s a RIDICULOUS and ludicrous position. On the other hand, if they’re angry, they’re angry, and I don’t get anywhere by treating them as if they’re not angry because I am so certain that their anger is unfounded. And I hope that you don’t view “Bush lied American into a war” and “Obama was born in Kenya” as remotely comparable positions, in terms of their general respectability.
Actually, I said that Voter ID is a small part of what you support. You support Voter ID that is aimed at reducing the number of Democratic voters.
You should have mentioned that I said there certainly isn’t majority support for that.
To repeat: There is a lot of support for Voter ID, there is not a lot of support for crafting Voter ID as a cudgel to hurt poor people.
But Brickers gonna brick.
**Hey Bricker, I noticed you ignored post 5316.
**
Except that you’re describing it as if there are entirely different and incompatible moral and ethical systems between you and Bryan. Which I suppose is possible. But I think it’s far more likely that that least part of the disagreement about this issue comes not from basic incompatibility of ethics but more mundane disagreements about the issues at play here… which are things are potentially worth discussing. It’s not like the debate just has to go “here’s what I think” “well here’s what I think” “well, we don’t agree, and there isn’t some absolute rulebook to determine who won or who is right” “gosh, you’re right, well, nothing to do but start insulting each other… fuckhead”.
I agree at least about this detail. Claiming that the liberal position has widespread support is at least approximately a factual claim, one that evidence can be presented for… and saying “well, it WOULD have widespread support if people understood it” is pretty unfalsifiable and meaningless.
I don’t see what lazy has to do with it.
In any case, it’s easy to imagine a country that is identical to the US except that everyone knows with absolute certainty that The Comission On Elections has the absolute final say on all election-related laws. And the Comission On Elections in alterna-USA has a majority of Republicans right now, and they use their absolute mandate to make all the voter ID laws under discussion. In that alternate reality there IS no legal discussion at all. The laws are laws, period. But 80+% of the arguments we’ve been making in this thread would still be relevant and meaningful.
Still, it must be noted that **Bricker **has exposed the simplistic nature of liberal’s political morality, it lacks nuance, whereas his has simply oodles of nuance! You want nuance and subtle distinctions in your political morality, he’s da man, no two ways about it!
Bush lied us into a war that killed more than a hundred thousand people, but FDR was lying to get us into a war that had already killed far more than that! And he would have succeeded, so he is more immoral than Bush, if we simply overlook the technicality of an actual Japanese attack! Heck, look at it the right way, and squint a little, then the Japanese attack was wholly justified, as they were trying to free us from domination by an immoral dictator with WMD! Well, not yet, but he was gonna, so FDR was simply Saddam in a wheelchair!
Similarly, “some” Republicans had malign motives in all of this, but just some! And the resultant laws had that “neutral justification” thingy, so they get a pass! Plus, even though they tried to impose onerous burdens, they failed to do so, as no onerous burdens resulted, so they get additional innocence by reasons of stupid and incompetent!
But the Massachusetts Massacre worked like clockwork, dotted the "t"s and crossed the "i"s, so the Dems are much, much worse, because they didn’t screw it up!
Perhaps if I examined Bricker’s complex and nuanced political morality long enough, it would start making sense to me! Kinda hope not, but its certainly possible!
In post 5316, you responded to my question, “So what kind of judge are you thinking of for this debate - what judge could judge this ‘by its rational merits?’”
Your answer:
Since I disagree that your analysis constitutes “thinking clearly,” and you disagree that my analysis constitutes “thinking clearly,” how can we resolve this conflict?
It’s to answer that question that I asked you what kind of judge you were thinking of. I was hoping to elicit a more specific answer than simply, “Someone who can think clearly,” since that description retains the essential point of contention: you and I do not agree, it appears, on “someone who can think clearly.”
So what judge or system of judgement, specifically, can we both agree to and accept who will resolve our disagreement?
That makes sense, but it also undercuts much of your ability to valorize the liberal anger over the conservative anger, a conflict you sense as a “weird tension” below:
Certainly I don’t regard “Obama was born in Kenya” as a position that can be reasonably defended. I do think he is a Keynesian, but that’s a different story entirely. 
But to the passionate defenders of the “Stealth Muslim Kenyan President” theory, it’s true verifiable fact, and they were furious that the MainStreamMedia assisted the Left in installing a legally unqualified man as President.
So what, if anything, are you arguing about how I approached this thread would be different if the thread were about the long form birth certificate?
See what I mean?
Sure do! You have, yet again, managed to move the debate from fact-based argument, wherein you were losing in a spectacular fashion, onto relativistic arguments where there are none!
Nice work!
That’s an interesting question… and I think at some point the answer is not much. Starting with the premise that:
(a) a bunch of people disagree with you
(b) you believe that it is possible to logically convince at least some of them that they are wrong
(c) they are very angry about the issue
(d) there is an ongoing angry pit thread about the issue
I think that human nature pretty much guarantees that if you wander into that pit thread and start defending your position with big broad strokes there’s going to be an awful lot more anger than clear communication. Seriously, if I was on a right wing equivalent of the SDMB and there was a pit thread entitled “that fucking Kenyan Obama has done it again”, and I really wanted to convince people that Obama wasn’t born in Kenya, I wouldn’t go into that pit thread, I’d go start a GD thread, and possibly link to it from the pit thread.
Anyhow, that tangent aside, there’s another interesting approach to this issue, which court challenges of various sorts. I believe that your position is that you would object to voter ID laws if they presented an undue burden to voters, but you believe that they do not. You’ve also commented that you’re happy that each individual state is able to write its own laws, and that you think it’s a sign of the system working that a voter ID law might pass muster in Georgia while another one is struck down by the courts in Pennsylvania.
Does that mean that the “undue burden” that you personally care about somehow varies state by state? Furthermore, if there’s a case in some state where a lower court finds the burden undue but then the state supreme court reverses that ruling, do you view that as a victory for your side? Clearly, it legally is, but if the burden is skirting the line of undueness sufficiently closely that a lower court, presumably an intelligent and well-intentioned person or persons, found it over that line, and the supreme court disagrees; well, that means that the law is ok LEGALLY but it’s pretty strong circumstantial evidence that the law is NOT OK, morally/ethically.
As I said, someone that is able to reason. You are pretending that you can’t compare two things and choose the one that does less damage.
Your disagreement is based on you simply deciding that “the liberal side” is wrong.
Show me exactly where what I said is wrong. The reasoning involved in my position is very simple. Less harm is better than more harm.
Show me where that reasoning breaks down, and then we can have a productive discussion. Instead you simply trot out, “I disagree.” Well whoopdyfuckindo. If I have a basket with ten oranges and a basket with 4 oranges and I point at the former and say, “That’s more oranges” your position shouldn’t be, “Well I disagree.”
Show me how there are more oranges in this basket. I’m not saying that I think not having Voter ID laws that target Democrats tastes better, or is prettier. I’m saying that a thinking human can evaluate it.
Someone who can count oranges.
Hey Bricker, I noticed you didn’t even address the dishonesty I pointed out in the previous post. Keep it classy.*
Problem with that approach is that it leaves the Pit thread full of unrebutted, unaddressed inaccuracies. I realize that comes off a bit like someone is wrong on the Internet, but this is a board supposedly interested in fighting ignorance.
I am unwilling to simply leave the Pit to rhetors who are able to take advantage of the persuasive freedom therein to gain ground, especially when it’s the kind of ground that’s gained by illogic and misstatement.
Yes. I’d say a state that has robust public transportation options, for example, can justify a situation in which Voter ID issuing locations are farther apart, because the key element is not distance but ease of access. So I would definitely say that every state’s “undue burden” is a matter for that state to decide, and one state’s undue burden is not automatically another’s.
And I don’t agree that a lower court finding being reversed by a higher court is still someone a moral or ethical loss. Would the reverse work? If the lower court agreed with the state and found no undue burden existed, but the ACLU (let’s say) appealed to the higher court, who agreed with the ACLU, would that be evidence of moral or ethical strength of the state’s argument or the ACLU’s? Your question proposes a sort of “one way ratchet,” in which any finding awards the moral or ethical victory to your side.
Needless to say, I don’t think that’s correct. People of reasonable intentions may certainly disagree, but ultimately we have a court system because we have agreed this is how we will reach decisions like this amongst ourselves.
I already accept that well-intentioned people feel as though there is something shy of moral certitude about these laws. But surely it can’t be true that if even one such person thinks it’s true, that decides the question – can it?
Lobohan, your entire post is reproduced below.
I am asking, for the third time, the question: what judge, specifically, should resolve the conflict between our ideas?
Your response is:
I can count oranges, but you have rejected me as a judge. So I don’t think your answer is actually accurate.
I have very little interest in repeating the same points to you again. Less harm is better than more harm, sure, but you are not the person entitled to identify and quantify “harm.” You attempt to define harm in a way that assists your argument; I don’t accept that definition.
So we disagree. I am asking you to identify, specifically, the judge we should use to resolve our disagreement. “Someone” is not a specific answer. Who?
So, apparently, we are offered that the authors of these laws carefully considered the state of public transportation? And after such careful consideration, determined to their satisfaction that public transportation, in each instance, was robust and available, hence no “undue burden” would be imposed?
Good news, to be sure, if somewhat surprising! I don’t suppose there is any available evidence to support such a notion?
Except, of course, for “some” Republicans, who were intent on “undue burden” as their entire effort. Happily, they failed, so its all good! Boy, sure a good thing those other Republicans were around to put the kibosh on that unseemly attempt! I stand ready to heap praise upon these worthies, but regrettably, they must remain anonymous…
Alas.