Is there anyone in this thread that DOESN’T understand the fundamental differences between what Max just wrote and the majority of my opponents’ posting here? Does anyone want to defend the position that this, and Lobohan’s efforts, are anywhere near the same level of logic, clarity, and structure?
Seriously. It’s making me crazy to imagine a readership that says, “Well, that’s a good post, but so is elucidator’s. I think they’re both at the same level.”
There may be lots of people here with passion and righteous indignation, but why is there only one that can carry on a good debate? I haven’t budged Max from his position, any more than I have budged Lobohan or Bryan. But in the latter cases, I have no idea if it’s because they don’t get it or there is a flaw in my logic.
Max clearly and forthrightly points out flaws, acknowledges points scored, and so I understand that he gets what I am saying – even though, obviously, he is unswayed.
Does anyone else not notice that Bricker ignores my very simple chain of logic, and instead of showing how it isn’t sound, he says, “I disagree.”
If you disagree, but cant intelligently argue your case, you’re clinging to ideology, not thinking.
Max, bless him, is under the misconception that Bricker is honest but mistaken. The real deal is that Bricker knows he’s being shitty, and is dishonest enough to try to cloud it.
I can’t speak for Lobohan (and I dislike the notion that I have some obligation to do so, but that relates back to Bricker’s repeated requests that we of liberal ilkville be self-policing) but if you honestly have no idea why your arguements fail to move me, then I’m honestly baffled, because I’ve gone to quite some length to articulate my opinions on the matter and have, I feel, done so in a manner that was not misleading or cryptic or opaque.
I can certainly understand your not wanting to understand. That’s your right, of course, but don’t let’s be ridiculous.
“Really totally pissed off about that guy, taking a Boy Scout hatchet and chopping up those rescue pound puppies, sheesh, what total asshole thing to…”
“Just a minute, here! Despite the Boy Scouts failure to support the liberal agenda, that is no reason to denigrate a fine institution that…”
“Not about the Boy Scouts, about that purée of puppy. Boy Scouts hatchet was simply the instrument…”
“And a perfectly good instrument, it is, too! A mainstay of campfires everywhere, and you guys want to suggest that its the same thing as a tomahawk, which was typically flint-bladed…”
“Hey! Hey! Look, its not about the damn hatchet. OK?! Its about what the hatchet was used to…”
“…And if you can’t be trusted to understand such simple concepts as the distinction between a hatchet and a tomahawk, clearly you have little understanding of…”
“GODDAMIT!! It is NOT, repeat, NOT, about the stinkin! hatchet The fuck is the matter with you…”
“Well, apparently you cannot hold a civil debate without resorting to such tactics…”
Not perzackly, but no big. Side conversation, you and the** Brick**, whatever floats yer boat, don’t need to understand. A private conversation where I don’t have to pay $3.99 a minute, sure…
The main thing I’d like to know, is how you justify fixing a problem, janky votes throwing off elections, by doing something likely to throw off elections.
If a law were passed that all polling places had to be on the 4th floor of walk-up buildings, that would make less people vote. Similarly putting hurdles in front of people who already can vote, is going to make some of them not do it.
To bat your eyelashes, as Bricker does, and pretend that it would have no effect, is awfully disingenuous in the extreme.
You’re the one who claims that Gingrich’s impeachment show proves Clinton’s blowjob was a more serious crime than Bush’s stupid war with corrupt aftermath which killed half a million, disrupted millions of lives, etc. And you dare compare yourself with elucidator? Sheeesh.
Very few here would argue against voter ID requirements if they were implemented fairly. But that’s not what the GOP wants, nor what your idol Karl Rove wants. If you were in a decision-making position you’d favor whatever corrupt method would help your team. But for you, SDMB is just a debating game. You’d argue that the Earth is flat if that’s what your defendant needed, and are happy to practice those skills here.
Most of us are more interested in combatting the increasing corruption in the U.S.
I read your drivel because I’m curious about the sincerity of your ignorance. Do you really admire Karl Rove? Do you really think the blowjob was as corrupt as Halliburton’s War against Gog and Magog? I really don’t know what your true beliefs are. If I thought you were stupid I’d ignore you. Instead I’d like to dismember your brain and see if there’s a soul hiding inside.
I’m a lurker, I guess. I’ve followed this thread since the beginning and made my first post to it at #496. I’ve posted in excess of fifty times, and I believe I debated in good faith.
Early on I countered Bricker’s insinuation that only people lacking adequate desire to participate in the political process would allow these ID requirements to dissuade them from voting, by offering my own situation whereby a lost box of records prevented me from obtaining a renewal of my valid photo ID. This despite the fact that….
And I argued against earlier iterations of his “so you want to be a king” silliness, and pointed out that even he couldn’t deny the scurrilous motivations behind these laws.
And quite a bit of discussion after that.
But frankly I withdrew because it’s become circular and much less interesting. So you guys can carry on the good fight, and I’ll keep on reading, and maybe interject something once in a while. But as far as this lurker is concerned, the debate is decided. Not on points, because I’m not a high school debate coach and this isn’t merely an exercise in stylistic pedantry. But on substance. The ID demanding GOP vote suppressors and their supporters and apologists come up long on partisanship but short on democratic (small ‘d’) principles. Game over.
Sure - you had a viewpoint and nothing has been said has altered that. I get that.
But I’m sort of asking about the points aspect, the aspect of actually reading and responding to the points being made. As I read what you said, it sounds like you’re saying the issue is so clear, so cut and dried, that stylistic pedantry doesn’t matter.
But what about the fact that others in the world don’t agree? Here’s where that stylistic pedantry might have some value: yes, you’re convinced, but lots of people aren’t – enough people aren’t, in fact, that lots and lots of states have passed these laws, and people seem to be supporting them. So how do you go about reversing that trend?
Might there be some value in actually deconstructing and understanding the other side, in responding to actual, not strawman, arguments? In worrying about the points, in other words?
Of course it’s hypothetically possible for someone to read this thread, think about the issues involved, and say “well, Bricker out-argued and out-logicked and out-debated and out-cited and out-actually-made-relevant-point-ed the liberal denizens of that thread by a final score of 43 to 24. Of course he’s still wrong”.
It would be perfectly possible to have had a debate in the past about some now-totally-settled social issue in which the side supporting what we now as a society view as horribly evil clearly won the debate “on points”.
(not saying that happened here, of course…)
Absolutely. Someone could say, in effect, “It’s obvious you’re generally wrong, Bricker, but you are framing the debate in such a way as to maximize the few areas in which you’re right, and because your opponents feel they cannot concede any ground at all, you are succeeding at debate by highlighting those failures of concession but still you are unable to convince anyone of the overall correctness of your position.”
Or someone could say, “Every point you made has been disproved, so you’re wrong and you lose.”
I’m trying to understand which of those views more closely predominates here amongst people that are reading but not participating.
Someone came to my door yesterday, and inadvertently used the words “valid neutral consideration” and were shocked to receive a brisk flogging with my cane. I bought some of her cookies, however, so perhaps all is well…