You could flip a coin for all I care.
if you have to prove and provide one to cash your pay cheque than you you can provide one, if you want to vote …
I just did. I won.
But then to be sure, I flipped again – this time I lost.
What does it mean?
It’s unclear to me how you can demand I prove the claim, reject my proposed method of proof, and fail to specify one of your own. Unless you were serious about the coin, in which case I won.
OK, Bricker’s gotta win something here. So, maybe Miss Congeniality? Best Vocabulary? **Bryan’**s got Most Canadian, so that’s out…
I guess, since that never happened. And I did suggest a means of evidence. This is my last post on the “debate win” topic.
That’s okay as a starting position. Are you open to the idea that the subject may be more complicated and have certain nuances, or is it your final position as well?
Hint to casual readers:
All the smart money is on “I like things cartoonishly oversimplified because analysis is scary and slogans are comfortable”.
I suspect so, although as I’ve said I tend to skim over your responses to people other than me.
I actually don’t think it fits either, particularly. My point was not intended to be “this is a distillation of how Bricker is acting in this thread” it was "here’s a hypothetical example intended to demonstrated why ‘debate points scored’ doesn’t necessarily align at all with ‘neutral observers likely converted to one’s side’ ". (Which is not to say that my example is totally UNLIKE how I perceive you as posting in this thread, but it was not intended to be an encapsulation.)
Taking a step back, however, do you see the point I’m trying to make? That even if we accepted that you were winning this debate “on points” that wouldn’t necessarily align with winning the debate as far as converting neutral observers was concerned?
Absolutely. But neither is it antithetical to that goal.
I’d argue that a FOCUS on winning debate points can be antithetical to that goal.
If you’re a legislator and you’re voting on a voter ID law, you only have two choices… vote for it, or vote against it (well, I suppose you could also abstain, or vote “present”, or filibuster it, but the point is, you have to actually settle on some single position). As message board posters we have the luxury of being able to have a wide spectrum of positions on a given issue. Why would we not take advantage of that?
Sure, it’s silly for us to as message board posters be in some kind of naive lalaland where we don’t recognize political realities and all and hold positions like “they should pass laws to make pollution illegal” or something vague and idealistic like that. At the same time, I see no reason why message board debating should be some kind of mock-congress where everyone has to vote yea or nay on every single issue. And, for that matter, you can do both… you can say “well, I hope that my representatives vote X on this issue, but I also have the following additional opinions and views, etc.”.
The same way anyone ever thinks about anything, as best you can. Again, none of this is something objective and provable. I at no point said “well, here’s my entire argument: some guys are scuzzy, therefore I KNOW that the law they supported will be super-evil, therefore I have PROVEN that you should vote against it”. But when I’m using the fairly scant evidence available to me to make the best guess I can as to how likely this law is to have a serious and disparate impact on voters in that state, the fact that I don’t trust the motives of the people who wrote the law definitely pushes things towards the side of evil.
Even if I accepted that that was true (and I don’t, necessarily), so what? Again, you’re adopting a standard by which any debate about anything on the SDMB ever can be instantly ground to a halt unless the other side can prove that its hands are unbelievably clean. Seriously, the next time you want to pit something or start a thread or bring up a topic for discussion, ask yourself if you’re really interested in going in and rehashing which side has been more guilty of more-or-less-similar-things over the past 20 years or so. Is wading into that morass really going to lead to interesting or productive debate? Will that really help us fight ignorance?
I dunno. Did you start a thread about it? Why not?
And it’s also worth pointing out that even if much of the established power of the CA democratic party voted against that proposal, it still did pass. So California, the largest bluest state in the nation, one where probably 10+ house seats could be gained for the dems by sufficient gerrymandering, has presumably-neutral congressional districts. Texas, the largest reddest state in the nation, does not. Is that because Democrats are saints and Republicans aren’t? Certainly not. But is it just a coincidence? Can you think of an interpretation of why that might be that is flattering to Republicans, because I sure can’t.
So just to be clear, despite the fact that you’ve seemingly hung your hat a lot on the distinction between “CHOSE not to vote” and “was PREVENTED from voting”, you do recognize that there are obstacles which CAN be overcome but which, if they are present for sufficient numbers of voters, would present an impermissible burden?
Do you think that just because you tend to assume that both sides are generally equally evil? Or do you think that because you’ve read studies or seen research that indicates that that is so? Because I know that there’s a tendency to think that both sides are always pretty much the same. But they aren’t automatically the same. Assume for a moment that for one particular generation, the leaders who rose to power within one party just happen to be 10% more stubborn or sly or evil or underhanded or ruthless or immoral than in the other party. There’s no reason that’s impossible. What evidence would we, as citizens, see? If I said “my hypothesis is that the current crop of Republican leaders is somewhat more unethical than the current crop of Democratic leaders”, how would we go about testing that proposition?
I’m not saying I can prove you’re wrong. I’m not even sure I really honestly THINK you’re wrong. But I do suspect that you hold the position you do just because you kind of want it to be right, not because there’s actual strong evidence to support it.
It takes some seriously weird interpretation of that OP to warp it to be in any way ascribing virtue to Democrats. It does (as is so often the case on the SDMB) leave somewhat ambiguous whether it’s talking about all registered Republicans, vs all Republican politicians, vs the particular politicians involved in the voter ID laws, etc. But the obvious reading, given that it is talking about “ID-demanding GOP vote suppressors” is that it is referring specifically to the people involved in this particular issue. And it says that they are unethical jerks, and uses hyperbolic language to do so, this being the pit. I don’t see any honest way to read into that “and no Democrat would ever act similarly unethically”.
I suppose you could spend your life reading every anti-GOP pit thread OP (of which there are an awful lot, which vary in how well argued and supported they are), and mentally tack on “and no Democrat would ever act similarly unethically” when it’s not there, which it pretty much never is, and then you’ll have a lifetime supply of poorly supported claims of Democratoc virtue which you can demolish. And in fact I think there’s an extent to which that’s precisely what you do a lot of the time. But the vast majority of those claims of Democratic virtue are completely made up.
And I would argue that I don’t have focus on winning points; it’s simply a happy side effect of the choices I make responding to foolish posts.
Take someone like elucidator. His posts are virtually guaranteed to be some mix of logical fallacy, and I don’t harbor any illusions about convincing him of anything. So responding to his posts becomes a matter of highlight his evasions, weaselly or otherwise.
Take someone like yourself. You are genuinely addressing the issues. If I replied to your poses that way I think any reasonable observer would see it was I doing the evading.
Actually, as a legislator I also have the opportunity to debate the law prior to voting, and its that activity which I would analogize as closest to what we’re doing here.
But our debate here is – or should be – of a different character when we’re debating a law as a legislator might, prior to its passage, than when we discuss a law that has already passed. Before the law passes, the burden – both on the legislator and on us – is properly assigned to the person who wishes the law adopted. It is he who urges a shift from the status quo.
After the law passes, and is tested by the courts, the burden shifts. The status quo is now one which includes the law, and the burden of persuasion falls, again, to the person who wishes to change the status quo.
Sure. But in the end, we are either advancing a proposal or we’re just gabbing.
Fine. And looking at the same set of facts, I reach a different conclusion. I don’t say I’ve proven Voter ID laws are definitely not problematic. But using the evidence available to me, my best guess is that their continued use will not create impermissble barriers.
How serious are you about the “fight ignorance,” aspect of our existence? You earlier made a convincing argument that absolved you from any particular duty to address the utterly ignorant garbage posted by others. Convincing at the time, anyway – but if you’re truly interested in any type of “fighting ignorance,” then let’s return to that topic.
Now, of course there’s no requirement for either side to have clean hands. But in this debate, there have been specific claims that this type of conduct is something Republicans, and only Republicans, do. Are you seriously suggesting that those claims be left unaddressed?
No. Why should I? As I explained, I regard that as ordinary and unremarkable - unfortunate, to be sure, but no more or less objectionable than other conduct engaged in by both parties at other times. So from my point of view, it’s not unusual enough to even warrant a thread.
But according to you, it is remarkable. So why weren’t you aware of it? Why didn’t you start the thread?
Of course I can. California has a citizen referendum process that allows ballot measures to become law. Prop 8, which you may remember, was a result of that process – and so was the redistricting, via Prop 11.
Texas has no such parallel process.
Of course. I just don’t agree that any such burdens manifest themselves in any of the current state Voter ID schemes.
It would be a challenge. In this debate alone, it’s clear you and weigh access to the ballot differently; I don’t see how we would agree on measures of ethicality, much less apply those measures to a set of politicians in an uncontroversial way.
I suppose both sides are not “automatically” the same, but ultimately the forces that mitigate extreme behavior and the forces that encourage misbehavior tend to achieve the same equilibrium no matter whether the subjects in question are Democratic or Republican… so I’d suggest it’s pretty close to “automatic.”
I don’t think so – I recognize that tendency in me, but try to avoid it. Indeed, one reason I post here is precisely to challenge the positions I wish were true.
C’mon.
If I said, "The following people in this thread are NOT assholes: . . . . . . " and then I listed thread participants but excluded you, you wouldn’t feel there was a inference that I was obliquely calling you an asshole?
Hi Max! Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board!
Counselor, about this “impermissible burden”?
So, the lazy and feckless may legitimately be hindered from voting, due to their flaws in character?
So a hurdle may be placed in their path, a hurdle that falls unequally upon those most likely to vote Democrat. But that’s legit because they are not actually prevented from voting, merely discouraged and hindered?
And if they are too lazy and weak to overcome these burdens, then… fuck 'em? Even if we have to bend that whole “equality before the law” thing to fit?
Well, heck, nothing slippery about that slope!
Crawford v. Marion County. When evaluating a neutral, nondiscriminatory regulation of voting procedure, “[w]e must keep in mind that `[a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people.'”
Therefore, “…Election laws will invariably impose some burden upon individual voters. Each provision of a code, ‘whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects—at least to some degree—the individual’s right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends.’” (Quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 US 428 (1992).)
That’s the law. Why in the world should your zany ideas be substituted for the Supreme Courts’ interpretation? Did Obama appoint you when I wasn’t paying attention? Are you now occupying the office next to Alito’s? Are you bring your deviled eggs to the end of term picnic?
“Equality before the law,” is a phrase that refers to…um…the law. Right? Not your personal wish of what the law is, but the actual law, passed by real legislators, interpreted by real judges.
Possibly because it’s coincident with the minority opinion expressed in dissenting statements by three real-life Supreme Court justices?
That word, “nondiscriminatory”? Does that mean what i think it means, just being a dumb ol’ peckerwood from Waco? My definitions and the real ones (yours) are often at odds, yours are a lot more complicated and intricate. And that word, “neutral”. Seems to me to mean not favoring one party over another, but I’m probably wrong about that too.
Seems to imply that some burdens are unavoidable, goes with the territory, and those burdens are ok so long as they are equally distributed, yes? And while we can regret that not all burdens can be relieved, and perfection will elude us, that doesn’t mean that deliberately imposing burdens on a particular set of the electorate becomes legitimate. Does it render poll taxes ok, or property qualifications, or literacy tests?
Burdens that cannot be avoided are one thing, burdens that are willfully created is quite another. But then again, that’s just my zany view.
Yes, it is. Burdens like poll taxes aren’t ok, even if they’re tiny. Because a poll tax has nothing to do with the qualification to vote. But a tiny burden that has to do with assuring the qualification of the voter is ok, because… say it with me…it has to do with assuring the qualification of the voter.
Yes. But even those august justices are not now offering those sentiments, because they realize that theirs was the minority opinion and thus did not become the law surrounding the issue.