Oh, was I?
Sorry. Let me quote the Supreme Court instead:
I don’t firmly believe that. And so far as I know, no law creates that “much higher standard.” So…er… you’re trying to make it sound as if your little principle here is a well-established and agreed upon fact that you’re just reminding me of, as opposed to simply your opinion.
Another opinion.
I don’t hugely care, in the context of a thread discussing whether those laws are ETHICAL and RIGHT and GOOD as opposed to legal. Which is certainly the portion of this thread I’m engaged in.
No, I said “I firmly believe”, a clear indicator that it just an opinion, not something I’m trying to pass off ass a preordained and agreed-upon rule. I also believe I could make a pretty compelling case as to why my opinion is reasonable and beneficial to society as a whole. But I clearly indicated that it is merely my opinion.
Right. It’s hard for me to see how “There may be no such test in place for laws-that-make-it-harder-for-demographically-suspicious-sets-of-people-to-vote, but there sure as hell SHOULD be.” could be anything OTHER than an opinion.
Don’t confuse the poor lad. He truly doesn’t get the difference.
In the very same thread where you’ve previously granted that there is? What, are you hoping the Debate Club referees will have forgotten by the time they finally hit the buzzer and declare you the winner? May have noticed we’re into overtime here …
I don’t concede your authority to determine ethical, right, or good.
In my view, your judgements of ethicality are flawed by an incorrect understanding of ethical and moral rules.
The rule I laid out was not simply my opinion, but the accurate statement of the law of the land.
Your pronouncements are simply your opinion.
Good thing I never claimed that authority. Instead, I claim a RIGHT to express my OPINIONS and to try to CONVINCE YOU of those opinions.
Sure, we might run into a situation in which my sense of ethics and yours are so totally at odds that we just won’t be able to come to any mutual understanding, or we might end up in a situation (such as a debate about Abortion) when we have similar moral rules but are starting from very different assumptions.
But it’s certainly not out of the question that many of our moral and ethical precepts and principles are compatible if not identical (after all, we both presumably agree that child porn and murder and rape are bad, etc.), and that a healthy discussion of our different moral and ethical beliefs about what laws SHOULD be will lead to further understanding, and possibly even a modification of someone’s position. And that’s exactly what the SDMB should be for. If all we were debating was what the law IS, it would be a short and not very interesting debate.
(Alternatively there could be a debate about what we think an upcoming supreme court ruling WILL BE, full of legalese and citing precedents and whatnot, and you sure as heck would never find me engaged in such a debate in anything other than a peripheral sense, because I’m not a lawyer, and I’m smart enough to know that I’m not a lawyer.)
Absolutely.
Max, while it’s not out of the question, it certainly cannot begin with a gratuitous assertion on your part (or mine) of what morality or ethics demands, because if I reject that assertion, then it falls to you to advance the argument with something more than a gratuitous assertion.
I don’t agree that it is either valid or neutral.
Fortunately for my hairy nuts and future sex life, your opinion isn’t remotely important.
When I say that Voter ID laws are supported by valid neutral justification, on the other hand, it’s not simply my opinion, but the caselaw of the United States, announced by the Supreme Court.
And – a seriously creepy thought. You spend a lot of time thinking about tasting my nuts, do you?
Right, but there’s a difference between me saying “here is a position I hold because of ethics”, with the implication being that if you disagree (as you likely do), we can discuss why I hold that position, I can explain and defend it, etc.; vs me saying “here is a position that I INSIST IS CORRECT AND CLAIM APPLIES because of ethics”. I was doing the first, not the second.
I suppose I could instead always say “here is a position I hold, and here’s also a 5-page essay explaining WHY I hold that position”, but that would be kind of silly, because why bother defending it or explaining it until I’ve first put it out there, seen whether you already agree, seen how close it is to the position you hold, etc. (Not to mention that it would be EXHAUSTING to try to always post in that fashion.)
Not an inordinate amount of time, no.
Can I gently suggest the ordinate amount of time is “zero?” At least henceforth?
Fair enough.
However, here we are now. I disagree.
Certainly not an unfair amount of time I’m sure.
I mean, if you can’t be bothered to spend the minimal time and resources required to contemplate consuming Bricker’s testicles, which is a right -I remind you- that you can choose not to exercise, then why should anyone reasonably consider doing anything to improve the efficiency of that process for you?
Any rhetorical effort to redefine and lengthen the amount of consideration you must give to dining on Bricker Nuts****® prior to posting on the desirability of such an action would surely have a valid neutral justification. For instance, such rhetorical devices which would induce more thought given to, perhaps, your phrasing of such a proposition would greatly improve some significant portion of thread readers’ confidence in SDMB gonadal-analogical soundness, wouldn’t it?
Wikipedia describes it thusly:
(Emphasis mine. Duh.)
Is that an accurate characterization of the proceedings?
That is a gratuitous assumption on your part. As a progressive dedicated to equality before the law, I would have to insist that his nuts be distributed evenly amongst the people. With appropriate exemptions for various religious convictions, there being no fucking *way * Republican lawyer nuts are kosher.
I can’t help but feel there’s a supply and demand issue here. Yes, in an ideal society there’d be enough Republican oysters to meet the exact needs of the electorate, but I fear in reality, well… from each conservative attorney according to his ability to each liberal consumer according to his needs.
By the way, I believe posts #5984 through #5988 between MaxTheVool and Bricker neatly summarize EVERY ARGUMENT ABOUT LEGISLATION I’ve ever read on this board involving Bricker.
You mean where Bricker says something along the lines of “you object to this legislation, therefore you obviously harbor a insane lust for absolute power” ?
That or “it’s the law in these 37 states and was upheld in this and this district court. Obviously you are wrong about the propriety here.”
Seriously, the insistence that ethical considerations aren’t relevant to passed legislation because none of the respondents here are an acceptable “moral authority” to all the other respondents seems like a dodge. It’s as if the counselor believes no civil society can have a shared ethical framework unless it’s a) codified, passed by a signatory body, published and distributed and b) arbitrated by an entity of sufficient moral gravitas. It’s as if his law school was part of the Marvel universe.
Fair enough, I will attempt to convince you. Which will take a lengthy post perhaps better suited for GD. However, before I begin, two comments:
(1) I think it’s more accurate to call my statements “positions” rather than “opinions”, as they are certain not equivalent to “Hawaiian pizza is better than cheese pizza”.
(2) What are your thoughts on xenephon’s comment “By the way, I believe posts #5984 through #5988 between MaxTheVool and Bricker neatly summarize EVERY ARGUMENT ABOUT LEGISLATION I’ve ever read on this board involving Bricker.”?