-
No reason we can’t migrate this discussion to GD. It will shed some of the mouth breathers.
-
Those posts certainly capture a general theme seen many times before.
No. It’s just that I’m tired of the brigade of lefties asserting moral authority seemingly derived from the guidance of Mother Jones and passing it off here as a substitute for argument.
For people who fall into a dead faint the moment there’s a 9-11 chunk of iron shaped like a cross being hosted in public museum space, the willingness to impose your own declared truth of morality is amusing.
If you think your claims to moral authority are so convincing, then convince the electorate. That’s what a representative democracy does.
Instead, you gather here in your echo chamber and assure each other of your moral superiority over the untutored sheep too stupid to share your enlightened views.
And of course those enlightened views include quiet acceptance when one of your number talks about the smell of my daughter’s cunt.
So you’ll forgive me if I don’t immediately recognize this moral insight you all possess.
Where’s Matt Murdock when we really need him?
Hmmm, “convinc[ing] the electorate.” Wonder what that effort would look like if it doesn’t include presenting my opinion on social media, face to face, LTE’s, letters to congressmen and message board comments. Care to tell me how my posts expressing my opinions differ from yours in terms of condescension? Because from here it looks like you think your shit doesn’t emit any odor.
I didn’t happen to read any such comments aimed at your family, but I do not quietly accept their relevance to any typical political discussion you’re likely to have joined. And as others have told you in response to your various sightings of liberal hypocrisy on these boards, we can’t police every comment or argument, and most of us are disinclined to search for fouls committed by our “own team.” I don’t think that comment has anything to do with anyone who didn’t make it or support it, and I don’t imagine you really think so either.
I’ll forgive that failure but I won’t accept its legitimacy. Recognition of moral and ethical precepts even when explicated by fellow sinners is a basic expectation of most religious heritages. I won’t speak for you, but I don’t believe most Catholic clergy would disagree with me on this.
My posts on this subject don’t seek to convince the electorate.
Know why?
The electorate is already convinced.
Sure. No lack of energy to search for the slightest misstatement of fact from those you don’t agree with, though.
I don’t agree with the tactic of cherry picking one or two moral principles you like from, say, the Catholic tradition, and trumpeting them, while never seeing that they exist in a larger moral framework which you emphatically reject.
When it comes to formation of secular policy, I won’t agree to apply Catholic teaching concerning social justice when Catholics also teach that social justice is not as important as the safeguarding of the lives of the unborn. Just to pick an example.
And as we know, public opinion never changes and all laws once passed remain unchanged through the end of time without repeal or amendment and with no possibility of rescindment through judicial decision.
By the way, nice variation on my formulation for you in post #5998.
Almost as if we were arguing about something.
And here’s the meat of the process Max and I (and probably many others who’d like to argue in good faith) are advocating.
Of course you and I are putting different emphases on various moral principles. This is inevitable, and not only because of our differing political (read: ethical) sensibilities but because of differences in our backgrounds, experiences and personalities. Great. That’s the kind of conflict that can produce healthy discussions of real issues and how our society can or should handle those issues.
But it’s a conflict based on a common system of ethics. It’s a conflict that could not happen if we weren’t already standing close to each other in the first place.
If you think someone is cherry picking one principle and ignoring others that you find more relevant, there’s your moral argument, to which you can join more prosaic and pragmatic arguments including whatever case law you find pertinent without any need to disdain your opponent’s moral sense. You particularly have no need to base that disdain on guilt by association with your perception of those of your opponent’s “number.”
And wouldn’t it be grand if we could recognize each other’s different emphasis as valid and worthy of consideration between ourselves, and of compromise among legislators?
To take even one of the issues least susceptible to compromise: you may not emphasize social justice over concern for prenatal souls, but you recognize it as a valid moral aspect underlying the abortion issue. Similarly, I emphasize not only the social justice aspects, but also consider the health and wellbeing of prospective parents in general to be important, but I also acknowledge that whether and how you view the fetus as a morally distinct soul is a huge factor to your personal moral equation.
You could even acknowledge, most likely, certain circumstances in which other moral considerations could outweigh those concerning a hypothetical fetus (rape, incest, others perhaps?). Or I could acknowledge circumstances in which the health and development of a hypothetical fetus would outweigh outside considerations (viability of the fetus). And I’d wager (because I can cite another recent thread where you’ve asserted something similar) you might even agree with me that the US government can legitimately place greater weight on social justice than you, your parish priest or the Church hierarchy and still be acting with all due moral deliberation as a secular democratic institution.
Unfortunately, the calm, deliberative, and respectful colloquy you envision above is not the reality of these interactions. They are shattered by vicious attacks that go well beyond the gentle and humane discourse you picture, and you sit there in calm acceptance, because your preferred experience doesn’t include calling out your ideological buddies; you save your efforts for attacking the arguments of your opponents.
Which you’re perfectly entitled to do.
But by the same token, I can’t do both. I can’t argue in good faith about issues of ethics and be subject to these kinds of bullshit distortions.
Some time ago, when discussing the ACA, I made the point that at some level, we would inevitably have to make choices about the cost of care being delivered to the patient…that no scheme allows literal unlimited money to be spent on each and every patient. The Crown Prince of the Idiot Brigade, Lobohan, railed at me for that position, saying that I was unwilling to say what i really felt: that it was acceptable for people to die if they couldn’t afford medical care.
And I replied that yes, that’s what I was saying. That in reality, any managed care system had to confront that limitation, and the debate existed about where those lines are drawn, but not that those lines exist.
For the next several years, Lobie popped into each thread where any slightly similar discussion was going on to announce that Bricker says it’s acceptable for people to die when they can’t afford medical care.
And guess how many people lined up to defend me from that out-of-context, deceptive summary?
Sorry. Your view of good faith debate only works when good faith debate exists.
Boy, they sure covered themselves with glory on this one. Truly, this decision from the Supremes will stand as one of their finest moments, right up there with Bush v. Gore.
First, the evidence. It is a given that neither indiana nor the plaintiffs are in a position to prove their claims. But only one of them is required to do so, Indiana was not required to prove that voter fraud exists or that their laws were a remedy. The plaintiffs, however, not only had to prove damage to voter rights of the poor and elderly, they had to prove that it was severe and massive. For instance, this:
(All quotes from here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZS.html)
And what evidence, pray, was considered? And precisely how many burdened citizens is enough to establish a right to relief? Hush, the robed ones are speaking…
Says the man who’s primary means of transportation is by limo. Minimal? Says who? Justified? By its claim to prevent unicorn stampedes?
The issue of motivation is adroitly brushed away. Why, yes, indeed, partisan ends may well be a motivating factor, but what does intention have to do with anything…
So that’s where friend Bricker gets his coy and delicate approach to shenanigans and skulduggery! “May have provided”. Well, yes, that’s certainly possible, isn’t it? What with a nationwide effort spearheaded by the corporate funded ALEC, with Republican legislators in lockstep to their marching orders, why, yes, it* may* have been a factor. I suppose that the distinction “individual” is supposed to mean something, as if we were talking about exceptional skulduggery on an individual basis, rather than an orchestrated effort nationwide. I suppose.
Odd that such conservative justices with close ties to Republican sources would not have heard of ALEC. But never you mind, “valid neutral justification” will cover that nicely, especially since no such justification need be proven. Why, if whining liberals want to win, they should go get some money and power, and get it from the same places the Republicans do, beg it from rich folks and corporadoes! After all, nobody is stopping them!
So, one side has to prove its founding position, the other side does not. And not only prove, but prove a level of severity that is not specified. (I guess they will set the high bar after they find out how high you can jump.) Plus, what is not proven establishes the foundation for proving, not proving is proof! (Does your head hurt yet? Mental gymnastics will do that to you…)
Republican poker: you get five cards, they get seven, all yours are face up and they get to draw twice. Actually, I thought I was kidding, at least to some degree. Turns out to be a more apt description than I imagined. Damn.
“Equal Justice Under Law”, is that the inscription? Pity there is no room for an asterisk, for “*Sorta. Kinda.”
No comment on how The Counselor interprets “should not be disregarded” as meaning “is all the reason anybody needs, so shut up” ?
No, he understands their meaning perfectly, they are of one mind. He couid take “Fat Tony” Scalia’s seat tomorrow, and you would not notice any difference. Save that "Fat Tony’ has a rudimentary sense of humor. Sorta. Kinda.
Wow Bricker, that was a long winded way to say you’re sticking with your broad brush excuses and cartoonish view of progressives and liberals as a group. We’re such meanies that you just can’t bring yourself to offer good faith for fear of our perfidy.
By the way, the complaint that we (or maybe just me in particular) fail to ‘call out our ideological brothers’ when they say something truly objectionable is unadulterated horseshit. Particularly coming from a joker who can participate in multipage threads with the likes of some of the Dope’s erstwhile rightwing posters* without once ‘calling out’ any combination of biased, racist, factually wrong or logically ludicrous they happen to spew out in support of your “side” of the debate.
ETA: Please don’t bother to cite instances from Bricker’s History of Instructive Criticisms of His Fellow Conservatives. We know you’ve done it on occasion. So have others who -gasp!- don’t share your rightwing views.
*This aint about them, so I’ll avoid naming names, but we have several who can’t go more than one post in a row without displaying most of the behaviors listed above.
Oh, I’m sorry, Bitch Liar, did I stumble into one of your dishonest self-pity patties?
Here is how that actually went:
In a thread about the ACA, Voyager said this:
To which Bricker Responded with this:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246)His quote is a link to the comment in question. I mention that, because I quoted that similarly in the past, and Bricker’s victim mentality convinced him that I was trying to hide the link, for some nefarious reason, because he’s too stupid to know how to wrap *quote *tags in *url *tags.
If you go to the actual thread here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246 you should be able to see that Bricker never clarifies his stance. That is his last post in the thread.
Now, I did post that quote, since it’s such a vile thing to say, in several threads. But once, Bricker, the liar, explained what he meant, I added that when linking to it.
For instance here I posted it: [
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15002839&postcount=47)
In other words, Bricker isn’t honest. His victim mentality colors his memories and actually alters them to feed the narrative that he’s under siege, and he thinks it’s okay if from a policy point, poverty is what decides if someone dies from illness*.
*see above disclaimer.
You?
You’ve done it?
When?
Perfect example.
Thanks for continuing to demonstrate it. Complete with saving asterisk.
If you looked at the links, you’d find that your version of events above was incorrect. Instead of accepting that and admitting it, you declare victory and make what I can only assume is a wet farting noise.
You’re special, Bricktop. I wonder why so few people like you.
The process of voter registration could make it difficult to vote. Some would-be voters face circumstances that would make it difficult to register, and hence would be disenfranchised.
Ah, I see we’ve gotten to the my side/your side; “you don’t sufficiently police the liberals who are mean to me” portion of the Bricker Show. This evasion/distraction technique is perhaps Bricker’s second favorite move when a debate isn’t going his way. It’s tried and tired.
A quibble, Velocity. But kinda important, under the circumstances. It was never about preventing people from registering and voting, they wouldn’t get away with that. It was about making it more difficult, time consuming and tiresome, to discourage the unworthy voter. The original plan was only about trimming off a couple of percentage points, to win the close ones.
The cynics crafted a perfectly cromulent plan to stack the deck and to use the leverage of voter id’s popularity to accomplish that end. Its a rear-guard defensive maneuver in response to threatening changes in demographics.
But once the batshit baboons on the farthest right got a green light from the Supremes, they went, predictably, apeshit.
ALEC didn’t want this to be a Big Hairy Ass Deal, that might rouse up the riff-raff, they hoped to get this done quietly and score just enough to win. It is not wise to underestimate their cunning.
Nope. Not playing that game. I’ve done it at various times over the last 14 years, to at least a couple of the people who are also posting on the last couple pages of this thread. Been called “sanctimonious” a few times for it, too. Been called out a few times myself as well.
Thing is, that sort of thing isn’t especially noteworthy in large group discussions, and it sure isn’t something any reasonable or rational person should expect from an entire subset of internet posters (your proposed set apparently being “all liberals who have opposed my arguments in the history of the SDMB”) as a constant and inerrant practice. Probably not as a general policy, either.
Well, I guess mileage differs.
I don’t expect every single poster to rise up. In fact, I understand the decision not to say anything when others have made the point already.
I don’t understand the decision to remain quiet when no one is speaking up, though.