You do know how to report a post, don’t you?
I think this is a good example of why I don’t always jump in and defend you. On the one hand, clearly a position of “It is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford the proper treatment.” is an entirely reasonable one if it means “in extreme cases”. No one would disagree with that.
At the same time, I don’t want to go back and read a multi-page thread from years ago to figure out the context in which you said it.
At the same time, it’s a bit of a dick move for Lobohan to follow you around and bludgeon you with that comment, out of context.
At the same time, his analysis of your claims about the situation seem reasonable, not like the ravings of a madman.
But, and here’s the key point, that’s between you and him. I’m not interesting in being the guy who listens to both of your testimonies and figures out who is more right and who is more wrong and passes judgment and so forth.
Maybe if I were a bit more energetic or had more time on my hands or was a bit more forthright and scrupulously fair I would do so, but I’ve never made any pretense of being The Perfect Poster.
Instead, I try to be honest and polite in the actual debates I have with you… and really, that has to be good enough. If I’m a soft-minded-partisan-bleeding-heart-moron then let the substance of my posts demonstrate it, not my apathy and unwillingness to be a volunteer policeman.
Think about it this way… there are INCREDIBLE amounts of misery and injustice going on all over the world (and all over the US) at this very moment. And yet I stay silent about 99.8% of it. Why? Because I’m a monster? No, because I’m just a normal guy, NOT a saint.
If I were going to change something about myself to speak up and act more, “going out and volunteering for habitat for humanity” and things of that sort would come well before “be more active in criticizing liberals who unfairly attack Bricker on the SDMB”.
There are two options:
-
Quit being a piece of shit weasel-fuck, and people will stop getting pissed off and saying mean things to you.
-
Continue being yourself, but quit being such a giant pussy when people getting pissed and say mean things to you.
Okay, a third option is to continue to be a weasel-fuck, and also be a big pussy about it. I predict, given the fact that I’ve seen this show a whole bunch of times, you will choose option three.
My point is, requiring voters to register at all in the first place is an inconvenience, and one that might discourage some would-be voters from voting.
I’m not sure if I can interact with Bricker in GD any more, or at least not to any great extent. The recent conversation in the felon disenfranchisement thread has shown him be even further lacking in character and integrity than I’d previously thought, and it will be increasingly difficult to maintain the pretense that he is capable of intelligent, thoughtful debate. Sooner or later, I’d simply have to address his determinedly ignorant pattern of lies, fallacies and specious accusations, which could get me warned.
He’s probably on the cusp of calling the SDMB a “liberal hive-mind” (if he hasn’t already), I mention in passing. I’ll continue to be bemused by Dopers who seem to think he is of above-average intelligence or debate skill. He might possibly remain useful for American legal cites, but his analysis is less than useless.
True enough, but there is no avoiding having some way to establish a voter’s existence and eligibility. The one-time act of registering does that.
The Voter ID laws Bricker is so loyally defending add no value beyond what happens in registration, and would be effective at every single election. If a one-time registration is a discouraging inconvenience despite being necessary, what is an every time act that is *not *necessary?
Even for that purpose, his partisan bias and predilection for deceit render his contributions highly suspect.
Don’t be insulting with your liberal Canadjun snarkiness. (No, really; Bricker will cry and we’ll all be blamed for it.)
It’s not “hivemind” I’ll have you know, it’s groupthink. Get your facts straight.
By the way, here’s Bricker at his polite and dispassionate best, calmly explicating the entire moral argument and pausing to precisely acknowledge all common usages of a word in dispute, without ever being insulting at all. (But at least this post cemented my understanding of the dude’s creepy attachment to the concept of “valid neutral justification.”)
Well, thank God for Wikipedia and its offer of rapid double-checking of dubious claims.
I remember him trying to claim I didn’t know what “If-Then” meant. His “evidence” was a bit too speckled with wroth-froth to take seriously.
Especially given the multiple other lawyers here who can be counted upon for an honest, clear analysis, not mere partisan advocacy presented as analysis, and mercifully without pretending that’s all that matters because that’s all there *is *in this world.
I don’t know what it is that makes me keep trying on this point. You’ve been crystal clear about it, after all.
But look at the other posts here. There’s a guy who doesn’t understand the meaning of “endorse,” and thinks that because I said something wasn’t illegal I endorsed it.
And he’s not ashamed. He refers to it again above.
You let that go uncommented, but make every effort to suss out every error and failure of understanding I make. You’re good at it.
The effect of that lopsided scrutiny is that weak ideas on your side persist unchallenged, or lightly challenged. Weak ideas from me experience the crucible.
Look at the kerfluffle over voter impersonation vs. non-citizen/felon voting. Yes, you missed those posts of mine, which was kinda disappointing. But when I took the time to find them and link to them, you admitted that it was part of my message all along. Despite the vituperative accusations of lying I got from Hentor et al, after it becomes clear, the accusation just fades away. He knows he can’t repeat it. Why? Because you took 30 seconds to debunk it. The exact same words from me are meaningless. But when you post, it removes the inference that I’m defending me because of my interest in defending myself.
That dynamic is incredibly frustrating to me. It’s a framework in which lying and bullying behavior are safe, as long as they’re directed at me.
You’re not the board police. I get it.
It’s just frustrating.
Bullshit, mother fucker. Max is being charitable, but nobody else is buying your shit - the accusation hasn’t gone anywhere.
You have mentioned felons before. You did not mention felons anywhere between posts 5814 and 5821, when you claimed over a hundred cases of the vote fraud that elucidator was talking about existed.
In fact, you said:
You’re asserting that some liberal has ever claimed there have only been four cases of felons voting? BULLSHIT.
And how can a case of a felon voting have been the act of a GOP provocateur?
Fucking bullshit. You’re a spineless weasel who cannot simply admit that you blindly believed adaher found cases of voter impersonation. The allegation hasn’t gone anywhere, and it hasn’t been debunked by anyone.
Dirty, deceitful weasel-fuck.
And, just for good measure, I’ll note that you’ve completely run away from your lie about the empirical study cited in eludicator’s link. Spineless weasel-fuck.
Of course it’s frustrating. You’re advocating outright evil policies because you have the misguided notion that they will help you while they’re hurting others.
Anyone advocating such nonsense would be frustrated here, because they’d get a lot of push-back. Maybe the Hannity forums would do you better, since you advocate the politics of simpletons.
Profanity aside, this is a pretty compelling point. (That quote from Bricker is part of post 5821:
)
Look at it from my perspective… there’s a link to a REALLY LONG post in a thread that I haven’t read, out of context, in which you and he are arguing about the meaning of the word “endorse”. Why would I possibly care enough to read enough of that preceding posts to be able to meaningfully pass judgment?
This is not difficult, but it’s insulting to every fucking reader to pretend a word only has the meaning that’s convenient to you.
So, for Bricker, for first time language users if any are reading, and for the very very stupid, here is an introductory level examination of the “meaning of endorse” interchange between Bricker and me. I provide this to illustrate the type of lying self-service to which the counselor is inclined in damn near every discussion, including and probably especially the ones involving voting rights and other “social justice” issues.
My overall point, which I made explicit when I first used the word, about Bricker’s endorsement of behaviors is that if you accept an action as not illegal, you endorse its legality. In exactly the same motherfucking way, if you accept an action as not immoral, you are endorsing its morality. This is what makes the word “endorse” different but similar to the words “recommend” or “accept”. There are subtleties of meaning in word usage and the significance of a word or phrase is usually dependent on the context in which it is used.
Those subtleties of intent are why I gave two clarifying examples of what I meant when I said Bricker, by arguing so vehemently in favor of the behavior’s legality and, according to him, its moral neutrality, was “endorsing” George Zimmerman’s continuing decisions to arm himself and go out searching for crime to fight. I mentioned the example of a parent giving implicit permission for certain behaviors by failing to correct them, and I mentioned the example of a lawyer acknowledging to a client that a proposed action is correct in a legal and ethical sense without giving recommendation for or against.
What does a typical dictionary have to say about endorsement? (Bolding of the relevant portion added.)
endorse
[en-dawrs] /ɛnˈdɔrs/
verb (used with object), endorsed, endorsing. Also, indorse (for defs 1–6).
1. to approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate.
2. to designate oneself as payee of (a check) by signing, usually on the reverse side of the instrument.
3. to sign one’s name on (a commercial document or other instrument).
4. to make over (a stated amount) to another as payee by one’s endorsement.
5. to write (something) on the back of a document, paper, etc.: to endorse instructions; to endorse one’s signature.
6. to acknowledge (payment) by placing one’s signature on a bill, draft, etc.
A basic reading of this says that if you support or sustain the correctness of an action, that is a form of endorsement. To claim that it is not an endorsement because one has made no approving comments, while otherwise passionately defending the action’s legality and supposed lack of moral hazard is the rankest sort of insincerity, designed purely to enable plausible deniability and avoid accountability for the consequences of that sort of cheerleading.
If what’s being done to you is bullying, the word has no meaning.
I think it’s definitely true that Bricker has received some very poor treatment from time to time (some of it arguably deserved, some of it clearly beyond the pale). Whether or not it can meaningfully be called “bullying” is a semantic issue I don’t have any great desire to dive into.
Whatever poor treatment tender ol’ **Bricker **has received, it’s irrelevant to the strength or weakness of his arguments and to the question of good faith vs. bad faith on his part. Post on the internet long enough and you’ll be insulted by people who are really good at that. If you argue like a weasel, you’ll get more abuse than if you don’t, but it’s coming for all of us who post regardless.