Is there another meaning to “self-evident” that you would like to offer?
Further, I am confident that you know the difference between asserting something by force of arms and proving something by force of mind.
As far as your nasty little insinuations regarding my loyalty and patriotism, that ought to be beneath you. Do work on that, won’t you, there’s a good fellow…
The meaning of “self-evident” is self-evident. Duh.
Do you recognize the potential for Group X to have a conflict of interest?
I’ll be happy to delve into specifics once you answer my above question about Group X. I suppose you could alternately declare that MY conflict of interest is so great that you don’t feel me deserving of a response, but that would be fairly blatantly dishonest, even cowardly.
Absolutely.
No – I am pointing out that declaring something to be “self-evident” does not make it so. Even that magnificent bit of poetry failed to make King George III say, “Well, now that they’ve said that, i guess it’s game over.”
Then it behooves one to independently verify that Problem A is a concern, no? To be specific, is voter fraud a concern? Has it ever, to your knowledge, swung an American election? I’m not talking about fears that it MIGHT, but evidence that it HAS.
Why aren’t you talking about fears that it might?
The CDC is taking precautions against the spread of Ebola to the United States. No one has objected on the grounds that Ebola has never been contracted by anyone while in the United States. The fear that it might is what drives their precautions.
To answer your question: no, to my knowledge, it has never swung the results of an election.
But that’s not the same as saying, “I know for sure it hasn’t.”
Because fears without evidence can be used to support ANY proposition.
Fear supported by evidence that ebola is a real disease that really kills real people.
“You can’t prove it doesn’t” can also be used to support any proposition. It is not a compelling standard, expect perhaps to those already inclined to believe the proposition.
I have evidence that voter fraud is a real thing that results in real votes being cast, then.
Good, but can you address the problem without creating a bigger problem? Would it be sound to combat ebola by killing anyone who has recently visited Africa, for example.
It depends. Is there a valid neutral justification? [/bricker]
And here is an analogy which demonstrates perverse ignorance (or, more likely, a “precious” fascination for deliberate obtuseness(*)) on your part. Go to Wikipedia and read about epidemic. Better yet, since your stupidity seems boundless, start with contagion. After you understand the particular danger of diseases like Ebola, come back and either
[ul][li]apologize for an insanely stupid analogy, or[/li][li]claim that like Ebola, once one American commits voter fraud, thousands of others will, or[/li][li]admit that your flatulent rhetoric reduces to sheer gibberish.[/li][/ul]
I won’t hold my breath.
(* - I’m beginning to think you’re surrounded by dunces in real life, who fall for your logic failures and absurd analogies. When dealing with with above-average humans, however, the stupidity of the Ebola analogy falls flat like a putrid fart.)
Okay, is this a serious post? Because it is a healthy contender for “dumbest post in this thread”. And that’s saying something. I mean, you could write a sizeable pit thread OP based on this post alone.
I gather Bricker was going for topicality. Parity, not so much.
I just can’t get over how mind-bogglingly dumb that example was. It fails on virtually every conceivable level, and not even in a pseudo-intellectual way, just in a straight-up “HURR DURR THIS WINDOW TASTES DELICIOUS” kind of way.
I yield to few in my lifetime arguing-with-Bricker rating, and I don’t see what’s dumb about it at all.
In fact, I think the past few posts by the anti-Bricker side have been rather flawed. The argument isn’t “there is NO voter fraud, it could NEVER be an issue, therefore trying to combat it is a lie”. Because then all Bricker has to do is come up with a single example of voter fraud EVER to disprove your argument. And as long as any possibility for voter fraud could exist then there’s some chance it could swing an election.
In fact, eliminating voter fraud WOULD be a good thing, kind of by definition. Whether it’s a sufficiently good thing to outweigh the negative side effects of the laws under discussion is what this debate is about. (Along with whether it WOULD in fact actually eliminate voter fraud, how serious those negative side effects would be, to what extent nefarious intent should be factored in, and many many other things.)
(On the other hand, Bricker’s constant fallback to “well, you don’t get to just make up the laws”, as if that’s some sort of witty or relevant rejoined, IS pretty darn stupid, and VERY old and tired at this point… it was very well rebutted by you in post 6168, which I note that Bricker has ignored.)
When was it ever? There might be a few passing comments here and there about how the problem is trivial (the fact that Bricker can actually name individual alleged fraud-voters is indicative, I think) but anyone who says it NEVER happens deserves minor correction and such correction means very little, certainly not that Bricker has managed any kind of victory.
Yeah, that riposte is indistinguishable from listening to someone’s arguments, then coming back with “Yeah? Well, who died and put you in charge?!”
Personally, I thought Bricker’s Valley Forge reference was dumber than his ebola one.
OK.
The issue I have with your claim of this goal is that your words don’t really seem to match your statement of purpose. You assert things as fact rather than as propositions to be debated and accepted. You level a stream of insults against the audience you supposedly wish to convert to your way of thinking.
So I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, but you suck at the goal of convincing other people in the democracy.
I’ve been convinced before. On the “War on Christmas,” on same-sex marriage, on union helpers after Sandy, I have bowed to well-reasoned and honed arguments.
But your method of announcing the postulates that make you right, demanding that all accept them, and then triumphantly announcing you’ve won the argument is – at least for me – not really all that convincing.
But at least I understand what you’re shooting for now.
If tomorrow morning someone had invented a way to quickly and conveniently establish the identity and citizenship of every American while simultaneously providing immediate and convenient access to voting for every American, such that every citizen could easily vote, and thereby ensure that a great many more of us would vote…
The Republicans would fight it tooth and nail. I have no idea what rationale they might use to oppose such, but haven’t the slightest doubt that they would. They pretty much have most all of the voters they are likely to get, and a lot of those are among the chronologically impaired, the Reaper harvests their demographic.
Expanded voting is poison for them, they want to purge voter rolls, they want to cut back expanded voting days, they want to insist on strict identification. If they could figure out a way to cut the number of voting booths in half in the inner cities - they would do it. In a heartbeat. If they could get away with it.
And if we let them get away with it, we pretty much deserve what happens. Democracy won’t have failed us, we will have failed democracy.
Of course, this is my gratuitous assertion. But I’ll punch your lights out to prove it!
I’m trying to decide if a long time Doper doesn’t recognize a Monty Python reference (from one of their better known skits), or if you’re just trying to play along, or what?