For this to mean anything, you’d have to first define morality, then explain how I have displayed a mistaken understanding of it. So far, all you have is that the consequences of some citizens losing their votes don’t matter, if it’s in service to buoying the “confidence” of others, and even that doesn’t matter since the law is correctly formatted and passed, neener neener neener.
Your assumption that I am amoral (or that my morals are “fatally anemic”) is unproven and self-serving, only giving you an excuse to not deal with rational objections to the position you have embraced. I’m not even sure why I’m apparently being singled out as particularly amoral - the objections I’ve raised were matched (and I’ll cheerfully admit, sometimes better articulated) by others in this thread. Is it just me who you find amoral, or would anyone who objects to disenfranchisement strategies qualify?
No. If I asserted that my view of morality was the only correct one… well, I’d be right, I admit, but only from my perspective. Certainly it’s not a claim upon which I’d rest an argument about civil governance.
Anyone who has an objection that’s not grounded in flawed morality. You, and your brethern, have absolutely no license to declare that yours is the only permissible moral system.
These recent decisions are confusing to a boor of little brain. I mean, who are these people, did they get their law degrees from Phoenix University or from within a Cracker Jacks box? Do they rent their black robes from a Halloween supply store? There they are, occupying positions of legal authority, and are apparently unaware of the puissant power of the valid neutral justification! Is it even possible that they don’t know about the voter confidence amendment?
And this?
No sir! No, this is all settled! Simply because there is a minor taint of discrimination and skulduggery is no reason, no reason at all! to set aside the valid neutral justification of voter confidence crunchy goodness! We have this on the very best authority, we may rely upon it, and this goon acts as though such motivations actually mattered!
Good morning, Justice Scalia! Today’s breakfast menu offers you a choice of Cheerios with pee, or pee with Cheerios! Bon appetit, you reactionary toad!
It’s an assertion you cannot prove (or certainly have not proven), but such a personal standard doesn’t really matter if you are not capable or willing to analyze and possibly modify it based on actual information, which was the gist of my earlier comment - that you’d abandoned or never embraced in the first place any effort to apply morality or reason to this issue. My personal view of morality incorporates reason, by the way. In fact, morality that is deliberately indifferent or even actively opposed to reason isn’t really morality at all - just dogma and instinct, and unworthy of a human being capable of original thought.
Well, at least I now know it’s not personal since it’s also directed against my “brethren” (my “ilk”, too, I presume), though it remains specious since it’s in reaction to something I never said about which moral systems were “permissible”. That’s “why don’t you tolerate my intolerance” bullshit. What I’m casually maintaining is that you personally have given up any effort to justify support for disenfranchisement strategies on any moral or reasoned grounds, because you like the end result regardless of the damage it causes in nominal service to an ill-defined goal.
(a) no one has ever so declared
(b) It is very possible to have meaningful debates about morality even without all having 100% identical definitions of what is moral and why. In fact, many of the moral aspects of this very voter ID issue are ones which, when we’ve really dug in and hashed out precise details, you’ve agreed with me that X is basically immoral… our disagreement comes from comparisons of various competing moral imperatives, and from disagreements about “how bad” various things are. You agree with us, I think, that a law which made it significantly harder for certain people to vote, which was proposed for purely electoral-advantage motives, and had only a flimsy and ridiculous pretext, would be immoral. Where you disagree (I believe), is (a) how well voter ID laws fit that description (particularly the words “significantly”, “purely”, and “flimsy”, and (b) the extent to which a law’s immorality does and should relate to its illegitimacy. Describing that kind of difference as all of us operating with totally incompatible moral codes, and thus abandoning any attempt to actually discuss the issue, is pretty spurious.
But really, aside for an assertion that he’s right, nyaaa nyaaa, what does he have? He’s wrong on the math, Voter ID, implemented the way the GOP does it causes more harm that what it ostensibly cures (in-person voter fraud).
So he’s forced to feel around in the dark for anything he can swing as a weapon. In this case he’s grabbed a very floppy toothless ferret, but it’s the only weapon he’s got.
By implication, they certainly have. How can you declare a view immoral without asserting, implicitly, that your view of morality is definitional?
Yes, but you handwave away a key disagreement: the weighing of various goods and harms against one another is the very essence of this debate.
No, it’s right on the frickin point. Bryan and His Gang have said, explictly, that my views on the issue are immoral. Since I’m convinced they are not, ipso facto and ipse dixit.
When have you ever taken into actual consideration the harms that are being discussed in this debate? Your response has consistently been to write them off as “minimal” and, when pressed, simply ignore them altogether because the law meets the standard for “rational basis” and therefore it doesn’t matter if it’s harmful or not - the legislation was correctly formatted and passed, done deal, neener.
Personally, I think your views represent self-imposed ideological mental blocks, i.e. since the outcome is what you want, rationalizations in favour of that outcome get considered, evidence against is ignored. What I said was that you were not bothering to analyze this thought process in any kind of moral light (or rational light, added later) and that is because I suspect that you realize it won’t protect that precious desired outcome.
Calling me amoral in response is just foolish and desperate.
How do you know I did not weigh them carefully before reaching the conclusion that they were minimal?
Oh, I know: because any careful analysis would have reached YOUR conclusion?
BWAHAHAHAHA. Liberal goofball.
No – calling you amoral is correct for two powerful reasons:
(1) It’s true.
(2) Because the legislative executive, and judicial branches of government are against you, and popular opinion also lies strongly against you, your only tactic is to insist that nonetheless morally, your cause is correct. The simplest way to show the goofiness of that claim is to remind the reader how amoral your are.
That seems to be just the sort of dismissal that Bryan Ekers was accusing you of. You aren’t saying that the harms are minimal. You aren’t even really saying that you considered the harms and found them to be minimal. You’re just saying that he can’t know if you considered them. Then you insult him. That’s not really addressing the question.
As “the reader” I don’t find either of those points to be particularly persuasive.
