Easy. For instance, slavery is immoral. 99% of us reading that agree. I can give good arguments for why I think that’s the case, broad enough arguments that you would probably agree with them. That doesn’t mean that my view of morality is in any way the only correct one. It’s certainly possible to convince someone that their position is immoral using THEIR OWN MORAL CODE. For instance, someone might come up with a really really well researched study convincing you that the monetary and logistical difficulties associated with getting a voter ID were, on average, higher than you thought. You might then (one imagines) reverse your position on the topic, and agree that your previous position was wrong. Barring some semantic quibbling about “immoral” vs “moral-based-on-the-information-I-had-at-the-time”, none of that requires anyone admitting that their entire moral system was flawed.
Umm, right? We disagree about that, but I don’t see how disagreeing about that means that we’re asserting absolute morality. Unless you’ve discovered an awesome new response to any claim made about any substantive topic in any online debate ever… “I think that our immigration policy should be X” “oh, so you are asserting that only your moral code is absolutely correct, are you?”
And the shrill cowardice of Friend Bricker has reached fever pitch.
Unable to admit he’s wrong, the hypocrite fake-Christian must turn and attack. Because there isn’t 100% agreement on morality, there is no morality. Good one, cumpig. Good one.
He’s been presented with extensive discussion of the true amount of the barriers he wishes imposed on democracy, which include multiple court rulings confirming it. But his own “careful analysis” is the repetition of the words “reasonable” and “minimal”.
Let him talk about morality all he wants. It’s another concept he is incapable of understanding.
Well, sure that’s possible. But “valid neutral justification” has some pretty obvious weaknesses. “Valid”? When no evidence worthy of the word can be offered to proved that in-person voter fraud is a problem that needs solving. And official, government stamped evidence of voter suppression has been recently issued. “Neutral” suffers the same problems, as the evidence indicates that a particular segment of the population is targeted. Both of these things being true, “justification” doesn’t survive scrutiny, either.
Not Holy, not Roman, and not, strictly speaking an Empire. Nothing needs be done to “valid neutral justification”, it doesn’t require overturning, just a simple recognition that this shit ain’t it.
On the Wisconsin decisions. This is the dissent written by judge Posner (a Reagan appointee) of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. It absolutely eviscerates the law.
Aside from new facts about the paucity of voter impersonation fraud that have come out since the Indiana decision, the Indiana and Wisconsin laws were not identical. The Wisconsin law was more blatant in it’s attempts to suppress Democratic votes.
In Wisconsin soon after the ID law was passed, the DOT officials who answer to Gov. Walker were explicitly telling DMV employees not to tell people that they could get a free ID card for voting and instead imply they needed to pay the 40-60 dollars for an ID card. On top of that many DMV offices in the state cut hours. Some offices are now only open once or twice a month. This meant people with no means to get to a DMV office could not get the “free” ID. (Only free if they already had a birth certificate or could get one at no cost.)
Lumped in with the ID measures were clauses to inhibit early voting, absentee voting and restrictions on voting by people who have recently moved (see:students). Under the recently struck down ID law if someone moves to a new residence on Oct.4 instead of Oct. 1, that person would be ineligible to vote. Studies show that it is low income people and students who tend to move more frequently than the wealthy which means this part of the law disproportionately affects a specific non-republican voting demographic.
Except for the three Stooges, the Court may see those characteristics of the law for what they are, suppression, and reverse its own Indiana decision.
Well, one hopes it would have led to a conclusion that showed some analysis behind it. I can picture a pro-ID argument based on a premise that voter fraud was indeed pervasive and significant, with cites of elections made suspect as a result. I might not find such cites persuasive, but I would recognize the effort.
I have my doubts you actually find this humourous. I suspect you believe claiming to find it humourous will substitute for reasoned argument.
It’s true because it’s true? I do find your use of “powerful” interesting, because in matters of rhetoric, there are many possible powerful arguments, but truth is not a requirement. One could argue with an ad hominem, a witty putdown, a Gish gallop… really any number of things that may have a “powerful” effect on a third-party reader. The notion that voter fraud must be stopped is itself a powerful argument, pushing emotional buttons about electoral fairness, accuracy and justice. It is not however a true argument, in that the suggested remedies are justifiable.
Well, I invite any and all readers of this exchange to share their impressions of the effect of this so called reminder. Some gave already, but I suspect you disregard them on the basis of them being in my “gang” or me being in their ilk or some damn thing.
Besides, the American judiciary and I seem to agree to some extent. Since I’m not American, it’s purely an academic exercise for me in any event.
As you note, it isn’t even wholly true, as the judicial branch of the U.S. government has made some rulings against voter ID laws. And, although it isn’t terribly commonplace, there have been times that all three branches of the U.S. government have been wrong. They aren’t any more omniscient than anybody else. We derive much of our freedom from the fact that they squabble among themselves.
All that to one side, Bricker is a remarkably dishonest person when it comes to debating. Citing “It’s True” as a support for his argument being true is almost psychotically circular.
I’m certainly not in your gang or ilk; I agree with you some 75% of the time, but there are points where I differ from your views. Never, I hasten to add, in such a way as to make me question your integrity. I think you’re a very honest person, and I consider those differences as interesting matters for debate, not indications of your (or my own!) wrong-headedness.
I could wish a lot more Yanks were a lot more like you! (At least 75% of the time!) ( )
I used to think Bricker had some ability to debate. This thread makes him look like a total zero. Guess that provides prima facie evidence that I, too, am amoral.
Move over, guys.
Without democracy there would be no need for such an appalling misallocation of time and energy such as this thread. There also wouldn’t be corresponding wastes of resources spent for and against such unimportant measures.
I thought U.S. democracy as practiced for almost 200 years wasn’t all that bad. It’s the recent(*) transmogrification to plutocracy that I regret. (Though I’m afraid plutocracy is what Farnaby’s Utopia devolves to.)
(* - roughly coincident with the rise of cable TV? :eek: )
Because of my age, the County Clerk sent me a form offering a mail-in ballot. I filled in the form & just got the ballot. Does it ask me to attach a Xerox of my photo ID? Nope. I just need to fill in the ballot with blue or blank ink, seal it, sign the envelope & get it to the clerk’s office by election day.
For all they know, I could have moved from my (rented) house–which is now inhabited by a cell of Salvadoran preteens making Ebola bombs for ISIS. Well, I did show up for Jury Duty recently; they get the rolls from the list of Registered Voters. But, while the Bailiff swore us in, he didn’t ask for ID.
Of course, they are sure all the old farts vote Republican. Which is the reason there’s no ID required for voting by mail.
I could be richer, but at least I’m not morally bankrupt. (And I’m not voting Republican, either.)
)