Oh, so the rules of formal debate apply to the Pit? When did that happen?
It’s not “formal debate” that’s being cited there. My second cite in particular is not discussing formal debate rules. It’s basic logic. The reason in debate the affirmative side has the burden of proof is because in logic the burden of the proof belongs to the one advancing the assertion.
Russell’s Teapot illustrates the point. The burden belongs to the person advancing the claim.
Now, you may reply that the rules of logic don’t exist in The Pit either. That whoever shouts the loudest, or the most vituperatively, wins here.
But since that’s the usual liberal tactic, I don’t see why the Pit makes any difference at all.
Sure, you have, and it’s reinforced every time you retreat to “it doesn’t matter if voter fraud is trivial, the legislature passed the law, neener neener neener.”
Besides, I don’t need to proclaim that my moral standards be made universal to know your moral standards are lacking. Of, course, I temper my moral standards with reason and I gather you do not, so the comparison may be unfair to you in any case, working as you are from such a major disadvantage.
Not only that, but you seem totally uninterested in actually engaging on differing claims of the morality of this issue beyond claiming that they are amoral. Trying to dial down the vitriol… do you really not see any validity whatsoever in our claims? Is it really impossible for you to understand that some people see actions like these as an extension of voter suppression efforts from the past?
No, I understand that some people see that. And I also understand that they’re in large measure wrong.
But why should I possibly engage on morality? It’s very clear to me that we don’t share a common view of what constitutes “morality.”
That’s not a retreat. That’s a description of:
(a) your fundamental and deliberate misstatement of my argument: it does not matter if voter fraud is rare and trivial because it still has a potential effect on the rare ultra-close election,
and
(b) your inability to comprehend that you don’t get to decide how to weigh the competing interests – the legislature does, and there is no inarguable, objective standard that the legislature flouts.
You can’t handle those two facts. Every single rebuttal you make to me ignores one of them.
“There is an objective fact! There are almost no cases of voter fraud!” you whine, ignoring (a).
Or “Just to fix the tiny number of fraud cases you suppress many more thousands of votes!” ignoring (b).
You have never advanced any position that admits the existence of (a) and (b), and are likely incapable of doing so.
No, you desperately tell yourself that. But you ignore (a) or (b) (or both!) every single time.
While voter suppression laws are motivated solely by political opportunism, just about all the other planks in the GOP platform are morality-based. I will be interested to see if your disinterest in arguing morality extends to the abortion debate.
Great question.
-
I recognize that I bear the burden of proof in the abortion debate. The law (generally) permits abortion. I have to convince the public to change.
-
I argue that an unborn child represents a human life, and is worthy of legal protection in similar fashion to the current laws protecting born human life. That’s not a morality argument, in any meaningful way: the claim that human life is worthy of protection is obviously a moral one, but it’s one that is supported by the legal system and strong public consensus. The more difficult claim is that “an unborn child represents a human life.” That’s not a morality claim either; it’s simply a definitional one. But here’s the key point:
-
I recognize that the opposition to my claim is well-grounded. That is, their motives are not evil. they simply don’t agree with my proposed definitions and assumptions. I don’t say they’re wrong, in other words: I say that my ideas would serve us as a society better, but I recognize that reasonable people may disagree.
Okay, now try addressing your hypothetical concern with something that doesn’t create a real problem of far greater magnitude.
Ah, there’s the neener. So predictable. Of course a legislature can pass legislation; that’s what legislatures do. This particular legislation is rationally and morally wrong.
I’m starting to think the conflict inside your own head is greater than any you could have with us.
And set up your morality as the standard everyone should follow?
I thought that was what liberals did.
Clearly, but your statement that he favors the killing of unborn children is an unfair assumption. He could favor the killing of unborn teenagers or adults. I personally favor the killing of unborn octagenarians.
This isn’t the only grounds for opposing a ban on abortion. Many of us also feel that adults of sound mind have the right to absolute control of their bodies, which includes decisions about who/what to allow inside their bodies, and who/what to allow to remain inside their bodies. So, for those of us that feel this way, the question about the personhood of the unborn fetus is irrelevant – every individual has the right to expel anyone else that is no longer welcome inside them, for any reason whatsoever. That does not necessarily imply the right to kill them – a pregnant woman, for example, has the right to get her baby out of her body at any time. But if the baby is viable, that doesn’t mean (in my view) she has the right to expel the baby and kill it – she just has the right to withdraw the welcome to the use of her body by another individual. And she always has that right, in my view, even if she previously ‘invited’ them inside.
On the majority of moral questions, there’s an excellent chance that we share a common view.
Sorry, this just sounds to me like a refinement you made up (possibly unconsciously) as a post hoc rationalization for a pre-established belief. Can you quote one political philosopher that endorses your notion that discouraging voting improves democracy? I suppose you may be able to find someone supporting this notion back when some were trying to find a post hoc rationalization for poll taxes, but I would have hoped that we had gotten beyond that.
Seriously if the year was 1965, every one of your arguments in this thread could be used to justify the poll tax. I challenge you to clearly define what, other than the year, makes this situation different from that.
It is. But I’m not. I haven’t once suggested that anyone follow my morality – except perhaps sarcastically, as a method of illustrating the infeasibility of following your morality.
You can scour my posts in this thread – you won’t find a post from me arguing that any action should be taken because it’s moral. I know you and I don’t share a moral framework and so I don’t suggest that my moral code be the basis for any social policy.
Noted. I merely meant to illustrate an example of an opposing view, not to suggest that my example was comprehensive.
Why must political philosophers agree?
Are the laws by which we govern ourselves made by the elected representatives, or by wise philosopher kings?
I’m not advocating “discouraging” voting – I’m suggesting that democracy works best when people are engaged and interested enough to participate.
Post 6935. Even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.
The amount of money, and whether it approximates the value of a poll tax, is not relevant. The poll tax is impermissible because the payment of a tax to vote is irrelevant to the voter’s qualifications.Please note the lack of any mention of the year.
Nearly 7,000 posts in this thread, and the vast majority of them consist of people distorting my position.
At one point a couple of thousand posts ago, I challenged people to accurately summarize my position. This was in an effort to prove that they either actually did understand my position and were deliberately distorting it in order to avoid addressing it, or that they genuinely did not understand it.
Very little has changed.
It should be equally clear to you that persons who subscribe to a different moral code than yours, while they might well be immoral by your standards, are not amoral by any standard.
Oh, so when YOU talk about legislation that should be changed, it’s to improve society. When WE do that, it’s because we want to see Democracy’s heart cut out on an altar consecrated to Satan.
Oh, I already know your moral landscape is a bleak place of rotting churches lit intermittently by book- and witch-burnings. I already said you weren’t bothering with a moral analysis of the issue. It’s what you call a rational analysis that is lacking; the inability or unwillingness to recognize that solving a trivial problem creates a bigger one, said problem written off with a casual “it’s a reasonable burden” and “if you’re not interested enough in voting, go fuck yourself.”