I guess it depends on what you come here for. Since it’s a place specifically to “flame”, one can claim that rules of logic are not in play. (I originally wrote “argue” instead of “claim”, but that didn’t make much sense.)
That’s akin to claiming the rules of physics are not in play.
A logical fallacy is a flaw in an argument. When wolfpup posts his screed, he is implicitly inviting his readers to agree with his claims based on what they read. It is certainly relevant to point out that what he’s written contains a flaw… in this case, the implication that one should discount what I say because I am a racist or a bigot, as opposed to the merits of my own argument. That is a flaw, regardless of whether the forum permits or prohibits ad hominem attacks.
He’s not making an argument.
I would say, specifically, that you opened the door (or at least keep the door open, I don’t know “who started it”), by assigning motives to others in this thread, of wishing to be the “Queen of May”, and rule by fiat.
The only “proposal” I have seen is asking people to think about the effects of these laws, and think about them when they go to the ballot box.
I certainly have not the slightest objection to people thinking about the effects of these laws, when they go to the ballot box or at any other time.
If indeed that is the only proposal, I endorse it without reservation.
I think voter ID laws are a good idea, too, but I would be against any such law that did not:
-
Have a delay in taking effect of at least 1 year to allow people to adjust. Preferably more like 3 years.
-
Include a provision that would allow people to easily get an ID without any payment required.
If we, as a society, feel the need of an ID, then we, as a society, should pay for them. I’m cool with charging for a replacement, but the first one should be at no cost to the individual voter.
Argument are in 12A. This is Abuse.
If you feel he should not be so entitled, lodge a complaint with the board moderators.
Personally, I find his assessment limited, in the sense that it doesn’t mention a possible alternative that involves you drinking kool-aid.
“Entitled,” in the sense of “entitled to assume,” meaning that his inference is not grounded in fact. This would as opposed to “entitled to post his errors” meaning, which of course he is entitled to do.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking why I think it makes your analogy fail? Or why I think that this is relevant to the actual issue of voter ID laws?
Why are entitled to question what he’s entitled to assume? *
You are, of course, entitled to post your questioning of his entitlement to assume, barring intervention by the board moderators. I note incidentally that you assume his post is in error, and it would be remiss of me not to mention this lest it imply I agree.
*Of course, neither you nor I are entitled to answers to our questions.
Sigh… should be “why are YOU entitled to question…”, of course.
He’s inviting you to come play in the world of legalistic jargon. So, not only to fight with one arm tied behind you, but the other one is broken. Also, watch out for when he uses “specifically”, it means he intends to nitpick you to death.
Since I’m not a mind reader, I’m unable to tell whether your position on voter ID is due to malicious intent, some form of self-delusion stemming from automatic support for anything the GOP endorses, or a genuine if misguided belief in voting integrity. The point of my little satire was that it doesn’t matter, because the outcome is the same, and the result is vote suppression that benefits the GOP.
Yes, these are laws duly passed and sometimes enjoying popular support. So were the voter literacy tests which had the awesome effect of preventing black people from voting. Duly passed laws and quite popular.
My actual proposal, since you ask, is in three parts. First, demonstrate that election fraud is actually a problem. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Second, demonstrate that a solution is possible that isn’t worse than the problem it purports to fix. Third, if and only if it’s shown to be necessary and viable, implement a voter ID requirement that is easily available to everyone with minimal effort and zero cost, especially to those with no transportation or limited mobility and little money.
And avoid like the plague any voter ID schemes proposed by Republicans that dismally fail all three criteria.
What’s your actual proposed solution to the current state of affairs in the real world: namely, that Voter ID laws have already been passed and approved by the courts and enjoy popular support? In other words, I understand that you prefer a different approach had been taken, but it was not, so what are you proposing happen right now, today?
Not to put words in anybody’s mouth but I assume that people who are opposed to a given voter ID law would say “Repeal the law”. The same governing body that voted it into place can vote it out again, correct?
Or, if that group of lawmakers can’t/won’t do so, have a court rule that the law is unconstitutional and thus cannot be enforced.
I am well aware that there are legislatures that won’t have any desire to repeal some of these laws and I’m also aware that some of these laws have been brought before various courts, so I’m not thinking these things are going to happen tomorrow, but for someone who is opposed to what they see as an unjust law I think that’d be a reasonable way to get the law repealed, working within the framework that we have.
You are once again demonstrating your expertise at deflection, and nothing more. You’ll notice that this thread is not entitled “Voter ID laws have been passed, what do we do now that it’s too late?”. It’s a discussion of why these laws exist and a pitting of the GOP for creating them out of venal self-interest. I notice that you have no problem making frequent guest appearances throughout the nearly 200 pages of this thread to defend them even though they “have already been passed and approved by the courts and enjoy popular support”. Think about why you’re doing this, and then think about the following: I’m here for the same reason, just on the opposite side. See how simple it all is?
But once again, since you ask, my proposal for what should happen right now, today, is that for starters maybe wingnuts should stop posting about the terrific benefits of Voter ID laws and the alleged impeccable logic and wisdom that led to their creation, and at least recognize them for what they really are.
I can also offer the hope that, now that Antonin Scalia has passed on to that great Judge’s Chamber in the Sky, there is perhaps some possibility of having a rationally constituted Supreme Court that someday in the future will also see the current Voter ID laws for what they really are.
Heck, Bricker’s first post in this thread was victory-crowing that the laws had been passed. His 2000+ followups were just for clarification.
Ok, so two concrete proposals:
(1) Repeal the law.
Answer: it’s not happening, as you concede.
(2) “Have a court” rule that the law is unconstitutional.
Answer: while this might be the fate of some such laws at the state level, the US Supreme Court ruled that Indiana’s law was constitutional, and many states modeled their laws after Indiana’s. So “having a court” declare the laws unconstitutional doesn’t seem particularly realistic.
Anything else?
Not really, no. I’m here to point out the legislative and judicial tests are over and my preferred position won. It does not seem possible that you are posting from a side that acknowledges your preferred position lost.
So the other “opposite side,” would be that the legislative and judicial tests are not over.
But nothing in your posts so much as hints at a discussion of how legislative and judicial battles might re-ignite and win. So I don’t understand this claim that you’re “for the same reason, on the opposite side.”
Ok, concrete proposal (3), continuing the numbing scheme I used above:
(3) “Wingnuts should stop posting about the terrific benefits of Voter ID laws and the alleged impeccable logic and wisdom that led to their creation, and at least recognize them for what they really are.”
Answer: assuming this includes me, the answer is: nope. I refuse.
And proposal (4), more inchoate than concrete:
(4) Someday in the future, the Supreme Court may rule differently.
Answer: Yes, many things might happen in the future. The Court has certainly changed course before. But this is simply a hope, not a proposal of any kind of specific action. And Crawford was a 6-3 decision, meaning even if Scalia’s replacement switched votes, it’s not enough. Of course, in the future you’re imagining, who knows how else the Court has changed…
Anything else?