You will further note that I modified your statement to inslude the word “necessarily.” The way you put it, you eliminate the possibility of fraudulent.
I’m not creating a relationship; I’m refusing to deny the possibility of one.
My whole point is that merely knowing a vote is improper is not enough information to determine whether it is fraudulent, but it could be.
Since you seem to understand now, I’d say we agree. But the fact is, you did previously claim that improper can’t be fraudulent. Perhaps it would be a good time to retract the statement in post #351 if you misspoke and correct yourself.
Well, no. But anarchy and cannibalism are not going to result if we raise the voting age to 25, either. Nor will anarchy and cannibalism be the result of repealing the laws against child pornography.
From this we learn that taking, or avoiding, actions based on the likelihood of anarchy and cannibalism resulting is probably not the best tactic.
I respond by pointing out I have never argued for abortion laws as a matter of justice.
You answer:
You can opt for whatever you like. But why did you challenge my positions, and then decline the opportunity to verify the details, in such a way?
In other words, I certainly understand that you don’t wish to spend time reviewing my deathless prose. (Although Lord knows you need the help). But since you’re not going to, what’s the purpose of asking about my prior positions?
Haha, no I’m not retracting anything because you don’t understand how logic statements work. I said no such thing. I never once said that something improper cannot be fraudulent. I said that something being improper does not imply that it is fraudulent. The word necessarily does not add anything to the sentence in logic terms. I added that word in later to help you understand the point, but it did not change my point at all. Saying that A does not imply B is all that needs to be said from a logic standpoint, if being A does not mean that something will certainly also be B. If something can be A, but not be B, then that means that A does not imply B. The only time A implies B, is if in every case of A, B is also true. We know that is not the case here. If something can be improper, but not be fraudulent (clearly true from my dinner fork example), then improper does not imply fraudulent. You are looking at things backwords as if I said that fraudulent does not imply improper. I never said any such thing, and I don’t see the relevance of that statement anyway. So no I don’t need to retract anything. You are the one that keeps misstating what I’ve said, so if anyone needs to retract anything it would be you.
This discussion was begun by John_Stamos_Left_Ear who makes the claim that since voter fraud does not exist, Voter I.D. is a partisan interest meant to disenfranchise Democrat voters.
As such, John needed to prove his claim that it is non-existant.
(My position is that it is irrelevant whether or not voter fraud exists, it is lawful so long as it addresses a compelling government interest, in short.)
There is no burden on me to prove voter fraud exists, even though I tend to think it must exist. It is too implausible that a system not requiring ID would not have some fraud.
Next, we have elucidator claiming that because these votes are improper, he has proven that voter fraud did not exist in that case, which is not necessarily true.
I will concede that you are technically correct about logic. Proving improper votes does not prove fraudulent votes. But only proving impropriety does not help to prove there is no fraud, as elucidator and others claim.
If you’re going to use this bit as support that elucidator made his burden of proof, I will continue to rib you. If you did not mean that, then I apologize.
But you are very slippery to join in on the discussion at that point and claim I was wrong because improper and fraudulent are not synonyms. What you said is true but its’ application, appearing to defend elucidator on these grounds does not help.
The original cite which supposedly “proved” a case of voter fraud actually only ended up saying that there was 125 improper votes cast, and that’s all it said. You replied that he needed to show that improper is not fraudulent.
I have done that, as you have conceded.
I didn’t say that anyone made a burden of proof. I was trying to say that you guys haven’t made yours in regard to proving that this was indeed a case of voter fraud. I satisfied the condition that you layed out to elucidator, that’s all.
Anything else isn’t really replying to me, since this is all I’ve really said in this discussion.
Oh, “opportunity” my ass! You know goddamn good and well that nobody, but nobody, is going to pore over your posting history looking for that! What a bunch of bullshit! “Decline the opportunity”? You’re not offering shit, I could do that anytime I chose, how is this any sort of “opportunity”?
Look, you want to apply objective standards when it works for your argument and chuck them aside when they don’t, its cool with me. Just don’t pretend otherwise, OK? Gets on my nerves.
And get right down to it, there isn’t anything “objective” about justice and human rights. The don’t really exist, we made them up. Ms Jefferson’s boy Thom said it pretty good, “we hold these truths to be self-evident”. Meaning we can’t prove squat. Its a secular leap of faith, a gift we give to ourselves and each other. We launched upon a marvelous experiment, to create a nation centered around justice and equality. Its taking a lot longer than we thought…
There were no human rights, we made them up. And anybody doesn’t like it can go fuck a cat.
This is Great Debates. You make a statement, back it up. When have I ever claimed we should change abortion laws to conform with “justice?”
That’s fine – then how can you claim exclusive province to define them? I say that justice is better served by ensuring voters are identified; you say justice is better served by not placing anything that might be a barrier in front of the voter.
No, and once again, you are changing the subject to suit your argument. I say that using the excuse of voter confidence and integrity as a way to ensure the electoral advantage of a political party stinks.
Nor do I claim that this is about preventing legitimate voters from exercising their rights. Making it more difficult is not as bad, but still bad, like breaking somebody’s arm isn’t as bad as murdering them. But still bad enough.
I don’t believe for one moment that the people who crafted this give a rats ass about the confidence of the electorate. Because they are undermining the confidence of the electorate by their very actions. Or do you think that the people who are affected by this have gained some new confidence by watching the Republican Party wipe its collective ass with their voting rights?
You’re avoiding the context. I think it is fairly clear that I meant he needed to show the particular votes in that case were not fraudulent. In context, showing some improper votes does not make his case that there is not any voter fraud. He needed to show more than their impropriety.
I do not have a claim that there is voter fraud. My claim is there does not have to be any for this to be a constitutional law.
The claim was first made that voter I.D. laws are unjust because there is no fraud going on. You’re shifting the burden of proof to put a duty to prove voter fraud on me.
You’re confused about the difference between motive and result.
I agree with you that the people pushing these reforms are doing so because they perceive political advantage in doing so. But I’m OK with that, because the reform is, independently, a good idea.
And don’t tell me that it bothers you. It only bothers you when it doesn’t advantage you. You know full when that ACORN, and their ideological brethern, were registering voters that would in general help their side. They would not have expended the effort they were using if they thought it would result in more Republican votes.
But that’s OK too, because their acts were independently a good idea. It’s perfectly possible to support the good idea, even if others are pushing the good idea for less than worthy motives.
Its not ACORN’s fault that the poor, the oppressed and the disenfranchised aren’t thrilled with Republicans. If anything, its the Republican’s fault.
Did ACORNs minions know that they were likely to be registering more Dems than Republicans. Sure they did. And a lot of smart ass lefties, myself abashedly included, didn’t give their efforts the respect it deserved. (Sorry, Uncle Saul, I should have listened…) Too small, we said, too local, too idealistic.
But the Republicans knew better, as the races tightened they realized that a few thousand here, a few thousand there, pretty soon you’re in trouble. So they murdered it.
But here’s the thing: ACORN didn’t pass any laws making it more difficult for the comfortable classes to vote. They couldn’t have, but they didn’t anyway. The Republicans could pass law for their own advantage, and did.
See the difference? Want me to repeat it?
It appears that your regard for the moral courage of the Republican Party is slipping a bit. Good. I’ll start fattening that calf.
Just realized, to my horror, that you have sort of a point: we on the left have seriously undermined the confidence of the electorate! We have informed the people who are getting screwed by this that they are getting screwed! Thereby, we undermine what little confidence they may have had! Boy, is my face red!
Must do some sort of penance. Maybe drink some Coors. No,that’s too much, I’ll cut off a toe instead…
My initial post in this thread was me directly replying to a challenge that you posed to elucidator regarding the need for proof that something being improper doesn’t mean that it is also fraudulent. You posed that challenge as if regardless of whatever else had been debunked about that cite and those figures, he still needed to show that the improper votes weren’t also fraudulent, and if he couldn’t then that proves voter fraud, and therefore wins the point and also the argument. I didn’t see it that way, so I decided to meet your challenge and show that this cite, and the word improper, does not prove voter fraud at all. So therefore the one thing that you were still taking from that cite to help your side disappears and the cite becomes irrelevant to the discussion, rather than the proof you are using to try to force elucidator to admit defeat. Thats the burden I was referring to. Defending your own challenge.