# Why prevent felons from voting?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 9, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187 "2014-08-09T21:16:44Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 10
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/181 "2014-08-12T13:49:32Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Never came back to this one. What I said was that if X is what the law says, that doesn’t mean that X is morally right.
>
> (You have a long history of turning arguments over morality into arguments over legality.)
And you have an equally long history of issuing decrees about the morality of particular issues – views that nicely dovetail with your intended political results. Listening to you will make clear that political opposition to your wise guidance is a matter of immorality, not simply differing views.
I’m not going to play that game any longer.
> [@](#):
>
> I have certainly made _arguments_ for the rightness or wrongness of things in this thread. That’s what this forum is about, you know.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It does not consist of you declaring your view is the moral one.
In debate, a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.
So: you declare something immoral, I declare with equal authority that you’re wrong.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/182 "2014-08-12T14:02:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> I have an excellent argument in play and I take your attempts at diversion as evidence. I will now address and undermine this latest attempt.
>
> Certainly, innocent people have been wrongly convicted. Aside from this being a potential argument against punishment for the sake of punishment, the convicted in your cite was (I assume and hope) given due process of law and an opportunity to defend himself. What is the analog in an instance of someone having their name struck from a voter roll by an election official who simply \* assumes \* the person is a felon?
1. They get similar due process: they get a letter telling them this determination has been made, and how to contest it or correct the record.
2. Even if they didn’t, this objection goes to the process of striking felons’ names, not to the viability of the underlying penalty. In other words, this argument supports you if you were pushing to require that state officials produce a certified copy of a conviction report instead of a wild-card database name match. it does NOT say anything about the propriety of the penalty as enforced against actual felons.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m not sure Blackstone would have been big on locking up lots of people named John Smith because one person named John Smith comitted a crime.
No. But errors happen like that. [Here’s a case](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-wrong-teen-jail-35-days-mix-up-report-article-1.1701117) of a kid who spent 35 days in jail for a crime he didn’t commit, because he was named Cody Williams. The actual miscreant was ALSO Cody Williams. The real bad guy was Cody Raymond Williams; the unlucky duplicate was Cody Lee Williams.
This is an argument for better controls, more sure application of the jailing process, absolutely. But no one (except apparently you) thinks this is an argument against jailing people.
> [@](#):
>
> Sure. Now prove that this particular penalty should be used at all, against anyone.
It should be used in Virginia because the people of the state of Virginia say it should be used, and because Virginia is a representative democracy.
Done.
You’re the one arguing we should change the law.
I’m happy with the law as is.
I don’t have to periodically prove the law should remain the law.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/183 "2014-08-12T14:27:12Z")
**Bricker** , you seem to suggest that we cannot make arguments about whether any particular punishment is just because moral positions are not arguments (apart from perhaps whether it has been properly adopted by a democratic process). Is that your position?
Is the notion that, in your view, morality is handed down to you by authority figures and there’s no sense arguing about whether Muhammad or the Pope is the proper truth-sayer?
Does that position extend to arguing about whether felon disenfranchisement puts too much weight on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation? Or are such arguments also, inevitably, about moral claims and therefore cannot be debated between Catholics and non-Catholics?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/184 "2014-08-12T14:44:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> **Bricker** , you seem to suggest that we cannot make arguments about whether any particular punishment is just because moral positions are not arguments (apart from perhaps whether it has been properly adopted by a democratic process). Is that your position?
>
> Is the notion that, in your view, morality is handed down to you by authority figures and there’s no sense arguing about whether Muhammad or the Pope is the proper truth-sayer?
Having spent the last fifteen years hearing from the political left about the odious practice of Christians supposedly trying to enshrine their view of morality as law, I am bemused to see the political left here trying to vitalize their positions with morality’s succor.
A bare statement that such-and-so is moral, or immoral is not an argument if I don’t share the view.
I don’t necessarily agree that morality derives from authority figures, but it’s certain that whatever sources allow us to discern morality are not objectively provable, and it seems obvious that whatever words those sources are whispering to **RTFirefly** are not the same words I am hearing.
So given the obvious disconnect between his “morality” and my own, I regard any statement from him concerning moral rectitude as being completely valueless.
> [@](#):
>
> Does that position extend to arguing about whether felon disenfranchisement puts too much weight on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation? Or are such arguments also, inevitably, about moral claims and therefore cannot be debated between Catholics and non-Catholics?
Claiming too much weight on punishment is is not, strictly speaking, a moral argument, but a utilitarian one. Unless the “too much” claim derives from a “moral” position about the sufficiency of punishment, I guess.
So I’d say it’s not inevitably moral. If his only recourse is an appeal to morality, though, then it’s a useless claim.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/185 "2014-08-12T15:09:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Having spent the last fifteen years hearing from the political left about the odious practice of Christians supposedly trying to enshrine their view of morality as law, I am bemused to see the political left here trying to vitalize their positions with morality’s succor.
I humbly suggest that you’ve misunderstood “the Left’s” argument. I think Barack Obama put it quite well, here:
> [@](#):
>
> Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
>
> [. . .]
>
> We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
>
> Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.
>
> But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
Whatever their origin, we share a very large set of moral values. We likely agree that punishment should be proportional to the severity of a crime, for example. For some issues, we cannot connect because the fundamental issue of fact or principle is deeply theological and unshared, such as when human life begins. But on most issues, there is no such theological issue, and we can reason and make arguments from our shared beliefs.
Many people criticize policymaking that is based on this small subset of theological beliefs. It does not contradict this criticism to assert the moral righteousness of a policy if the foundation of that morality is moral belief shared by many faiths and those with no faith–such as the belief that people ought not be tortured.
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> A bare statement that such-and-so is moral, or immoral is not an argument if I don’t share the view.
That’s not the right way to look at it. Because we share so many moral precepts, the usual thing to do when talking about morality is to assume people agree with whatever moral foundation you’re relying on.
If I suggest that a policy that harshly punishes child face-kicking is moral, you probably shouldn’t huff and take your ball home if you happen disagree. The right response would be to ask on what moral foundation that moral belief is asserted, and see if the difference is in reasoning from that foundation (such as whether immoral actions ought to be punished by the state) or in some non-moral fact (like whether children feel pain) or genuinely in some foundational moral principle (like whether needlessly inflicting pain is wrong). The vast majority of time there is still fruitful debate to be had because the participants actually do agree on the fundamental moral issues–they just disagree about other facts, or about subtleties that are subject to argument and reasoning.
If you’re making the assertion that punishment for punishment sake is moral, there WAY more that can be usefully discussed beyond “do you agree or not.” Giving up at that stage makes it seem like you think issues concerning morality are not subject to reason, which is just false _even if_ you think morality has at its foundation some non-objective axioms that may or may not be shared.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/186 "2014-08-12T15:34:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> I humbly suggest that you’ve misunderstood “the Left’s” argument. I think Barack Obama put it quite well, here:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > … if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Absolutely true, and well-put on the President’s part.
> [@](#):
>
> Whatever their origin, we share a very large set of moral values. We likely agree that punishment should be proportional to the severity of a crime, for example. For some issues, we cannot connect because the fundamental issue of fact or principle is deeply theological and unshared, such as when human life begins. But on most issues, there is no such theological issue, and we can reason and make arguments from our shared beliefs.
Sure, I generally agree. But here’s where this breaks down: the substitution of moral assertion for moral argument. “A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.”
> [@](#):
>
> That’s not the right way to look at it. Because we share so many moral precepts, the usual thing to do when talking about morality is to assume people agree with whatever moral foundation you’re relying on.
To the contrary, I absolutely reject the idea that this is the usual thing to do, especially when discussing a claim that runs counter to existing law.
In other words, perhaps the normal thing to do when discussing torture is indeed to assume that people agree with your view, because the disdain for torture is so pervasive that your assumption is grounded in strong probability. But when the practice at issue is one that is upheld by legislatures and courts alike, you are _not_ entitled to begin with the position that it’s immoral, even though it’s true that not every law is moral. But when a practice enjoys sufficient public support to be enshrined into law, you certainly lose any right to start with the assumption that it’s immoral.
> [@](#):
>
> If I suggest that a policy that harshly punishes child face-kicking is moral, you probably shouldn’t huff and take your ball home if you happen disagree. The right response would be to ask on what moral foundation that moral belief is asserted, and see if the difference is in reasoning from that foundation (such as whether immoral actions ought to be punished by the state) or in some non-moral fact (like whether children feel pain) or genuinely in some foundational moral principle (like whether needlessly inflicting pain is wrong). The vast majority of time there is still fruitful debate to be had because the participants actually do agree on the fundamental moral issues–they just disagree about other facts, or about subtleties that are subject to argument and reasoning.
>
> If you’re making the assertion that punishment for punishment sake is moral, there WAY more that can be usefully discussed beyond “do you agree or not.” Giving up at that stage makes it seem like you think issues concerning morality are not subject to reason, which is just false _even if_ you think morality has at its foundation some non-objective axioms that may or may not be shared.
Many works have been written on the moral basis for punishment, and there is certainly no consensus that punishment for the sake of punishment is impermissible.
I’m not remotely interested in helping form my opponent’s argument. A proposal to stop felon disenfranchisement is a change; the proponents of that proposal in debate bear the burden of persuasion. So far, the attempt to bear that burden has been met by gratuitous and loud repetitions of the morality of their position.
And your contribution has been to castigate me for failing to assist my opponents in developing their arguments by asking them helpful questions.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/187 "2014-08-12T15:40:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> 1. They get similar due process: they get a letter telling them this determination has been made, and how to contest it or correct the record.
One case starts (ideally) with a presumption of innocence where the state must prove guilt, the other starts (clearly) with a presumption of guilt where the individual must prove innocence. This is “similar” to you?
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Even if they didn’t, this objection goes to the process of striking felons’ names, not to the viability of the underlying penalty. In other words, this argument supports you if you were pushing to require that state officials produce a certified copy of a conviction report instead of a wild-card database name match. it does NOT say anything about the propriety of the penalty as enforced against actual felons.
I’ve invited explanations of the propriety of the penalty and got “punishment is punishment, QED” in response. While that issue remains unsupported, I moved on to an example of the punishment bring misapplied, which if anything should call for even _stronger_ arguments in support, i.e. “yes, I recognize that innocent people can and do get caught, but the greater good of disenfranchisement is …” That sentence remains unfinished.
> [@](#):
>
> No. But errors happen like that. [Here’s a case](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-wrong-teen-jail-35-days-mix-up-report-article-1.1701117) of a kid who spent 35 days in jail for a crime he didn’t commit, because he was named Cody Williams. The actual miscreant was ALSO Cody Williams. The real bad guy was Cody Raymond Williams; the unlucky duplicate was Cody Lee Williams.
>
> This is an argument for better controls, more sure application of the jailing process, absolutely. But no one (except apparently you) thinks this is an argument against jailing people.
I recognize that innocent people can and do get caught, but the greater good of imprisonment is to keep criminals from perpetrating more crimes while at large.
See? Easy. Now do that for disenfranchisement.
> [@](#):
>
> It should be used in Virginia because the people of the state of Virginia say it should be used, and because Virginia is a representative democracy.
Circular argument. Explain how Virginia is better off than Vermont, which does not disenfranchise.
> [@](#):
>
> I don’t have to periodically prove the law should remain the law.
You don’t have to do a blessed thing.
Can anyone supply a good reason why felony disenfranchisement is a good idea?
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/188 "2014-08-12T15:44:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> So: you declare something immoral, I declare with equal authority that you’re wrong.
I have already brought up two instances from this thread where you said I was making moral decrees, and showed that you were completely reading that into a much more limited assertion. Care to go for three?
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> And you have an equally long history of issuing decrees about the morality of particular issues – views that nicely dovetail with your intended political results.
Gotta admit this thread is the first time I’ve heard anyone say this about me. (As opposed to your tendency to equate morality and legality, which many posters have made note of, and is old news on this board.) At any rate, I’m sure the general claim is about as well-founded as the specific claims to that effect you’ve made so far in this thread.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/189 "2014-08-12T15:54:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> One case starts (ideally) with a presumption of innocence where the state must prove guilt, the other starts (clearly) with a presumption of guilt where the individual must prove innocence. This is “similar” to you?
Yes.
> [@](#):
>
> I’ve invited explanations of the propriety of the penalty and got “punishment is punishment, QED” in response. While that issue remains unsupported, I moved on to an example of the punishment bring misapplied, which if anything should call for even _stronger_ arguments in support, i.e. “yes, I recognize that innocent people can and do get caught, but the greater good of disenfranchisement is …” That sentence remains unfinished.
That question does not apply myopically to disenfranchisement, but to the entire penal system. Innocent people are sometimes accused. The existence of those cases is not sufficient to stop punishing people.
> [@](#):
>
> I recognize that innocent people can and do get caught, but the greater good of imprisonment is to keep criminals from perpetrating more crimes while at large.
The greater good of the penal system is punishing criminals who commit crimes.
> [@](#):
>
> Circular argument. Explain how Virginia is better off than Vermont, which does not disenfranchise.
Not circular at all. Virginia is better off following the desires of its inhabitants; so is Vermont.
> [@](#):
>
> Can anyone supply a good reason why felony disenfranchisement is a good idea?
Yes. Because the voters of the states that have it think so.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/190 "2014-08-12T16:12:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> And your contribution has been to castigate me for failing to assist my opponents in developing their arguments by asking them helpful questions.
Because I don’t think this is a debate competition. You’re not my opponent just because we disagree on some matter of policy. If I don’t agree with your position, which looks to me like a gratuitous assertion rather than an argument, I will ask you questions about that position. These questions are not aid and comfort to the enemy. They are good faith dialogue. I post to refine my views, persuade others, and have fun. None of those goals are aided by jumping into a thread just to say “it’s your burden, not mine, neener neener.”
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/191 "2014-08-12T16:23:49Z")
nm
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/192 "2014-08-12T16:24:51Z")
**Bricker** : I’m curious about the statement you made in post 139 that I’ve adopted as my new sig. Could you do me the favor of reading my OP [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=730881), where I pose some questions to you about it?
Thanks muchly.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/193 "2014-08-12T16:27:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Yes.
Then your starting position is too alien to me for me to assume mutual understanding is likely.
> [@](#):
>
> That question does not apply myopically to disenfranchisement, but to the entire penal system. Innocent people are sometimes accused. The existence of those cases is not sufficient to stop punishing people.
By that argument, prohibitions on punishments that are cruel and unusual are myopic. I’m declaring this as my third victory over you, because of the determined flaws in your arguments compounded by refusal to recognize those flaws.
Anyone other than Bricker remains invited to defend the practice of felon disenfranchisement.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/194 "2014-08-12T16:45:58Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> Because I don’t think this is a debate competition. You’re not my opponent just because we disagree on some matter of policy. If I don’t agree with your position, which looks to me like a gratuitous assertion rather than an argument, I will ask you questions about that position. These questions are not aid and comfort to the enemy. They are good faith dialogue. I post to refine my views, persuade others, and have fun. None of those goals are aided by jumping into a thread just to say “it’s your burden, not mine, neener neener.”
Yeah, I used to do things that way.
And if this board were populated by you, MaxTheVool, and others similarly situated, I’d still be doing it.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/195 "2014-08-12T16:48:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Anyone other than Bricker remains invited to defend the practice of felon disenfranchisement.
I have a funny feeling the SDMB consensus is going to be that felon disenfranchisement is unsupportable.
This consensus won’t be bothered in the least by its continued existence. The Word will have been Spoken.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/196 "2014-08-12T16:53:33Z")
Pathetic.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/197 "2014-08-12T17:02:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I have a funny feeling the SDMB consensus is going to be that felon disenfranchisement is unsupportable.
>
> This consensus won’t be bothered in the least by its continued existence. The Word will have been Spoken.
Its continued existence where, and in what form? How about the consensus of most industrialized countries, and – depending on how you define “felon disenfranchisement” – the consensus of many or most US states?
And there is also the fact that throughout history there has been no shortage of incredibly stupid laws and practices, like those red lawn signs in my link upthread which would have been right at home in the pre-Renaissance medieval Dark Ages. As society evolves, stupid laws get identified for what they are and are eventually repealed.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/198 "2014-08-12T17:35:17Z")
Or not, of course. A great many laws persist beyond their obvious utility (assuming there was utility in the first place), but I wouldn’t recommend a broad repeal just for the heck of it.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/199 "2014-08-12T18:19:29Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> Its continued existence where, and in what form? How about the consensus of most industrialized countries, and – depending on how you define “felon disenfranchisement” – the consensus of many or most US states?
The problem with that argument is that, for liberals, such “consensus” only works one way. When the overwhelming national consensus and the international one as well was that marriage be restricted to opposite-sex couples only, the liberal chorus did not ring out with the importance of that consensus. To the contrary, such laws were derided as bigotry and liberals demanded that the courts eviscerate them.
When the overwhelming national consensus is for permissive gun-carry laws, liberals are not in the least moved by the unity of belief.
Your ideation of consensus comes and goes, an ebb and flow precisely mapped to the political goals you seek.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [August 12, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187/200 "2014-08-12T20:59:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The problem with that argument is that, for liberals, such “consensus” only works one way. When the overwhelming national consensus and the international one as well was that marriage be restricted to opposite-sex couples only, the liberal chorus did not ring out with the importance of that consensus. To the contrary, such laws were derided as bigotry and liberals demanded that the courts eviscerate them.
>
> When the overwhelming national consensus is for permissive gun-carry laws, liberals are not in the least moved by the unity of belief.
>
> Your ideation of consensus comes and goes, an ebb and flow precisely mapped to the political goals you seek.
That’s a rather perplexing comment on several levels.
[ul]
[li]Since you suggested that this board would likely reach a consensus that is that same as what I and others have been arguing, it seemed fair to point out that this is also the consensus of most first-world nations and not just some crackpot idea.[/li]
[li]I myself have never argued any position on contentious issues like gay rights, abortion, gun control, or health care policy that is significantly different from that of most first-world nations, let alone done so and failed to disclose the fact that most countries disagreed with me.[/li]
[li]The international consensus on things like gay rights and abortion, in particular, has been changing in recent years and decades, and if there was a time when this board was largely supportive and many countries weren’t, then kudos to the members of this board for wisdom and perspicacity that was ahead of their time.[/li]
[li]Finally, not to digress the thread too much, but when it comes to “national consensus for permissive gun-carry laws”, I don’t see a “consensus” so much as a deeply divisive ongoing national debate. And even if there is a majority view to that effect, it’s yet another issue, along with the other ones I mentioned – and I hope I can be forgiven my frankness here – in which US policies on these social issues make it a lonely outlier among developed nations.[/li][/ul]
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187.md?page=9)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-prevent-felons-from-voting/695187.md?page=11)