• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I asked whether to utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement, is evil and fucked up behavior.

Is uttering a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement evil and fucked up behavior?
It depends on the context.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I asked whether to utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement, is evil and fucked up behavior.

Is uttering a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement evil and fucked up behavior?
It depends on the context.
What context?

For convenient rhetorical traps I already have a response to, I offer you "a situation where the other party is already playing 'the leverage game'".

Otherwise, when?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I asked whether to utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement, is evil and fucked up behavior.

Is uttering a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement evil and fucked up behavior?
It depends on the context.
What context?

For convenient rhetorical traps I already have a response to, I offer you "a situation where the other party is already playing 'the leverage game'".

Otherwise, when?
For fuck's sake, it depends on context. Sometimes lying is morally desirable, depending on context.

So no, using a fact to effectively mislead somebody is not categorically "evil" and "fucked up". It could be bad but much more mild than "evil" and "fucked up". It could even be morally desirable. It depends on the context.

But I do not believe McConnell did what you are claiming he did. If he did--if he knew the debate was about if any (race-based) minority had a lower voting rate than the electorate, and he knew that this lower voting rate was prima facie evidence of "suppression", and then he effectively covered that up by uttering a fact that was engineered to mislead and end debate, then I would say he's done something wrong.

Heavy lifting, Jarhyn. Remember to bend with your knees, not your back.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Every alleged "voter suppression" bill I have seen appears to me to be perfectly reasonable, i
Well yes, indeed. These bills seem perfectly reasonable to the white suprmacists, the neo-nazis and donald trump as well.

Especially when you discount the actual conditions on the ground…

I have no idea what State you are talking about or what the situation was before or how many people vote there. So no, I don't know what the demographics are.
I can see why a person who wants to advance the idea that no protection of voters rights needs to happen would eliminate the evidence by claiming they don’t know the situation. And then pretend that no one else knows, either. Like McConnell, the tactic appears to be distraction.

But the truth that Americans know is that “on the ground,” voter supression is happening. It’s been prominent in the news for all those not watching FOX or Breitbart. Some of those Americans have stated the case here, but google will instantly find the reports, including stats, photos, videos and on-the-ground reporting.

Swammerdami said:
In some states, voters had to queue for several hours to vote in some precincts, while there were no delays in affluent neighborhoods. Why?
Why indeed? Since I cannot verify anything you are saying
An attempt at introducing doubt, when no doubt is warranted; “how can I verify?” But of course it is easy to verify, and it is widely reported. So why would a person say they cannot verify, especially to the people who live in those places? Why would someone argue against the voting reform so vociferously without knowing the situation on the ground? In McConnell’s case, it is because he has an agenda. To maintain and gain power. Other people like the white supremacists have agendas for why they argue like this - they don’t want minorities to gain any power and they like to stand on the necks of minorities, metaphorically, for pleasure.

When the evidence is easy to verify, such as knowing that white people have a lower rate of getting turned away from polls compared to black people, but one nevertheless embraces the deceit of hiding the white person number and diluting it in an all-person number, it is interesting to look at the tactics used. Some people, like McConnell, deliberately use deceptive numbers, and claim they don’t see evidence. Other people are fooled by him and believe him.

The data is there, the malevolent pretend it is not and the ignorant believe them.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Sometimes lying is morally desirable, depending on context.
So the convenient rhetorical trap, then.

Is opposing the protection of voter rights through oversight a morally desirable thing?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
But the truth that Americans know is that “on the ground,” voter supression is happening. It’s been prominent in the news for all those not watching FOX or Breitbart. Some of those Americans have stated the case here, but google will instantly find the reports, including stats, photos, videos and on-the-ground reporting.
Okay luv. I'll just take your word for it.
The data is there, the malevolent pretend it is not and the ignorant believe them.
We would have to agree on what counts as 'suppression' by race, we would have to look at the data, and then we would have to agree that a particular bill is designed to maintain or worsen that situation.

You've got some heavy lifting to do.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Is opposing the protection of voter rights through oversight a morally desirable thing?
I have explained what conditions would make McConnell's behaviour bad. You believe, without evidence, that those conditions have been met. If you want me to believe the same thing you do, you would need to show the evidence for each part that I laid out.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Is opposing the protection of voter rights through oversight a morally desirable thing?
I have explained what conditions would make McConnell's behaviour bad. You believe, without evidence, that those conditions have been met. If you want me to believe the same thing you do, you would need to show the evidence for each part that I laid out.
I didn't ask what you think McConnell did here. I asked, and I repeat, Is opposing the protection of voter rights through oversight a morally desirable thing?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Is opposing the protection of voter rights through oversight a morally desirable thing?
The word 'oversight' means itself and its own antonym. I will respond to what I think you mean, which is "is it wrong to oppose the protection of voter rights". The answer is, it depends. In abstract, it is generally right to support "voter protections". But you could be opposed to a particular "voter's rights" bill for any number of reasons, including that it causes voter protections (or general election integrity) as a whole to diminish.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Is opposing the protection of voter rights through oversight a morally desirable thing?
The word 'oversight' means itself and its own antonym. I will respond to what I think you mean, which is "is it wrong to oppose the protection of voter rights". The answer is, it depends. In abstract, it is generally right to support "voter protections". But you could be opposed to a particular "voter's rights" bill for any number of reasons, including that it causes voter protections (or general election integrity) as a whole to diminish.
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!

Thanks for that. Ignoring for the moment the obtuseness problem in your statement because you delivered nicely anyway...

So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
So very dead-ended of you. When is that? What creates that geometry?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,435
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
There is NO problem with election integrity, except in the minds of those that "believe take advantage of the Big Lie tm".
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
There is NO problem with election integrity, except in the minds of those that "believe take advantage of the Big Lie tm".
Yeah, that's the next step of the primrose path, what the trap's teeth look like on the rhetorical trap I was talking about.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,360
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
Well, shit. There it goes. He needs to actually say what defines that point for himself, before we can ask that question and get anywhere with it.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.
No, if you wish to claim something on moral principle, some moral rule, spill the principles or quit standing on your own unprincipled (assuming that you do not principle them for us) morals as a basis for making such judgements.

Spill your principles. What is the geometry of it, or admit you have no such.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,360
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.
You brought the subject up, not me. Apparently you have no idea whether it is pertinent. Which makes the subject irrelevant.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.
No, if you wish to claim something on moral principle, some moral rule, spill the principles or quit standing on your own unprincipled (assuming that you do not principle them for us) morals as a basis for making such judgements.

Spill your principles. What is the geometry of it, or admit you have no such.
"Spill your principles". Lol. "What is the geometry".

How much gravity is too much?

How much sugar is too much?

What is the ideal amount of sunlight curtains should let in?

It depends on the context. I'm sorry that my position is nuanced. You'll have to deal with it.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.
You brought the subject up, not me. Apparently you have no idea whether it is pertinent. Which makes the subject irrelevant.
I didn't bring up anything with you.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,360
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.
You brought the subject up, not me. Apparently you have no idea whether it is pertinent. Which makes the subject irrelevant.
I didn't bring up anything with you.
This is a public forum. Perhaps if you avoided wading into topics of which you are clearly ignorant, this wouldn’t happen.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.
You brought the subject up, not me. Apparently you have no idea whether it is pertinent. Which makes the subject irrelevant.
I didn't bring up anything with you.
This is a public forum. Perhaps if you avoided wading into topics of which you are clearly ignorant, this wouldn’t happen.
Having a different perspective from somebody is not the same thing as being ignorant. I also have no particular interest in silencing myself for your benefit.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh wow, you fell even further into that trap than I had any hope of!
Okay luv.
So, what is the threshold for creating procedural hurdles to voting versus actual prevention of fraud? At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
I reject your loaded language, such as "creating procedural hurdles to voting". I also reject your implication that the only reason to reform voting laws is 'prevention of fraud'.

As for whether a particular voting law reformation (or an entire bill) is a good idea, I would have to look at a particular proposed reform and the context it was proposed in.
I asked about a very specific thing.

I don't care what language you originally selected to try and get away from the discourse.

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?
When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election.
When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?
I can decide it in a specific context. So, if you have a particular bill you want to discuss, let's discuss it.
No, if you wish to claim something on moral principle, some moral rule, spill the principles or quit standing on your own unprincipled (assuming that you do not principle them for us) morals as a basis for making such judgements.

Spill your principles. What is the geometry of it, or admit you have no such.
"Spill your principles". Lol. "What is the geometry".

How much gravity is too much?

How much sugar is too much?

What is the ideal amount of sunlight curtains should let in?

It depends on the context. I'm sorry that my position is nuanced. You'll have to deal with it.
None of these questions are shaped like "what are the principles by which metaphor judges 'When it is more important to protect the power to vote than to protect the integrity of the election'?"

Or even

"When is that? And what evidence is there that anywhere in the US is at that point?"

These are things that you claim may happen, figure out when they happen then, and whether they are happening!

Show us the evidence.

Show us your principles if you indeed have any.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, because metaphor can't figure out a measure that adequately will define when protecting election integrity is more important than protecting the right to vote: specifically when there is a unilateral threat to election integrity greater than the marginal division between political populations.

So, you would need to have a population of voters within a single party above and beyond any such population in another party, greater than the marginal difference between them, evidenced specifically from jurisdictions that lack protections against the behavior being observed.

We do not observe even triple digit numbers of fraudulent voters in the US. The marginal difference between voting blocks is greater than "in the hundreds of people".

This there is not sufficient reason to pass such laws other than to hurt those who will be put out by adding new hurdles (requirements, fees, places to be and people to meet at specific times that don't work well with anyone's schedule).
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So, because metaphor can't figure out a measure that adequately will define when protecting election integrity is more important than protecting the right to vote: specifically when there is a unilateral threat to election integrity greater than the marginal division between political populations.

So, you would need to have a population of voters within a single party above and beyond any such population in another party, greater than the marginal difference between them, evidenced specifically from jurisdictions that lack protections against the behavior being observed.

We do not observe even triple digit numbers of fraudulent voters in the US. The marginal difference between voting blocks is greater than "in the hundreds of people".

This there is not sufficient reason to pass such laws other than to hurt those who will be put out by adding new hurdles (requirements, fees, places to be and people to meet at specific times that don't work well with anyone's schedule).
There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.

You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, because metaphor can't figure out a measure that adequately will define when protecting election integrity is more important than protecting the right to vote: specifically when there is a unilateral threat to election integrity greater than the marginal division between political populations.

So, you would need to have a population of voters within a single party above and beyond any such population in another party, greater than the marginal difference between them, evidenced specifically from jurisdictions that lack protections against the behavior being observed.

We do not observe even triple digit numbers of fraudulent voters in the US. The marginal difference between voting blocks is greater than "in the hundreds of people".

This there is not sufficient reason to pass such laws other than to hurt those who will be put out by adding new hurdles (requirements, fees, places to be and people to meet at specific times that don't work well with anyone's schedule).
There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.

You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.
You said "reducing voter fraud".

What is the voter fraud being reduced? How much is it being reduced? How will the laws passed in various jurisdiction reduce it?

Otherwise, give me another reason to create procedural hurdles?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,435
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
So, because metaphor can't figure out a measure that adequately will define when protecting election integrity is more important than protecting the right to vote: specifically when there is a unilateral threat to election integrity greater than the marginal division between political populations.

So, you would need to have a population of voters within a single party above and beyond any such population in another party, greater than the marginal difference between them, evidenced specifically from jurisdictions that lack protections against the behavior being observed.

We do not observe even triple digit numbers of fraudulent voters in the US. The marginal difference between voting blocks is greater than "in the hundreds of people".

This there is not sufficient reason to pass such laws other than to hurt those who will be put out by adding new hurdles (requirements, fees, places to be and people to meet at specific times that don't work well with anyone's schedule).
There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.

You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.
That's just bullshit. There is no voting fraud problem in the US. Note that that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it;s just that it happens so rarely to be insignificant.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, because metaphor can't figure out a measure that adequately will define when protecting election integrity is more important than protecting the right to vote: specifically when there is a unilateral threat to election integrity greater than the marginal division between political populations.

So, you would need to have a population of voters within a single party above and beyond any such population in another party, greater than the marginal difference between them, evidenced specifically from jurisdictions that lack protections against the behavior being observed.

We do not observe even triple digit numbers of fraudulent voters in the US. The marginal difference between voting blocks is greater than "in the hundreds of people".

This there is not sufficient reason to pass such laws other than to hurt those who will be put out by adding new hurdles (requirements, fees, places to be and people to meet at specific times that don't work well with anyone's schedule).
There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.

You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.
That's just bullshit. There is no voting fraud problem in the US. Note that that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it;s just that it happens so rarely to be insignificant.
I guess where I wanted to go with this is that there is NO way 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' (wow, the air quotes are METAPHOR's, talk about Freudian!) Is satisfied by passing such laws, as there is no significant way to reduce something that is not happening at significant quantities.

So that leaves... Is there really any other justification at all?

Really?

If so, metaphor might be able to produce one?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,360
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Having a different perspective from somebody is not the same thing as being ignorant. I also have no particular interest in silencing myself for your benefit.
No one said it was. No one is trying to silence you, just keep you on topic and from embarrassing yourself.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,914
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I have no idea what State you are talking about or what the situation was before or how many people vote there. So no, I don't know what the demographics are.

In some states, voters had to queue for several hours to vote in some precincts, while there were no delays in affluent neighborhoods. Why?
Why indeed? Since I cannot verify anything you are saying, what do you want my response to be? Some states have large rural populations, versus urban, versus city. I suspect all of those populations have different access.
@Metaphor — Why do YOU think the GOP, when in control, adopts measures that appear to be suppression? Do you have enough intellectual curiosity to investigate why queuing times are so different within one state? Or do you just swallow the QOP lie that such things are happenstance?
No. You have moved the stasis of the argument too far. When did I say they appeared to be suppression but where not suppression? They appear to be suppression to some Democrats who think the GOP is morally bankrupt, sure, I'll give you that. Funnily enough, however, it is the Democrats who appear to think the appearance to them is the disinterested one.

Every alleged "voter suppression" bill I have seen appears to me to be perfectly reasonable, including ones that 'restrict' voting conditions but still make voting conditions more 'generous' than some Democrat-run states that nobody complains about. From my perspective, I actually cannot believe how lax some voting conditions are in some American states.

For someone offering opinions on voter suppression by the GOP in the U.S., you seem remarkably ignorant on the topic. You speak of 'Every alleged "voter suppression" bill I have seen': How many such bills have you seen and where did you see them? Be specific. Do you Google "Arguments to use against my libtard friends about voter suppression bills"?

I just invested five seconds with the most trivial Googling and found
and
and

From the latter article
Roughly 3.5 million voters waited longer than 1 hour to cast their ballot in 2012. If a long line is equally likely to occur at every precinct1 we might characterize the problem as a random nuisance, but not one that has broader implications. Research shows, however, that racial demographics are one of the strongest predictors of how long somebody waits in line (Famighetti et al., 2014; Herron and Smith, 2015a; Stein et al., 2019), with non-white voters being seven times more likely to wait longer than an hour than white voters (Chen et al., 2019). Even more troubling, these racial differences are largely attributable to local election officials providing more poll workers and voting machines to more heavily white precincts, at the expense of precincts serving minority voters (Herron and Smith, 2016; Pettigrew, 2017).

These are not the "best" articles; these are just the top hits from five seconds of Googling. There are many HUNDREDS of more articles like these. One of the more humorous: Isn't it Texas where a gun permit is considered valid ID but a student ID card from a public university is not? (Both have photos.) Guess which party gun owners are most likely to vote for? Students?

I think the probability is less than 10% that you will do more than briefly skim these articles with a smirk on your face. I'll be delighted if you prove me wrong!
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So, because metaphor can't figure out a measure that adequately will define when protecting election integrity is more important than protecting the right to vote: specifically when there is a unilateral threat to election integrity greater than the marginal division between political populations.

So, you would need to have a population of voters within a single party above and beyond any such population in another party, greater than the marginal difference between them, evidenced specifically from jurisdictions that lack protections against the behavior being observed.

We do not observe even triple digit numbers of fraudulent voters in the US. The marginal difference between voting blocks is greater than "in the hundreds of people".

This there is not sufficient reason to pass such laws other than to hurt those who will be put out by adding new hurdles (requirements, fees, places to be and people to meet at specific times that don't work well with anyone's schedule).
There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.

You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.
You said "reducing voter fraud".

What is the voter fraud being reduced? How much is it being reduced? How will the laws passed in various jurisdiction reduce it?

Otherwise, give me another reason to create procedural hurdles?
I reject that voting reform laws create only 'procedural hurdles'. Your imagination is profoundly impoverished.

There would be many reasons to reform voter laws. Those include reducing cost, reducing fraud, equalising voting access between different demographics and geographies, aligning with other states.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
How many such bills have you seen and where did you see them? Be specific.
I usually look at the ones that come up in these political discussion forums. I can't give you a specific number.
Do you Google "Arguments to use against my libtard friends about voter suppression bills"?
No. I don't have 'libtard' friends. I have friends.
I think the probability is less than 10% that you will do more than briefly skim these articles with a smirk on your face. I'll be delighted if you prove me wrong!
If you would like me to comment on a specific voting reform bill, I would be happy to do so. I've said that the whole time.

What I am not happy to do is play idiot games with angry posters with prejudiced ideas and loaded language that begs the question.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
o that leaves... Is there really any other justification at all?

Really?

If so, metaphor might be able to produce one?
Your impoverished imagination is not my problem. I provided some reasons in post #135.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
That's just bullshit. There is no voting fraud problem in the US. Note that that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it;s just that it happens so rarely to be insignificant.
I didn't say there was a 'voting fraud' problem in the US. I did not say there wasn't one. I said there were good reasons to reform voting laws and that reducing voting fraud counts amongst those reasons.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
wow, the air quotes are METAPHOR's, talk about Freudian!
They're not "air quotes", they're inverted commas. I didn't use my fingers to make "air quotes".

Also, Freud saw his mother undressing in a train when he was six and he got a little boy boner and decided the rest of the world was just like him. Psychologists have moved on from Freud. I know I have.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,435
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
That's just bullshit. There is no voting fraud problem in the US. Note that that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it;s just that it happens so rarely to be insignificant.
I didn't say there was a 'voting fraud' problem in the US. I did not say there wasn't one. I said there were good reasons to reform voting laws and that reducing voting fraud counts amongst those reasons.
Okay, So what are those reasons and why are they good? And why are they so all consumingly necessary at this time? What is the purpose of making voting harder for people?
 
Last edited:

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,914
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
If you would like me to comment on a specific voting reform bill, I would be happy to do so. I've said that the whole time.

What I am not happy to do is play idiot games with angry posters with prejudiced ideas and loaded language that begs the question.

What?? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: So it's "prejudiced" and "angry" to post links to NPR and NIH.GOV. To get your attention, I'll need to link to an InfoWars YouTube?

The sub-topic ("stasis of the argument" if you prefer) was your disbelief that the GOP was deliberately suppressing the votes of those likely to vote D. I presented evidence and wondered if you'd do more than briefly skim the articles with a smirk.

I over-estimated you. Afraid to learn how wrong you were, you didn't even skim. Without video I'm not sure if you're wearing a smirk or a snarl. :)

Meanwhile, after your demonstrating that your goal is to remain as ignorant as possible about the topic on which you preach, I'm afraid I'll leave you to your delusions. Horse, Water. Couldn't make it drink.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,914
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
That's just bullshit. There is no voting fraud problem in the US. Note that that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it;s just that it happens so rarely to be insignificant.
I didn't say there was a 'voting fraud' problem in the US. I did not say there wasn't one. I said there were good reasons to reform voting laws and that reducing voting fraud counts amongst those reasons.

Good point!! Similarly the prohibition against providing drinking water to those waiting hours to vote is necessary: Otherwise the water might be used to resuscitate rabid unicorns, as well as leprechauns or goblins which entered the country without a visa.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I reject that voting reform laws create only 'procedural hurdles'.
Nice of you to reject your own made up fantasy straw-man.

Now I see why you are so ready to jump on me for what it is that you are doing: to hide you doing it.

I didn't use the word "only".

The discussion is in fact on what else they do, actually, accomplish. I can see that they accomplish
'reducing electoral and voter fraud'


I didn't say there was a 'voting fraud' problem in the US.

Is there a voting fraud problem in the US.

No?

Then what other motive is there?

Oh yeah, to create procedural hurdles.

Edit: if you have to think for more than 2 seconds for alternative benefits to a piece of legislation that you yourself proposed, after your primary stated reason is invalidated, there is not one.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So now that we are done with this lame fuck-fuck game, we can get back to our regularly scheduled argument:

I asked At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

Is uttering a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement evil and fucked up behavior?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,360
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
So, because metaphor can't figure out a measure that adequately will define when protecting election integrity is more important than protecting the right to vote: specifically when there is a unilateral threat to election integrity greater than the marginal division between political populations.

So, you would need to have a population of voters within a single party above and beyond any such population in another party, greater than the marginal difference between them, evidenced specifically from jurisdictions that lack protections against the behavior being observed.

We do not observe even triple digit numbers of fraudulent voters in the US. The marginal difference between voting blocks is greater than "in the hundreds of people".

This there is not sufficient reason to pass such laws other than to hurt those who will be put out by adding new hurdles (requirements, fees, places to be and people to meet at specific times that don't work well with anyone's schedule).
There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them but not the only one.
No one is denying that there are potential good reasons for reforming voting laws depending on the context. Going on about conceptual issues is moot. The OP and the actual discussion before your interjection is withing the context of the GOP changing voting laws.

In the context of the OP, what do you think are they good reasons for reforming voting laws, and which new voting laws are based on good reasons?



You can acknowledge that or falsely keep implying that 'reducing voter fraud' is the only good reason.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I’m surprised that you ask.
Obviously, at the point where POC become nearly as likely to vote as is the average old white male (me), there has been a tragic breakdown in the power structure that was created with the intent to preserve the primacy and power of old white males (me).
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
There are good reasons to reform voting laws and 'reducing electoral and voter fraud' is one of them

Please do explain why reducing voter fraud is more important than reducing, say, alien abductions. Remember to demonstrate that voter fraud has had some greater effect on elections than alien abductions have had.
How much money needs to be spent and how many new voting laws need to be passed to mitigate alien abductions?
How are alien abductions less important than voter fraud?

Right wing sheeples’ kneejerk reactions are killing this Country, and given the evidence at hand, it’s a wonder that they have not yet destroyed Australia.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That's just bullshit. There is no voting fraud problem in the US. Note that that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it;s just that it happens so rarely to be insignificant.
I didn't say there was a 'voting fraud' problem in the US. I did not say there wasn't one. I said there were good reasons to reform voting laws and that reducing voting fraud counts amongst those reasons.

Good point!! Similarly the prohibition against providing drinking water to those waiting hours to vote is necessary: Otherwise the water might be used to resuscitate rabid unicorns, as well as leprechauns or goblins which entered the country without a visa.

At what point does the protection of the power to vote overcome the protection of integrity of the election?

I’m surprised that you ask.
Obviously, at the point where POC become nearly as likely to vote as is the average old white male (me), there has been a tragic breakdown in the power structure that was created with the intent to preserve the primacy and power of old white males (me).
Well, that's the quiet part. I'm trying to point out that the quiet part is all that's left, to expose the true dichotomy here, and make clear that one of those branches is already closed off. But if you just claim that's what it is, all you will get I think is "gaslit".
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,914
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Obviously no Infidel is stupid or a liar. But Metaphor's turnabouts and confused ranting almost tempt me to apply the term "willfully ignorant."

But the truth that Americans know is that “on the ground,” voter supression is happening. It’s been prominent in the news for all those not watching FOX or Breitbart. Some of those Americans have stated the case here, but google will instantly find the reports, including stats, photos, videos and on-the-ground reporting.
Okay luv. I'll just take your word for it. [condescend much?]
The data is there, the malevolent pretend it is not and the ignorant believe them.
We would have to agree on what counts as 'suppression' by race, we would have to look at the data, and then we would have to agree that a particular bill is designed to maintain or worsen that situation.

You've got some heavy lifting to do.
"We would have to look at the data"! Since we are certain that Metaphor is NOT an imbecile or a troll, this statement is baffling. One might almost conclude that Metaphor thinks the people he's arguing with are unfamiliar with the data. Furthermore one gets the impression that Metaphor thinks that data is hard to come by, that he'll have to go back to school and get a few more doctorates before he'll have access to The Data.

The only interpretation I can give to Metaphor's ranting that is even slightly sensical is the sort of argument one might get from a cut-rate lawyer, that "Voter suppression against blacks is not 'Voter suppression against blacks' unless one can point to specific legislation that contains one of a few specific words 'black' or 'African-American'." Voter suppression takes many MANY forms, but obviously none is as unsubtle as that. Even Republicans aren't quite that stupid.

Is that about it, Metaphor? Are we in a game to deduce your peculiar lawyer-like criteria? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

In #134 I linked to three specific articles that focused on just a single one of the GOP's plethora of suppression methods. He'd previously complained that he didn't know how to Google to find the name of the County that now has a single polling station. I could have taught him how to use a search engine, but I went the extra mile and showed him one of the Google hits. On the matter of long queues he confessed again that he didn't know how to use a search engine ("Since I cannot verify anything you are saying") and, again, I went the extra mile and linked to two Google hits. I did NOT editorialize. I just posted the links along with one brief excerpt.

I didn't have great expectations, but I thought a sincere junior high student — if that's what he is — would know how to click a link. Instead Here is the thanks I got:
What I am not happy to do is play idiot games with angry posters with prejudiced ideas and loaded language that begs the question.

Wow! I'm afraid Mr. Metaphor flunks his audition: Even Alex Jones supporters wouldn't fall for this, would they?
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Remember when we were talking about white male rapists and they were all, “not ONE SINGLE innocent white male should lose his civil rights, even if it means thousands of rapists go free. We must not EVAR err on the side of lost rights!”

And now the argument is, it is okay if 1,000,000 (minorities) lose their right to vote, so long as we can say we caught that 1 person who didn’t change their address. (Or that one Republican voting for his dead mother.)

My how the whole argument reverses.

Jarhyn never did get an answer; how many people are you willing to deny their right to vote in order to catch one fraud?
 
Top Bottom