McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

[Metaphor]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.