3 ms·

Your speculations about the other party's motives are completely inappropriate to a reasoned discussion.

by jshevek 10y ago

evgen 10y ago
No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here. It was suggested that someone who cannot obtain a voter ID that meets the requirements in many states is somehow now a 'good voter'. It has been shown repeatedly over the past few months that the objective, and consequence, of most of these voter ID laws has been to drive down voting by poor and minority voters. The logical conclusion seems to be that poor and minority voters, who have difficulty obtaining these voter IDs, must not be 'good voter(s)' and perhaps should be 'weed(ed) out' of the voting pool. The question of motive is right there staring us in the face.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here Not at all. I told you what my reasoning was, and you decided that I was lying. That doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith. It may be true that there's a differential in the impact of the rules. But (a) that doesn't mean that rules were secretly crafted for that reason, or (b) that I wouldn't feel the same way about rules having a differential that affected the more affluent to a greater degree. Assuming evil intent on the part of your opponent is a sure-fire way to ensure that you can never reach any common ground.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    Thank you CWuestefeld, for elevating this conversation by being so patient and reasonable.
  - evgen 10y ago
    When several voter ID laws have been shown to be explicitly about disenfranchisement based upon race and poverty (c.f. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) I don't really need to accept your claim of good faith on this issue. You claimed that acquisition of a voter ID is some necessary demonstration of being well-informed or willing to make an investment when in fact the rules WERE crafted specifically to disenfranchise minority voters. Until you address this issue directly there is no common ground to be found and I will happily continue to beat you in court and at the ballot box.

Your speculations about the other party's motives are completely inappropriate to a reasoned discussion.

by jshevek 10y ago

Your speculations about the other party's motives are completely inappropriate to a reasoned discussion.

evgen 10y ago

No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here. It was suggested that someone who cannot obtain a voter ID that meets the requirements in many states is somehow now a 'good voter'. It has been shown repeatedly over the past few months that the objective, and consequence, of most of these voter ID laws has been to drive down voting by poor and minority voters. The logical conclusion seems to be that poor and minority voters, who have difficulty obtaining these voter IDs, must not be 'good voter(s)' and perhaps should be 'weed(ed) out' of the voting pool. The question of motive is right there staring us in the face.

CWuestefeld 10y ago
No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here Not at all. I told you what my reasoning was, and you decided that I was lying. That doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith. It may be true that there's a differential in the impact of the rules. But (a) that doesn't mean that rules were secretly crafted for that reason, or (b) that I wouldn't feel the same way about rules having a differential that affected the more affluent to a greater degree. Assuming evil intent on the part of your opponent is a sure-fire way to ensure that you can never reach any common ground.
- jshevek 10y ago
  Thank you CWuestefeld, for elevating this conversation by being so patient and reasonable.
- evgen 10y ago
  When several voter ID laws have been shown to be explicitly about disenfranchisement based upon race and poverty (c.f. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) I don't really need to accept your claim of good faith on this issue. You claimed that acquisition of a voter ID is some necessary demonstration of being well-informed or willing to make an investment when in fact the rules WERE crafted specifically to disenfranchise minority voters. Until you address this issue directly there is no common ground to be found and I will happily continue to beat you in court and at the ballot box.