4 ms·
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 se
by 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 agoThank you CWuestefeld, for elevating this conversation by being so patient and reasonable.
- evgen 10y agoWhen 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.