Voter ID Laws Are Not Racist...

[lilpixieofterror]

And ALSO in the EXACT SAME POST, I explicitly said


Do you not understand the concept of ultimately agreeing with a person while also pointing out a logical flaw in a specific argument that he uses?

Your royal highness, how do you prove something isn't born of 'racism' beyond people saying it is not? I always thought the burden of proof often rested in the one making the positive claims, so where is this evidence of racism at? The fact that minorities are slightly less likely to have an ID card is no more evidence of racism then the fact women are slightly less likely to have an ID card is proof of sexism.

Seriously. This stuff is written DIRECTLY in the post that YOU quoted. Zymologist read that same post and correctly understood where I stand on this issue. Why are you and Sparko seemingly utterly incapable of doing so?

When you scream the sky is falling long enough, nobody pays attention to a word you say. You've screamed 'racism' so much, hardly anybody takes you seriously. Perhaps you should stop seeing racism behind every tree, your majesty?

[seer]

The link in your OP specifically mentions "those who think there's a hidden agenda," which implies intent.

Yes, I know what the link said. When I said that no one was speaking of intent, I was speaking of myself - getting into intent was not my goal, but you brought it up. My point was that the law did not prevent minorities from voting, which was what the left said would happen.

[lilpixieofterror]

And who's fault is it if someone doesn't have a valid ID? It's not the government's fault. There is nothing stopping someone from getting an ID card. Heck, you need an ID card for lots of other things besides voting. Like driving, traveling to another country. cashing a check. Opening a bank account. Getting into a bar. Buying alcohol or cigarettes. I don't think you can even get welfare without an ID card. Yet lots of minorities are on welfare. Should all those things stop requiring ID cards too because some people don't have one? Are they all discriminating against minorities?

I know I got an ID card when I turned 18 because my parents thought it was an important thing to have. In fact, the studies that his majesty wants to quote seem to be badly out of date. In the state of Indiana, studies have shown less then 1% of the total voter age population did not have an ID card nor the documents to get one. I would think helping the poor move into the 21st century by getting them these documents would be quite helpful to help them move out of poverty. Guess that isn't allowed...

[fm93]

I think I'm starting to understand how language works in lilpixieofterror's world.

"I think this is racist" = He thinks it's racist
"I DON'T think this is racist" = He thinks it's racist
"Hello" = He thinks it's racist
"3" = He thinks it's racist

This is the only explanation I can think of. How else could I keep explicitly saying that I'm not arguing that something's racist, only for her to keep demanding me to prove that the thing's racist?

[lilpixieofterror]

I think I'm starting to understand how language works in lilpixieofterror's world.

"I think this is racist" = He thinks it's racist
"I DON'T think this is racist" = He thinks it's racist
"Hello" = He thinks it's racist
"3" = He thinks it's racist

This is the only explanation I can think of. How else could I keep explicitly saying that I'm not arguing that something's racist, only for her to keep demanding me to prove that the thing's racist?

And I'm starting to see why most people find your as a waste of time bothering with, your highness and why you can't even read since here is what I said:

"Your royal highness, how do you prove something isn't born of 'racism' beyond people saying it is not?"

Did I say you said it was racism? Nope, you assumed I said that. What I actually asked you is how do you prove something or somebody isn't racist. So if you want to complain about other people being unable to read, I would suggest you first learn how to read before you attempt to attack others for being unable to read.

[fm93]

And I'm starting to see why most people find your as a waste of time bothering with, your highness and why you can't even read since here is what I said:

"Your royal highness, how do you prove something isn't born of 'racism' beyond people saying it is not?"

Did I say you said it was racism? Nope, you assumed I said that. What I actually asked you is how do you prove something or somebody isn't racist. So if you want to complain about other people being unable to read, I would suggest you first learn how to read before you attempt to attack others for being unable to read.

I read it just fine. There really isn't a way to prove that something wasn't borne of racism, as far as I know. I simply give things the benefit of the doubt until it's no longer tenable. Contrary to your accusations, I don't declare that everything is racist or go "looking" for racism around every corner. I'll argue that something is racist ONLY if I find good evidence to believe that it truly is. You, on the other hand, seem to think that racism is nowhere.

Meanwhile, the very next line in your post said "I always thought the burden of proof often rested in the one making the positive claim, so where is this evidence of racism at?" But I'm not making the positive claim that there is racism in this instance, as I've repeatedly said. So you're still bizarrely challenging me on something with which I don't disagree. I have no need to prove anything here.

[lilpixieofterror]

I read it just fine.

Your highness, I know you like to pretend to be a mind reader, but no you didn't.

There really isn't a way to prove that something wasn't borne of racism, as far as I know. I simply give things the benefit of the doubt until it's no longer tenable. Contrary to your accusations, I don't declare that everything is racist or go "looking" for racism around every corner. I'll argue that something is racist ONLY if I find good evidence to believe that it truly is. You, on the other hand, seem to think that racism is nowhere.

Your majesty, if I might tell you a few things of reality, since it gets awfully lonely in that tower of yours:

1. It is the job of somebody making a claim to prove that somebody is, in fact, a racist. Today it seems you are guilty till proved innocent and no matter what evidence is brought up, everybody must secretly be a racist.
2. No I do not believe racism is no where. I think it is often over used to the point that I tend not to believe the charge, until it is proved.

You might want to attempt to mingle with your subjects, you might actually learn how things work outside the walls.

Meanwhile, the very next line in your post said "I always thought the burden of proof often rested in the one making the positive claim, so where is this evidence of racism at?" But I'm not making the positive claim that there is racism in this instance, as I've repeatedly said. So you're still bizarrely challenging me on something with which I don't disagree. I have no need to prove anything here.

So what was your point of jumping into this conversation here your majesty? Did you just want to say something and run off or did you not even want to bother to defend your premise with? Do you agree or disagree with the general logic that it is up to the one charging racism, that somebody is really a racist or do you take the more guilty till proved innocent approach that much of the modern media has chosen to take?

[fm93]

Hell, this is unbelievable.

I specifically said I give things the benefit of the doubt, and that I argue that racism exists somewhere only if evidence supports it. That IS the innocent-until-proven-guilty approach. I posted in this thread ONLY because I wanted to address a perceived logical flaw in the OP. That's all it is.

[lilpixieofterror]

Hell, this is unbelievable.

Indeed your highness, it is really unbelievable that you attack others for not being able to read, while showing you can't read yourself.

I specifically said I give things the benefit of the doubt, and that I argue that racism exists somewhere only if evidence supports it. That IS the innocent-until-proven-guilty approach. I posted in this thread ONLY because I wanted to address a perceived logical flaw in the OP. That's all it is.

You haven't actually shown the logic is even flawed.

[fm93]

I didn't misread anything in this thread. Meanwhile, Zymologist correctly read my position in this thread. He and Spartacus correctly read my position in the white privilege thread. They understood me just fine. It seems that only you and Sparko have frequent utter lapses in comprehension.

[lilpixieofterror]

I didn't misread anything in this thread.

Of course you didn't, your majesty because you can read minds and automatically know what a person said better than what they said.

Meanwhile, Zymologist correctly read my position in this thread. He and Spartacus correctly read my position in the white privilege thread. They understood me just fine. It seems that only you and Sparko have frequent utter lapses in comprehension.

Irony at it's finest. Is your goal, your majesty, to make yourself look like you know everything? Might I humbly suggest that it usually helps if you actually do know something? Just trying to help.

[T-Shirt Ninja]

I really don't understand how people can be against voter ID laws with the exception of wanting to keep voter fraud in place for their own party's benefits. Back in the early 2000's Alabama mandated voter ID and it cut down on a lot of voter fraud. Where I live you can get a voter ID card for free so people who want to vote but can't because of "voter ID" really have no excuse.

[Joel]

I think the argument is that the laws were passed specifically to keep minorities down, which by definition would qualify as institutional racism.

Zymologist makes the excellent point that the same argument would equally show that carding for alcohol is institutional racism.

It's not that easy for some people to obtain ID. But either way, there are ultimately people who for whatever reason haven't obtained ID by Election Day, which means that they're prohibited from exercising what should be a constitutional right.

It seems that argument doesn't work because people are already required to register to vote. Thus equally there are ultimately people who for whatever reason haven't registered to vote by election day, which means that they're "prohibited from exercising what should be a constitutional right". If it's an argument against IDs then it's an argument against voter registration too.