FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com - Latest comments on Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

Burr Deming [Member] — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:12:35 +0000

Thank you, JMyste

Interesting that you find the question too complex to answer.

It is actually easy.

Simply consult your conscience to see why you would oppose past efforts to keep minority voters from casting ballots.

Try focusing on literacy tests, since that has been discredited as a subterfuge.

See if any reason for opposing that earlier attempt to keep minorities from voting would not apply to the current set of attempts.

My guess is you could count the the moral distinctions between the two using only the fingers on one of your elbows.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

JMyste [Visitor] — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:23:40 +0000

I made no effort to validate your fallacy of complex question. I asked that you discuss one topic at a time. If I allow you to intermix unrelated things, they you will you will attempt to use this rhetorical tactic to gain traction on the mixture and the whole discussion becomes a thicket of misdirection. I simply choose to deny you this path, as my opinion stands on its own and has nothing to do with my supposed opinion about other things, be they literacy tests or my favorite breakfast cereal.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

Burr Deming [Member] — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:59:18 +0000

Thank you JMyste.

I ask you what moral difference you see between the two situations. You answer that you see a difference. You decline to say what it is, except that the question is actually two questions.

The possibility does occur to me that you are unable to articulate a moral difference because there is none.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

JMyste [Visitor] — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:49:17 +0000

“But, since they were also designed to keep minority voters from casting ballots, and since that tactic in the cause of vote denial has been pretty much discredited, I am interested in what moral distinction you see between that and its modern counterpart.”

I consider these two separate questions that should be addressed separately, and have been addressed separately. Trying to prove that we should not have literacy tests offers arguments that are irrelevant to the question at hand.

“Back during that struggle, would you have amiably agreed that literacy was a legitimate and rational demand because everyone should be in favor of education, as long as conservatives controlling state voting machinery generously offered tutoring?”

I have not a thought enough about the literacy question. It does bother me that most people who vote, which is to say offer an answer, don’t understand the question.

“Would you have seen it as a narrow partisan issue?”

I see this has a partisan issue.

“Would you have reacted with self-described resentment toward those who did see it as a moral issue?”

Probably not, as I am not resentful now. Shall we also discuss how I feel about blacks in barber shops owned by whites who don’t want them there? It seems somehow related to you, doesn’t it?

“Would you later protest in all innocence that you were on the side of voting rights all along?”

My very first commentary about Voter IDs at Fair and Unbalanced blatantly stated my position. I know you remember this, so I must assume that you are prevaricating to be persuasive.

Here is what I said in January on your site:

“I am not in favor of Voter IDs because it is a political question and the politics works against me. However, I also am not going to act as if the suggestion is absurd or that the argument in favor of it is fallacious. Neither of those is true.”

http://fairandunbalanced.com/blog1.php/2012/01/16/photo-ids-as-a-method-of-voter-restricti#c7334

Just because you don’t agree with something does not mean you have to embrace every fallacious argument in rebuttal to it. When you do this, it discredits your logical arguments as well in the eyes of your philosophical opponents. It is human nature. A Philosophical opponent will remember your worst argument as your main argument, just as a philosophical ally will more readily remember your best argument.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

Burr Deming [Member] — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:06:56 +0000

Thank you for playing along with the fallacy, JMyste.

I am aware that you have not discussed the literacy requirements of long ago. But, since they were also designed to keep minority voters from casting ballots, and since that tactic in the cause of vote denial has been pretty much discredited, I am interested in what moral distinction you see between that and its modern counterpart.

I'm recalling arguments you have made here and I wonder if some historical consistency would have applied decades ago.

Back during that struggle, would you have amiably agreed that literacy was a legitimate and rational demand because everyone should be in favor of education, as long as conservatives controlling state voting machinery generously offered tutoring?

Would you have seen it as a narrow partisan issue, devoid of any moral value? Would you have reacted with self-described resentment toward those who did see it as a moral issue?

Would you have been in favor of voting rights for minority voters only because you want liberals to win? Would you therefore have cheerfully acknowledged that, had you been a conservative, you also would have wanted to keep legitimate voters away from the ballot box, and that there was nothing wrong with that position?

Would you later protest in all innocence that you were on the side of voting rights all along?

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

JMyste [Visitor] — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:57:34 +0000

"You may want to explain which of your proofs for the sensibility of restrictive voter photo ID laws would not apply to the literacy tests that were also designed to hold minority voters from casting ballots."

Fallacy of complex question, but thanks for playing. I have not discussed literacy tests, but if you care to write a post about this new topic, I will happily do so.

"You might also want to explain why those legitimate voters who don't drive and don't have photo IDs should not be allowed to show alternate proof of identity."

You mistakenly belief that I have sided with the conservatives on this issue. I made no such claim. I merely said the suggestion was rational.

If we did have this requirement, though, the government should make sure that those who are unable to get a photo ID or to drive, and barely have the exact amount of energy needed to cast a vote, are assisted in acquiring this ID. In fact, I support this anyway, even without the voter fraud question.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

Burr Deming [Member] — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:16:03 +0000

Thank you, JMyste.

You may want to explain which of your proofs for the sensibility of restrictive voter photo ID laws would not apply to the literacy tests that were also designed to hold minority voters from casting ballots.

You might also want to explain why those legitimate voters who don't drive and don't have photo IDs should not be allowed to show alternate proof of identity.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

JMyste [Visitor] — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:08:08 +0000

I have been swamped and have not had time to read Ryan’s article, but it is not only cute, but sensible. Anyone who can manage to vote could manage to have government assisted help getting a PHOTO ID.

The conservative position is in no way irrational, even if it is politically motivated. In an ideal world, you should have to present a photo ID to vote, as you do for many other important things. This is a “potential” problem, and it is a real problem because of the political discussion around it.

As for the speculation of our most venerable Infidel, I have not seen what he says. Thus far, the more the GOP heads toward the deep end, the more traction they gain. Romney is now campaigning with deep end closely by his side. I do admit that this election will be truly telling.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

Burr Deming [Member] — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:02:53 +0000

Thank you, Heathen. Let me know when you figure it out. I'd like to know myself. If you develop a preference, feel free to send a note. I'll do my best.

It isn't easy with you. Your work presents a bit of a weekly problem.

You combine brief reprisals of quotes or analyses you find, usually interesting finds, with your own reduction of complex issues into understandable pieces.

I recognize that taking some dry topic and summarizing it into an analysis that is an entertaining and informative case for a viewpoint requires work and a finely honed talent. I admire your ability.

I'd rather focus on the longer pieces, the ones in which you invest the most thought, but taking a complex topic that has been so ably reduced to something comprehensible, then summarizing that summary into another summary of only a few sentences is a mess-o-work for a mushy headed liberal.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

The Heathen Republican [Visitor] — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:02:36 +0000

By the way Burr, I have a new game I play with myself each week. Since I write three original posts per week, I try to predict which one you'll feature.

I don't think I've been right yet.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

Burr Deming [Member] — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:02:49 +0000

Thank you, Ryan.

You are correct. It would be unreasonable to assume that every Republican wants to deny valid non-photo IDs in the effort to deny the voting rights of those who might vote against them.

I cannot speak to Heathen's motivation or your belief in him.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

Ryan [Visitor] — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:14:09 +0000

"His presumption of conservative good faith is kind of cute, don't you think?"

My position requires no presumption. If they have no interest in compensating for the harm of stricter laws, then I do not support them. Whether or not they do is another question.

Bear in mind, however, that Republican politicians in Ohio are not Republicans as a whole. I believe HR when he says that he does not wish to reduce the Democrat vote.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

Burr Deming [Member] — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:00:17 +0000

Thank you for your comment Heathen.

Perhaps I was misled by your phraseology. Something about the tax burden going from the poor to the wealthy and the middle class? It must have meant something beyond the words themselves.

Your clarification is appreciated.

In response to: Murrow, Secret to War on Women, Handsome Mitt, Taxes

The Heathen Republican [Visitor] — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:35:35 +0000

Burr, since you think I claimed A) the poor are the enemy of the middle class and B) the rich are tapped out, I can only conclude that you did not read my post. Of course, I made no such claims.

You can read a more detailed rebuttal in the comments here: http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2012/08/an-income-tax-tipping-point.html.