Systematic Issues

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Rockydonovang
This is to shed a light on the uncovered systematic issues we ignore like our criminal justice system, largely segregated school system, environmental discrimination, voter suppression, gentrification, ect.

My thoughts here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=647480&pagenumber=13

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=647480&pagenumber=14

Discuss

Surtur
What specific issues come to mind for criminal justice? And what sort of acts do you consider voter suppression?

Emperordmb
I mean I'll agree with him on criminal justice to an extent, at least in the sense of the fact that our prison environments are pretty cruel and inhumane, and that private prisons are terrible given the private prison lobby they generate.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
What specific issues come to mind for criminal justice?
-> putting people in jail for acts that don't violate other people's rights

-> people committing minor crimes having it put in their permanent record making it near impossible to get a jon

-> not allowing ex-convicts to vote

-> for profit privately owned prisons

-> utilizing prisoners for unpaid labor, aka, slavery

-> focusing on punishment rather than rehabilitation
Originally posted by Surtur
And what sort of acts do you consider voter suppression?
-> adding requirements that lower voter turnout despite there being no evidence of widespread voter fraud

-> removing the number of places people can vote in crowded cities making it more difficult to vote

-> curtailing early voting

-> rezoning so that poor neiborhoods are given a disproportionately small amount of representation in local governments

Also, doesn't really count as voter suppression, but us not making election day a national holiday is the pinnacle of stupidity.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I'll agree with him on criminal justice to an extent, at least in the sense of the fact that our prison environments are pretty cruel and inhumane, and that private prisons are terrible given the private prison lobby they generate.
You seem to have issues with school intergration.

Should we continue the discussion we had on gh or nah?

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I'll agree with him on criminal justice to an extent, at least in the sense of the fact that our prison environments are pretty cruel and inhumane, and that private prisons are terrible given the private prison lobby they generate.

There are other issues too, especially just overall with our justice system. Far too often we see wealth can be a factor when it comes to getting away with things. That happens both in shady and non shady ways. The non shady way is just the fact that someone who can't afford a good lawyer is at a huge disadvantage. There are also disparities in sentencing. Men are far more likely to receive a harsher sentence than a woman for the same crime. Even when it comes to just being charged for a crime...women who are arrested are less likely to be charged compared to men.

Also I feel that there are crimes that warrant a minimum sentence and yet either do not have one or do not have an adequate one. IMO rape should get you a minimum of 10 years.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> adding requirements that lower voter turnout despite there being no evidence of widespread voter fraud

-> removing the number of places people can vote in crowded cities making it more difficult to vote

-> curtailing early voting

-> rezoning so that poor neiborhoods are given a disproportionately small amount of representation in local governments

Also, doesn't really count as voter suppression, but us not making election day a national holiday is the pinnacle of stupidity.

Would you say that requiring someone to have an id to vote is voter suppression?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
Would you say that requiring someone to have an id to vote is voter suppression?
As it reduces voter turnout, then it is, by definition, voter suppression.

The main issue of course is there's no evidence to suggest there's any widespread fraud so you're lowering the amount of voters while failing to address significant issues.

Now if, there was widespread voter fraud, them there's be legitimate cause for voter suppression here

Regardless, of your stance on this, do you disagree with any of my other examples as being sumb policy?

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
As it reduces voter turnout, then it is, by definition, voter suppression.

The main issue of course is there's no evidence to suggest there's any widespread fraud so you're lowering the amount of voters while failing to address significant issues.

Now if, there was widespread voter fraud, them there's be legitimate cause for voter suppression here

Regardless, of your stance on this, do you disagree with any of my other examples as being sumb policy?

I agree the other stuff is dumb, but let me rephrase my other question then: do you think requiring someone to have an id to vote is bad?

Rockydonovang
As for criminal justice, I should also add our fcked up bail system.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
I agree the other stuff is dumb, but let me rephrase my other question then: do you think requiring someone to have an id to vote is bad? Yes, because it reduces voter turnout and there's no evidence it's stopping anything.

In other words, it's an ineffective policy with greater negatives than positives.

Emperordmb
Dude, that is so ****ing retarded. Of course you should have proof of identification to vote.

Rockydonovang
Uh, no, it's retarded to reduce voter turnout for a policy meant to weed out voter fraud when there's only been 31 cases of voter fraud since 2000.

There's no way you can frame this into an issue of morality here. The only possible justification for a policy that reduces turnout is that it solves a problem.

We already have other ways to check them that don't reduce voter turnout like id does

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Dude, that is so ****ing retarded. Of course you should have proof of identification to vote. I pretty much agree. It's insane that you would need ID to buy cigarettes or booze but not to vote. How exactly do they prevent minors/illegal immigrants/unregistered/felons from voting if there is no proof of identity required?

Surtur
I don't see it is as wrong to require an ID to vote. An ID is required to do lots of things in this country.

I support making it easier for people to obtain proper identification.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see it is as wrong to require an ID to vote. An ID is required to do lots of things in this country.

I support making it easier for people to obtain proper identification. This issue will be fixed in the future when they start micro-chipping us all at birth.

Surtur
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I pretty much agree. It's insane that you would need ID to buy cigarettes or booze but not to vote. How exactly do they prevent minors/illegal immigrants/unregistered/felons from voting if there is no proof of identity required?

The other day I had to show an ID in order to purchase cough medicine lol.

Afro Cheese
That's cause naughty children use it to get wasted.

Surtur
And I am pretty sure ID is needed if you want to get any sort of welfare.

Afro Cheese
Honestly I feel like I would rather up the standard for who can vote and have some sort of aptitude test. And I'd like that test to be at least hard enough that I wouldn't be able to pass it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Honestly I feel like I would rather up the standard for who can vote and have some sort of aptitude test. And I'd like that test to be at least hard enough that I wouldn't be able to pass it.

There is a lot of pointless voting going on as well. Off the top of your head...can you name any judges where you live? I can't, and I'd say that is the same for most people.

They give you pages and pages of names of judges to vote "yes" or "no" on. I would think some 98% of people have never heard of the judges and have no idea what kind of rulings they have made.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see it is as wrong to require an ID to vote. An ID is required to do lots of things in this country.

I support making it easier for people to obtain proper identification.
This isn't an issue about what's "morally wrong". This is simply an issue on whether the policy does more good than harm.

Voter ID laws reduce voter turnout by thousands. There's only been 31 cases of voter fraud in 16 years.

It's doing a lot more harm than good and hence is an ineffective and bad policy.

Again, states that don't use this policy still have ways of checking voters. It's just these methods significantly increase turnout and there's no evidence it's resulting in any degree of significantly greater voter fraud.

Afro Cheese
That is assuming that reducing voter turnout is inherently negative. If you can't even manage to get an ID then maybe you don't have your shit together enough for America to value your political insight tbh.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Again, states that don't use this policy still have ways of checking voters. It's just these methods significantly increase turnout and there's no evidence it's resulting in any degree of significantly greater voter fraud. Wait... what other ways do they use to check voters... alternative forms of identification? I thought we were discussing whether proof of identity should be required at all.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Surtur
There is a lot of pointless voting going on as well. Off the top of your head...can you name any judges where you live? I can't, and I'd say that is the same for most people.

They give you pages and pages of names of judges to vote "yes" or "no" on. I would think some 98% of people have never heard of the judges and have no idea what kind of rulings they have made. This is my main problem with democracy. We are leaning on the wisdom of the mob. Yet the vast majority of people are utterly unqualified to make any serious policy prescriptions concerning most/alot of the very complex issues that dominate American politics.

Like does the cashier at Walmart really have great insight on what our foreign policy should be? I know that sounds elitist as ****... but as I indicated earlier I count myself among the crowd of people who's input is probably not worthwhile/necessary in many many cases. The judge thing you mentioned is a perfect example of an area where I would be virtually clueless. Yet if I take the time to stand in line and vote for president, I'm probably going to fill the whole ballot out regardless.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
That is assuming that reducing voter turnout is inherently negative. If you can't even manage to get an ID then maybe you don't have your shit together enough for America to value your political insight tbh.
LMAO, yes, less people participating in the activity that our form of government is fundamentally based on is always a bad thing.

But hey, let's play this game; "If you're passionate enough to vote despite the act potentially endangering your livelihood, your political insight should be valued!".


The government doesn't have any business basing policy over whose political insight they consider valuable. A democratic government is obligated to enact policy that results in the largest voter turnout.

You're also acting as if voter ID is easy to get for everyone, it isn't.

For one thing, applying for voter ID, costs money.

So already there's a huge red flag with a policy here that potentially prevents people from voting on the basis of how much money they make.

And this has some seriously negative repercussions. If those so impoverished aren't represented in out democracy, then there's little hope of their needs being addressed.

Not to mention voter ID laws also burden the disabled, young people, ect.

There's no grounds to argue this is good policy.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
LMAO, yes, less people participating in the activity that our form of government is fundamentally based on is always a bad thing.

But hey, let's play this game; "If you're passionate enough to vote despite the act potentially endangering your livelihood, your political insight should be valued!".Hm... while we're taking the logic to the extreme in order to make it seem absurd, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering this question?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Wait... what other ways do they use to check voters... alternative forms of identification? I thought we were discussing whether proof of identity should be required at all.

Because I'm assuming these "other ways" involve some form of documentation proving your identity. Which then, also, would exclude the people who don't have said documents for whatever reason. And by your logic, this is an inherently bad thing as well. So why should ANY proof of identity be required to vote?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Hm... while we're taking the logic to the extreme in order to make it seem absurd, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering this question?

That's how fundamental principles work. You don't drop them when it's convenient, they have to be applied universally and can't be dropped because of some "end justifies the means bullsh!t".
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Because I'm assuming these "other ways" involve some form of documentation proving your identity. Which then, also, would exclude the people who don't have said documents for whatever reason. And by your logic, this is an inherently bad thing as well. So why should ANY proof of identity be required to vote? They're less strict and easier, though yes, I don't see the point of voter identification when there's only been about 31 cases of credible allegations regarding voter fraud out of more than a billion votes casted, and the requirement takes thousands out of our democratic process, many on utterly unacceptable grounds, like it not being financially feasible to get a birth certificate.

It's pretty simple math, thousands of people vs an amount not even closing in on a hundred.

Also, so it's clear I'm not just making sh!t up, I'll source my numbers.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Rockydonovang
Oh and here's fox news on the matter:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud.html

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That's how fundamental principles work. You don't drop them when it's convenient, they have to be applied universally and can't be dropped because of some "end justifies the means bullsh!t".
They're less strict and easier, though yes, I don't see the point of voter identification when there's only been about 31 cases of credible allegations regarding voter fraud out of more than a billion votes casted, and the requirement takes thousands out of our democratic process, many on utterly unacceptable grounds, like it not being financially feasible to get a birth certificate.

It's pretty simple math, thousands of people vs an amount not even closing in on a hundred.

Also, so it's clear I'm not just making sh!t up, I'll source my numbers.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet So you're saying you don't think any form of identification/verification of identity should be required to vote?

I should also add this:

does not answer the question I asked. Do you not know, or what?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Afro Cheese

does not answer the question I asked. Do you not know, or what?
Here:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-verification-without-id-documents.aspx

And yes, I don't think there's a point to reducing voter turnout to address a virtually non-existent problem. The only way you can consider this a good policy is if you think the government should make policy with the intent of getting the people they want voting to vote which more or less defeats the purpose of democracy, that people hold politicians accountable, not that politicians get to decide who holds them accountable.

Afro Cheese
No, there is also the fact that if you aren't verifying who is voting then anyone could vote. Including people who are not citizens or legally eligible to vote. You can keep touting that it's a non-existent problem, but like you said yourself principals are principals. It seems to me that having a basic standard of identity verification to vote is a reasonable principal to have, considering there are some people who we quite literally do not want to allow to vote.

So I checked your source. Here's what it says:

This just seems like no verification at all. A signature? Biographical information? That's ghetto as ****. How exactly is it they verify the person who is signing/claiming to be who they say they are is legit?

Afro Cheese
And honestly... you need an ID to get a job, rent an apartment, open a bank account, etc. How is it all these people without IDs are getting by in the first place? This is what I meant when I said they don't really seem to have their shit together.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
And honestly... you need an ID to get a job, rent an apartment, open a bank account, etc. How is it all these people without IDs are getting by in the first place? This is what I meant when I said they don't really seem to have their shit together.
Again, if the people who don't have their sh!t together don't have a voice, then we're going to be ignoring their needs by restricting them from voting.

And again, this is an "ends justify the means" approach to sh!t. You're undermining the very principle you're seeking to improve with a lack of voter fraud.

Yeah, policies that restrict freedoms aren't based on principle, they are based on pragmatic effects. A democracy being clean of fraud is not a principle, it's part of an ideal version of the democratic process which remains fundamentally based on as many people as possible having a voice.

And frankly, even if you're going to frame this as the choice between two equally valuable principles, there's one principle which is being affected way more than another. Not to mention that voter id is an active action that's restricting a principle, where as a lack of voter ID is simply maintaining the democratic process our nation inherently has, so it's not really restricting anything as much as it's preserving the fundamental basis of democracy.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It seems to me that having a basic standard of identity verification to vote is a reasonable principal to have, considering there are some people who we quite literally do not want to allow to vote.

It's not a principle, it's an improvement which is self defeating if it ends up undermining the process it's supposed to be improving.

ArtificialGlory
As a European, having a form of identification in order to vote is perfectly normal and logical.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
As a European, having a form of identification in order to vote is perfectly normal and logical.
-> Lowers voter turnout by thousands
-> Addresses a non existent issue

How is that logical?

ArtificialGlory

Rockydonovang
31 cases of fraud(most based on technical errors rather than the intent to deceive) out of a billion votes isn't a serious issue.

There is no logical basis for voter ID laws.

ArtificialGlory

Stigma
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Dude, that is so ****ing retarded. Of course you should have proof of identification to vote.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I pretty much agree. It's insane that you would need ID to buy cigarettes or booze but not to vote. How exactly do they prevent minors/illegal immigrants/unregistered/felons from voting if there is no proof of identity required?
thumb up

Rockydonovang
Neither of those responses actually justify why we're reducing voter turnout by the thousands when there's no evidence of voter fraud even reaching the hundreds.

It's just a lazy way to dance around the fact that voter id laws do more bad than good and hence are bad policy.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Neither of those responses actually justify why we're reducing voter turnout by the thousands when there's no evidence of voter fraud even reaching the hundreds.

It's just a lazy way to dance around the fact that voter id laws do more bad than good and hence are bad policy.
Well, I would like to see actual statistics on the matter instead of the obviously bogus, utopian statistic of 31 cases in 17 years.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Well, I would like to see actual statistics on the matter instead of the obviously bogus, utopian statistic of 31 cases in 17 years.
I linked you to actual stats.

ArtificialGlory

Rockydonovang
"Obviously nonsensical" is an appeal to incredulity. Unless you have legitimate gripes with the source, methodology, or contradictory evidence, you're baselessly disregarding sh!t.

It's not like illegals or non citizens are likely to risk their entire livelihoods just to put a single vote out of thousands.

I'm aware off course, that not all voter fraud would be caught, however, but that doesn't make the evidence we found "Obviously nonsencial".

As it is, If you're going to put a restriction that reduces the amount of people who participate in our democratic evidence, you need evidence that restriction is actually doing something.

That Evidence remains wholly absent and hence this law has no justification for it's existence.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"Obviously nonsensical" is an appeal to incredulity. Unless you have legitimate gripes with the source, methodology, or contradictory evidence, you're baselessly disregarding sh!t.
Well yeah, the stats are quite incredible. Incredible to the point of being absurd, actually.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Well yeah, the stats are quite incredible. Incredible to the point of being absurd, actually.

ArtificialGlory

ArtificialGlory
I should also add that in most US states, voting works on what is basically an honour system(terrifying, if you ask me) which makes voter fraud incredibly easy to commit and incredibly hard to detect and/or account for.

Stigma
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Neither of those responses actually justify why we're reducing voter turnout by the thousands when there's no evidence of voter fraud even reaching the hundreds.

It's just a lazy way to dance around the fact that voter id laws do more bad than good and hence are bad policy.
Let's make it simple. Can you tell me this:

Should I, as a Polish citizen, be able to vote in American elections?

Stigma
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Well yeah, the stats are quite incredible. Incredible to the point of being absurd, actually.
Actually I remember reading the stats that are very different.

Voter fraud in the US in 2008 was supposedly estimated much, much higher, even possibly in millions..


EDIT:

here we go:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

ArtificialGlory
The 5.7 million figure was debunked multiple times. It's just another extreme.

Stigma
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The 5.7 million figure was debunked multiple times. It's just another extreme.
I see. I may very well agree.


The point is, however, that we have two absurdities (31 cases or over 5 million) that describe the same issue. Clearly the disparacy cannot come just from research methods, but rather from bias.

In this case my suspicion is that this is a highly politicized issue and researches who lean to the either side will not be entirely impartial and would come up with numbers that they prefer.

Basically, to quote Samuel L. Jackson, "they will find a link (or not) because they were payed to do so".


My (and yours) point stands. On a logical level one cannot defend the notion of not showing your ID in a national election. thumb up

ArtificialGlory
Indeed. And as for your other point on whether you should be able to vote in American elections: no, but it would be almost trivially easy for you to do so if you were in the US during an election.

Stigma
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Indeed. And as for your other point on whether you should be able to vote in American elections: no, but it would be almost trivially easy for you to do so if you were in the US during an election.
Agreed.

I actually was in the US in November 2012. Probably should have voted just to troll supporters of *no ID required* nonsense stick out tongue

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Stigma
I see. I may very well agree.


The point is, however, that we have two absurdities (31 cases or over 5 million) that describe the same issue. Clearly the disparacy cannot come just from research methods, but rather from bias.

Uh, yea, false equivalency. One was debunked, the other wasn't.

Originally posted by Stigma
My (and yours) point stands. On a logical level one cannot defend the notion of not showing your ID in a national election. thumb up
Uh, no, you can only make a claim for logic here when you've provided some evidence that there's widespread voter fraud.

And there really is no moral way you can justify people being unable to vote on the basis of a lack of sufficient finances to pay for the sh!t you need to submit for an ID.

But hey, let's undermine the very basis of democracy for your unsubstantiated witch hunt.

ArtificialGlory
Actually, if we're talking about the study done by WaPo, then it wasn't thoroughly debunked. Here's their rebuttal to the debunkers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/11/02/do-non-citizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-a-reply-to-our-critics/?utm_term=.76003e1a0758

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Actually, if we're talking about the study done by WaPo, then it wasn't thoroughly debunked. Here's their rebuttal to the debunkers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/11/02/do-non-citizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-a-reply-to-our-critics/?utm_term=.76003e1a0758
It won't let me read without subscribing

Surtur
Get an ID, it's not suppression, just common sense. Get one. Don't whine. You aren't being suppressed from driving a car or buying booze either.

Or better yet, Rocky: describe to me the methods of attaining an ID and why you think it is too much to ask these people to get one. What part of the process is too much. Let us remove transportation, like if they can't just go to wherever they need to go to get it. We will remove that excuse, because Dems have no problem using a bus to get these people to the polls, so transportation is no excuse.

Go step by step about the process and enlighten us as to where the roadblocks come in.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Again, if the people who don't have their sh!t together don't have a voice, then we're going to be ignoring their needs by restricting them from voting.

And again, this is an "ends justify the means" approach to sh!t. You're undermining the very principle you're seeking to improve with a lack of voter fraud.

Yeah, policies that restrict freedoms aren't based on principle, they are based on pragmatic effects. A democracy being clean of fraud is not a principle, it's part of an ideal version of the democratic process which remains fundamentally based on as many people as possible having a voice.

And frankly, even if you're going to frame this as the choice between two equally valuable principles, there's one principle which is being affected way more than another. Not to mention that voter id is an active action that's restricting a principle, where as a lack of voter ID is simply maintaining the democratic process our nation inherently has, so it's not really restricting anything as much as it's preserving the fundamental basis of democracy.

It's not a principle, it's an improvement which is self defeating if it ends up undermining the process it's supposed to be improving. You're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you ridicule "pragmatic" reasons for having a rule, and then on the other hand you use the supposed fact that voter fraud is uncommon to justify nixing any and all security/identity verification measures. That's an argument based entirely on pragmatism.

There is no "principle" that you are arguing in favor of, other than the idea that more votes = better for democracy. But this ceases to be true if some of the votes are coming from people who aren't supposed to vote. And if you are arguing that we shouldn't have any way to ensure that this doesn't happen, then you are essentially arguing that you are in fact in favor of illegals, children, etc voting. And you're in favor of citizens voting at multiple voting stations.

It's like if a particular club has only had a few isolated cases of minors trying to get in, then you argue that we should just get rid of the necessity of ID altogether and then pretend that this doesn't in fact increase the probability that minors will be served. Essentially, you are the one arguing for an "idealized" version of democracy while ignoring the very real potential side effects of adopting such a system. Entirely illogical and emotion based argument, tbh.

If there are people out there who have really serious trouble getting an ID (a state ID costs about 10 dollars in this state...) then the solution would be to help them get IDs, if we really want them to vote. And that would help them more than just letting them vote without one, because as has been mentioned numerous times IDs are incredibly important and useful to have these days. And this would still help ensure that it's only citizens that are actually eligible to vote who would be voting.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Surtur
Get an ID, it's not suppression, just common sense. Get one. Don't whine. You aren't being suppressed from driving a car or buying booze either.
Exactly. Now, one might say "but voting is a right and transport and booze aren't." But owning a gun is also a right. Nobody in their right mind wants to hand out guns without ID.

Surtur
I say let us go by a step by step breakdown. Identify which part of the process of getting an ID is apparently going to cause problems.

Afro Cheese
When I had to get an ID I needed 2 forms of documentation. Birth Certificate and SS card are most common but there are alternatives. It can be sort of a pain for me to get a Birth Certificate because I was born in Jersey. So it takes a month or so. Aside from that, as long as you have documentation proving who you are (which, in this day and age everyone should have) and the 10 dollars or whatever they charge in your state, getting an ID is simple as ****. The worst part about it is having to go to the DMV.

I could see certain elderly/immobile types having an issue maybe. But like you and I both mentioned an outreach program to help them get ID is a better solution than just nixing the requirement for ID.

Surtur
No doubt Rocky is going to explain the harrowing process of getting an ID.

I hear you need to travel through a haunted forest full of giant spiders just to get there.

Rockydonovang
There are people in this country who can't afford to pay the money it involves to get an ID, hence voter ID restrictions are denying people the right to vote based on how much money they have. Doing this when you don't even have any evidence there's an issue your restrictions are addressing is both a betrayal of democratic principle and utterly stupid policy.

You are aware there are people who don't even have enough money to eat? Should we disenfranchise them so that the only people who have a voice are those who wouldn't understand their struggle?

Also, totally ignoring that it costs a hundred plus for people to get birth certificates, which again, some people in this country can't afford.


There's a reason this equivalency you're trying to force is a sh!t one.

Hint: There's something here which has the capacity to directly kill other people.

Surtur
How much does an ID cost? If it's only 10 bucks, naw, not an excuse. Major elections happen every 4 years. Save up 3 bucks a year, boom 2 extra g's.

If you can't come up with that...voting is the LEAST of your problems! Why are you worried about voting when you can't afford a $10 item?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
How much does an ID cost? If it's only 10 bucks, naw, not an excuse. Major elections happen every 4 years. Save up 3 bucks a year, boom 2 extra g's.

It can cost hundred plus to get documentation you need to apply for a voting id.
Originally posted by Surtur
If you can't come up with that...voting is the LEAST of your problems! Why are you worried about voting when you can't afford a $10 item?
Because maybe, you feel that that the politcians in office are enacting policies which are making it very hard for you to fcking survive. And maybe, if people who feel hurt by federal policies that hurt them could vote for people less likely to enact them, then maybe they have a better chance at getting out of their current situation.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It can cost hundred plus to get documentation you need to apply for a voting id.

Because maybe, you feel that that the politcians in office are enacting policies which are making it very hard for you to fcking survive. And maybe, if people who feel hurt by federal policies that hurt them could vote for people less likely to enact them, then maybe they have a better chance at getting out of their current situation.

So a state ID would NOT work, this is what you're saying? I just looked up the price for that. So you are officially saying a state ID would not be valid to vote, correct?

In my state, it's 10 for under 18, and 20 bucks for over 18. You are flat out stating this would not be considered enough to vote?

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
There are people in this country who can't afford to pay the money it involves to get an ID, hence voter ID restrictions are denying people the right to vote based on how much money they have.

Doing this when you don't even have any evidence there's an issue your restrictions are addressing is both a betrayal of democratic principle and utterly stupid policy.You keep assuming nobody would abuse the system if you don't have any verification process, but this is a baseless assumption. First, you are going to be more likely to have someone who's not supposed to vote try to vote if there is no verification process because they will know there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Second, if you just let people vote without knowing who they are it would probably still appear that there is no voter fraud going on because there's literally no way to catch them doing so.

Exactly what is a politician going to do about that? You sound out of touch as **** tbh. There are extremely destitute people out there, yes. Most of the time there are much more immediate causes for this: they have a disability/mental illness, they have a substance abuse problem, they have a hard time finding work, etc. I think the more likely way to fix their problems involves a change in the way they live their own lives than some federal policy which is going to save them from above.

You could say there are people who live in remote areas and can't afford the gas to get to the polling station as well. Reality has a way of "discriminating" against such a person from being able to do a wide variety of things.

You don't need a Birth certificate, that's just one of the more common forms of documentation. And it cost me like 30 dollars to get mine (from out of state as well).


My point was that just because something is a "right" doesn't mean there can be no restrictions placed on it.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Surtur
So a state ID would NOT work, this is what you're saying? I just looked up the price for that. So you are officially saying a state ID would not be valid to vote, correct?

In my state, it's 10 for under 18, and 20 bucks for over 18. You are flat out stating this would not be considered enough to vote? He keeps oscillating between arguing against a specific "voter ID" and just having the basic requirement of some form of ID to vote.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
So a state ID would NOT work, this is what you're saying? I just looked up the price for that. So you are officially saying a state ID would not be valid to vote, correct?

In my state, it's 10 for under 18, and 20 bucks for over 18. You are flat out stating this would not be considered enough to vote?
Again, you need documentation that costs hundreds of bucks to qualify for those ID's.

Afro Cheese
You really don't.

Rockydonovang
Admittedly I should have said around a hundred but the point stands, you are literally preventing some people from voting based on their financial situation.

And again, that's not the only thing that contributing to tens of thousands of people not voting(per state) on the basis of restrictions which we have no proof are doing anything:
Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points,4 which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.5

There's also

And

Afro Cheese
I dunno where they are getting those estimates from. As I said I got my Birth Certificate for around 30 bucks and that was the most expensive part of the process. A SS card is actually free.

But honestly, from the beginning this argument has been about whether or not proof of identity should be required to vote. So I am open to the idea that it doesn't have to be a photo ID but just some form of documentation verifying your identity such as a SS card.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Afro Cheese

But honestly, from the beginning this argument has been about whether or not proof of identity should be required to vote. So I am open to the idea that it doesn't have to be a photo ID but just some form of documentation verifying your identity such as a SS card.
Then said documentation should be free of expense, easy to receive, and something that everyone is informed about. I could support that policy.


Here's the source:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

ArtificialGlory

Stigma
This thread is growing pretty fast. I just skimmed through, but I noticed a few things.



@ Rockydonovang

I noticed you did not answer my simple question directed at you. Can you answer it? Let me repost it.

Originally posted by Stigma
Let's make it simple. Can you tell me this:

Should I, as a Polish citizen, be able to vote in American elections?

btw IT'S A TRAP




Originally posted by Afro Cheese

But honestly, from the beginning this argument has been about whether or not proof of identity should be required to vote. So I am open to the idea that it doesn't have to be a photo ID but just some form of documentation verifying your identity such as a SS card.
Not sure if this is a good idea tbh.

I myself have SS card and I'm not even living in the US, nor am I a US citizen.

I don't see any reason why a non-citizen of the US should be able to decide on the matters of America, like participate in election.

socool8520
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
31 cases of fraud(most based on technical errors rather than the intent to deceive) out of a billion votes isn't a serious issue.

There is no logical basis for voter ID laws.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there aren't that many instances of voter fraud because there are rules in place? It makes sense logically that less people will attempt to commit an act if there is a law against it.

socool8520
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> putting people in jail for acts that don't violate other people's rights

Such as? I assume drugs? I figure it is more for keeping you away from others when you're under the influemce so that you don't harm others (violate their rights)

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> people committing minor crimes having it put in their permanent record making it near impossible to get a job

Again, such as? If it was petty theft, you're still a criminal and have shown poor character. If you have comitted several minor crimes it also shows a trend of untrustworthy behavior that should be highlighted during the hiring process. Your actions have consequences. If you don't want unfavorable outcomes, don't do stupid things.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> not allowing ex-convicts to vote


-> utilizing prisoners for unpaid labor, aka, slavery



I do think not allowing them to vote after they have served their time is wrong.

I don't see a problem with making them work. They broke the law and are being punished. Labor is one of the ways to do so.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> adding requirements that lower voter turnout despite there being no evidence of widespread voter fraud

-> removing the number of places people can vote in crowded cities making it more difficult to vote

-> rezoning so that poor neiborhoods are given a disproportionately small amount of representation in local governments

Also, doesn't really count as voter suppression, but us not making election day a national holiday is the pinnacle of stupidity.

it could be said the requirements have helped combat voter fraud hence why it is so low.

The rest of these things are a problem and should be fixed.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Stigma
This thread is growing pretty fast. I just skimmed through, but I noticed a few things.



@ Rockydonovang

I noticed you did not answer my simple question directed at you. Can you answer it? Let me repost it.



btw IT'S A TRAP





Not sure if this is a good idea tbh.

I myself have SS card and I'm not even living in the US, nor am I a US citizen.

I don't see any reason why a non-citizen of the US should be able to decide on the matters of America, like participate in election. that's weird. I thought SS cards were only for citizens; hence why illegals sometimes have to use a stolen/fake SS number to gain legit employment.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by socool8520
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there aren't that many instances of voter fraud because there are rules in place? It makes sense logically that less people will attempt to commit an act if there is a law against it. Or that they just aren't all the good at/dedicated to finding instances of voter fraud in the first place. "31 confirmed cases" (assuming that figure is even legit) only means that 31 people got caught. Not that there have only been 31 instances of false identity/voter fraud throughout the years.

Stigma
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
that's weird. I thought SS cards were only for citizens; hence why illegals sometimes have to use a stolen/fake SS number to gain legit employment.
Apparently not. I studied in the US for some time. Maybe that's why I got it.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by socool8520
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there aren't that many instances of voter fraud because there are rules in place? It makes sense logically that less people will attempt to commit an act if there is a law against it.
we already have 18 sates where no id is required, and many more that require a signature rather than photo ID.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Stigma


I noticed you did not answer my simple question directed at you. Can you answer it? Let me repost it.


No you shouldn't. However if there's no evidence of may people like you voting, and we know there are thousands and thousands of people who voter id laws are deterring from voting, what exactly is the point of the restriction.

The only way to argue for voter ID restrictions is from a pragmatic standpoint, however that gets you nowhere as there remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by socool8520
Such as? I assume drugs? I figure it is more for keeping you away from others when you're under the influemce so that you don't harm others (violate their rights)

Uh yeah, that's now what jail is for. Jail is for crimes, not potential crimes you may or may not commit.

Originally posted by socool8520
Again, such as? If it was petty theft, you're still a criminal and have shown poor character. If you have comitted several minor crimes it also shows a trend of untrustworthy behavior that should be highlighted during the hiring process. Your actions have consequences. If you don't want unfavorable outcomes, don't do stupid things.

Prison is a consequence. The government has no business trying to stretch said punishments into life-time ones. If an employer is really concerned about someone who was a robber a couple years ago or who's done weed, then it's their responsibility to find it out, not the government's.





I do think not allowing them to vote after they have served their time is wrong.
Originally posted by socool8520
I don't see a problem with making them work. They broke the law and are being punished. Labor is one of the ways to do so.

Uh, what? Why is slavery an acceptable form of punishment?



Originally posted by socool8520
it could be said the requirements have helped combat voter fraud hence why it is so low.

There are still 18 states which don't have any requirements, and none of those states has produced evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Sweet

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Stigma
Apparently not. I studied in the US for some time. Maybe that's why I got it. So what would stop you from also getting a photo ID here? Like I said you don't actually need a Birth Certificate. I got one once just using a SS card and a college transcript.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
we already have 18 sates where no id is required, and many more that require a signature rather than photo ID. And in those states we would probably never know if people are voting who shouldn't be voting. That's part of the point: if you never IDed anyone at a given bar then you would have 0 confirmed cases of minors being served because you aren't checking for that in the first place.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No you shouldn't. However if there's no evidence of may people like you voting, and we know there are thousands and thousands of people who voter id laws are deterring from voting, what exactly is the point of the restriction.

The only way to argue for voter ID restrictions is from a pragmatic standpoint, however that gets you nowhere as there remains no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Once again you are using a pragmatic argument to argue against IDs; that you don't believe voter fraud is likely to happen regardless. You seemingly agree with the "principle" that non-citizens shouldn't be able to vote, you just naively assume that it won't happen even if there's no mechanism in place to stop it from happening. But according to your own logic, if there were more confirmed cases of voter fraud then you would possibly agree that IDs should be required. So your argument rests entirely on pragmatism; I.E. no need to tackle an issue that you don't see as real.

Raisen
https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem/voter-fraud-deniers-ignore-the-facts

http://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf


I've provided several sources.

voter fraud is real rock.

please don't simply ascribe to an ideology contrary to common sense. you're being played

if you research well enough it will be proven that having an id is not "raci ist" and does not significantly reduced voting. please come out of that bubble

Stigma
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No you shouldn't.
Thanks for answering.

Well, in that case:

How can you stop me from voting in the US without proper ID laws? What if all tourists that are in the US during the election time choose to vote just for giggles?

I think you see my point.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
However if there's no evidence of may people like you voting, and we know there are thousands and thousands of people who voter id laws are deterring from voting, what exactly is the point of the restriction.
If nothing stops me from simply walking into a voting booth without my identity checked first then there is no way to even check if voter fraud is massive or not.


Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Once again you are using a pragmatic argument to argue against IDs; that you don't believe voter fraud is likely to happen regardless. You seemingly agree with the "principle" that non-citizens shouldn't be able to vote, you just naively assume that it won't happen even if there's no mechanism in place to stop it from happening. But according to your own logic, if there were more confirmed cases of voter fraud then you would possibly agree that IDs should be required. So your argument rests entirely on pragmatism; I.E. no need to tackle an issue that you don't see as real.
Exactly thumb up

Stigma
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
So what would stop you from also getting a photo ID here? Like I said you don't actually need a Birth Certificate. I got one once just using a SS card and a college transcript.
Well.... I guess nothing. TBH I never realized how retarded US laws concerning voting and identity cards are until now. TBH it seems you're right. Next time I'm in the US I'm getting me some sweet, sweet American ID stick out tongue

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Once again you are using a pragmatic argument to argue against IDs; that you don't believe voter fraud is likely to happen regardless. You seemingly agree with the "principle" that non-citizens shouldn't be able to vote, you just naively assume that it won't happen even if there's no mechanism in place to stop it from happening. But according to your own logic, if there were more confirmed cases of voter fraud then you would possibly agree that IDs should be required. So your argument rests entirely on pragmatism; I.E. no need to tackle an issue that you don't see as real.
Again, the "principle" of voter fraud doesn't supersede the
"principle" of citizens being able to indiscriminately patriciate in the democratic process.

I'm using the pragmatic argument because the pragmatic argument is the only way one could hope to argue for voting restrictions. However the Pragmatic argument completely falls apart because there's no evidence it's doing more good than bad. We know it's massively lowing voter turnout, but we have no evidence it's having any noteworthy effect on voter fraud.

There's simply no basis to argue for preventing thousands of people from voting in every state when the proof of voter fraud is virtually non existent.

Unless you can prove voter restrictions prevent more non-citizens from voting than actual citizens, it's simply bad policy.

Now I'm open to having voter ID laws and having the voter ID be easy for anyone to receive. However untill you've successfully managed to do that, there is no pragmatic or principle based justification for a law that prevents tens of thousands of people from participating in the democratic process.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Stigma
Thanks for answering.


If nothing stops me from simply walking into a voting booth without my identity checked first then there is no way to even check if voter fraud is massive or not.

So why would we enact policy we know lowers voter turnout based on an unknown?

We know it does bad, we don't know if it does good, how is that a solid basis for enacting policy?

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Again, you need documentation that costs hundreds of bucks to qualify for those ID's.

Give me solid proof, 100%, of what you just said. I know people who got ID's and didn't spend that much. So...they lied to me, I guess?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
Give me solid proof, 100%, of what you just said. I know people who got ID's and didn't spend that much. So...they lied to me, I guess?
I corrected my statement, they can be forced to pay up to over a hundred bucks.

And, yeah, there are people who don't have to pay as much. However we don't legislate policy based on cherrypicked anecdotal evidence. And frankly it shouldn't matter the amount. Making someone pay to vote is the equivalent of the poll taxes that were levied against people in the 60's.

There's no justification for people having to pay to vote.
The source is the one I've provided.

Stigma
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So why would we enact policy we know lowers voter turnout based on an unknown?

We know it does bad, we don't know if it does good, how is that a solid basis for enacting policy?
No, no. I understand your point thumb up

I just think Afro Cheese thoroughly asnwered that concern of yours, so I'm not going to basically restate what he said.

I also think as long as a non-US citizen like myself can easily vote in US election in many states you mentioned, there's something fundamentally wrong about the laws.

socool8520
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
we already have 18 sates where no id is required, and many more that require a signature rather than photo ID.

That seems like a poor practice imo. Really nothing to stop somebody from voting more than once.

socool8520
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Uh yeah, that's now what jail is for. Jail is for crimes, not potential crimes you may or may not commit.

So you don't imprison murderers to also keep them from murdering others? Hmmm. okay.

Also, drug use is a crime so you should be punished.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Prison is a consequence. The government has no business trying to stretch said punishments into life-time ones. If an employer is really concerned about someone who was a robber a couple years ago or who's done weed, then it's their responsibility to find it out, not the government's.

So no one should ever know the crimes you have committed? I don't agree with that at all. Don't commit crimes if you are worried about the ramifications later. It's as simple as that.

The employer does find out...with a background check. lol How else are they going to come up with your criminal history, your honesty?





Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Uh, what? Why is slavery an acceptable form of punishment?

If you can't see the difference between slavery and conditions of imprisonment for criminal activity then I really don't know what to say.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
There are still 18 states which don't have any requirements, and none of those states has produced evidence of widespread voter fraud.

It would be hard to know if there's fraud if you don't have any way to check it. lol

snowdragon
Originally posted by socool8520
It would be hard to know if there's fraud if you don't have any way to check it. lol

California registers people to vote at the DMV when they get their DL and they allow illegal immigrants to get DL now. So yeah, let's not pretend that there isn't some level of voter fraud.

Maybe NY has a similar policy in place now?

socool8520
Originally posted by snowdragon
California registers people to vote at the DMV when they get their DL and they allow illegal immigrants to get DL now. So yeah, let's not pretend that there isn't some level of voter fraud.

Maybe NY has a similar policy in place now?

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'm under no illusion that there isn't voter fraud.

snowdragon
Originally posted by socool8520
I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'm under no illusion that there isn't voter fraud.

I was referring to the issue of voter fraud and the lack of evidence, yet we have situations such as the CA bit that blatantly show a system put in place that ALLOWS fraud to occur without a mechanism to actually check it. eek!

socool8520
Yeah, that is a bad policy and should not be okay.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by socool8520
So you don't imprison murderers to also keep them from murdering others? Hmmm. okay.

But the dude's already murdered someone. He's already committed a crime and has already violated someone else's rights. Drug users have not done this.
Originally posted by socool8520
Also, drug use is a crime so you should be punished.

Circular reasoning. I'm disputing whether drug use should be a crime, not whether it is.

Originally posted by socool8520
So no one should ever know the crimes you have committed?

Nope, not unless you choose to disclose that information. It's not the government's business to be disclosing private information.
Originally posted by socool8520
Don't commit crimes if you are worried about the ramifications later. It's as simple as that.

That's not an argument. Explain to me why people should be punished again after having already been punished. We're not discussing whether or not someone should commit crimes. We're discussing what the ramifications should be. And no, if you're going to punish someone, then they shouldn't be punished after having already been punished.
Originally posted by socool8520
The employer does find out...with a background check. lol How else are they going to come up with your criminal history, your honesty?

Employers shouldn't have an obligation to know your criminal history.





Originally posted by socool8520
If you can't see the difference between slavery and conditions of imprisonment for criminal activity then I really don't know what to say.

That you've decided to make slavery ok under specific circumstances doesn't change that it's slavery.




Originally posted by socool8520
It would be hard to know if there's fraud if you don't have any way to check it. lol
But we do know that voter turnout is being reduced by the thousands. So why are we enacting policy we know prevents thousands from voting on the basis of something we don't know?

snowdragon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Employers shouldn't have an obligation to know your criminal history.



How about if you are going to be handling sensitive material, large amounts of cash/making financial descisions for others, handling a firearm..........?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by snowdragon
How about if you are going to be handling sensitive material, large amounts of cash/making financial descisions for others, handling a firearm..........?
If someone's crimes has made it so they can't be trusted with certain sh!t, then the government can put restrictions on say firearm usage or restrict a rapist being able to do a job that involves kids. You don't have to disclose sh!t to do either.

Though really, people should be released once they've been rehabilitated. If the dude is still a danger to society, why would you release him?

socool8520
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
But the dude's already murdered someone. He's already committed a crime and has already violated someone else's rights. Drug users have not done this.

So what? Drug use is a crime. A person knows that they can be jailed for drug use so why should I care if they are jailed?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Circular reasoning. I'm disputing whether drug use should be a crime, not whether it is.

It should be. You're in an altered state (more so than coffee or some lesser bs point that may be brought up) which can lead you to make bad decisions or harm someone. You can make the case that some drugs are that big of an issue and I'm open to some of them, but you won't convince me that something like crack should be legal.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Nope, not unless you choose to disclose that information. It's not the government's business to be disclosing private information.

Okay. load your business full of people with criminal pasts and let me know how that goes for you. As a business owner, I definitely want to know the character of the person I may hire. I also wouldn't leave it up to the individual to disclose that information. That's just foolish


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That's not an argument. Explain to me why people should be punished again after having already been punished. We're not discussing whether or not someone should commit crimes. We're discussing what the ramifications should be. And no, if you're going to punish someone, then they shouldn't be punished after having already been punished.

Employers shouldn't have an obligation to know your criminal history.

Their character should very much be challenged if they have repeat offences and such. It's your own fault that you would be in a situation where a background check may be unfavorable for you.

I disagree. I would want to know if I have criminals working for me or not.





Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That you've decided to make slavery ok under specific circumstances doesn't change that it's slavery.

OK.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
But we do know that voter turnout is being reduced by the thousands. So why are we enacting policy we know prevents thousands from voting on the basis of something we don't know?

Because one can be rectified by obtaining an ID (easy to get and makes things legal) while the other puts a restriction on an illegal activity. That's not hard to think through.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by socool8520
So what? Drug use is a crime. A person knows that they can be jailed for drug use so why should I care if they are jailed?



It should be. You're in an altered state (more so than coffee or some lesser bs point that may be brought up) which can lead you to make bad decisions or harm someone. You can make the case that some drugs are that big of an issue and I'm open to some of them, but you won't convince me that something like crack should be legal.
I'd say at the bare minimum weed and psychedelics should be legalized and the use of other drugs should be decriminalized, even if their sale is still criminalized.

socool8520
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'd say at the bare minimum weed and psychedelics should be legalized and the use of other drugs should be decriminalized, even if their sale is still criminalized.

Psychadelics? Are you serious? People on bath salts and such chewed people's faces off. They make you see things that aren't real. You don't see the harm in that?

While I don't have a serious issue with people doing drugs as long as they are not caught, I can easily see why they are illegal.

SquallX
I think were forgetting one key point here when it comes to voting.

Voting is not a right, it is a privilege. The unintellectuals should never vote. Why? Because most of them have no idea, and there just voting because their stuck in a party system.

If you take youre time and ask the average person to name one policy for whom they voting for, they 8/10 unable too. All they do is recite what they here on the news.

Emperordmb

ArtificialGlory
All drugs should be decriminalized and stuff like weed, LSD, shrooms, etc. should be outright legalized.

And if you're worried about people doing stupid shit while under influence, then alcohol should be your number one concern.

socool8520
Weed for the most part hasn't had any history of creating delusions or violent behavior. I do think it should be regulated like alcohol where you shouldn't be high at work, driving, etc.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by socool8520
Weed for the most part hasn't had any history of creating delusions or violent behavior. I do think it should be regulated like alcohol where you shouldn't be high at work, driving, etc.
At the same time there's also studies suggesting that the use of psychedelics helps reduce domestic violence.

socool8520
Originally posted by Emperordmb
At the same time there's also studies suggesting that the use of psychedelics helps reduce domestic violence.

They can also induce depression and paranoia. It's not all good times. That's the risk.

socool8520
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
All drugs should be decriminalized and stuff like weed, LSD, shrooms, etc. should be outright legalized.

And if you're worried about people doing stupid shit while under influence, then alcohol should be your number one concern.

I disagree, but you have a right to your opinion.

Absolutely. I could totally see why it could be outlawed. You get no argument from there. lol

Emperordmb
Originally posted by socool8520
They can also induce depression and paranoia. It's not all good times. That's the risk.
And that's a potential risk I should be at liberty to take without the government threatening me with force if I do.

socool8520
You could also mistake a human being for a demon and murder them.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by socool8520
You could also mistake a human being for a demon and murder them.
Then hold that person accountable to murder laws, and leave everyone else whose not murdering anyone the **** alone.

socool8520
Okay then no gun laws either right?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by socool8520
Okay then no gun laws either right?
I never said psychedelics shouldn't be regulated, I said they shouldn't be illegal.

And what you've actually just brought up actually hits upon my general standard when it comes to prohibition of things.

I'm against prohibition because my general standard is that it's wrong to restrict the liberty of an entire nation due to a minority of cases where people are going to **** up. My belief is that you give people their liberty, with regulation when proven effective and necessary enough, allow the responsible people to go about their day and punish the irresponsible people.

Alcohol is legal and regulated, underage drinking is illegal, drunk driving is illegal, and those who drive drunk are to be punished to the full extent of the law and everyone else is to be left alone. It would be immoral IMO to prevent the entire nation from consuming alcohol because some people are irresponsible dipshits.

In the same way, you've given me the extremely marginal case in psychedelic usage when someone takes them and kills someone else and argue that's justification for restricting the liberty of the entire nation. Unless you can prove that legalizing psychedelics would impact the homicide rate to demonstrable severity, then I don't consider it valid to curb the liberty of the entire nation based on this. If we prohibited everything with the potential to cause death; guns, cars, alcohol, knives, etc. we'd quickly find a lot of our liberty eroded. So the potential for harm is not enough to back prohibitive measures, the harm that would arise actually needs to be proven to a sufficient extent.

Scribble
Originally posted by socool8520
You could also mistake a human being for a demon and murder them. That's mostly a myth. Hallucinations are generally known by the human brain to be hallucinations; you're thinking of a delusion, which is where the human brain can't distinguish between the real and the false. The only case where a psychedelic would make someone think someone else was a demon for reals is if that person already had a pre-existing dissociative disorder. Plus, generally, psychedelics have been proven, in small doses, to actually help to alleviate or even partially heal some disorders. Psilocybin and DMT in particular have been shown to be incredibly effective treatments for depression, psychosis, and other disorders.


I can personally attest to psilocybin's use as an anti-depressant, magic mushrooms saved my goddamn life.

socool8520
I guess man. if you want to destroy your mind for kicks, "enlightenment", or whatever, who am I to stop you. I assume there is no crying later when your mind is destroyed. Not physically, but psychologically.

Emperordmb
Except most people get positive shit out of those experiences. The idea that the usage of psychedelics consists of a bunch of dipshits destroying their mind for a cheap high is laughable.

socool8520
I guess I've never needed anything other than my own basic reasoning skills to be content so I don't see the point personally.

socool8520
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Except most people get positive shit out of those experiences. The idea that the usage of psychedelics consists of a bunch of dipshits destroying their mind for a cheap high is laughable.

The idea that they are all getting positive experiences is also laughable, but I concede that you should be free pursue these ventures at your own leisure.

I still think it should show up on your record because as an emploeyr, I don't want someone high as hell working for me.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by socool8520
The idea that they are all getting positive experiences is also laughable,
And I can personally attest to the fact that they aren't. I've had some more negative fundamentally disturbing experiences that I myself take full responsibility for.

Originally posted by socool8520
but I concede that you should be free pursue these ventures at your own leisure.
thumb up

Originally posted by socool8520
I still think it should show up on your record because as an emploeyr, I don't want someone high as hell working for me.
Why? Why should it matter to an employer if I've done LSD or psilocybin in my own free time if I'm keeping it separate from the workplace? The fact that I've done psychedelics a handful of times is not grounds to assume I'm gonna be showing up to work "high as hell."

If I do psychedelics at work, fire me. If not, leave me alone lol.

Scribble
Should we have anyone who has ever imbibed alcohol having that on their record, too? I don't want no drunks working for me.

socool8520
Originally posted by Emperordmb
And I can personally attest to the fact that they aren't. I've had some more negative fundamentally disturbing experiences that I myself take full responsibility for.


thumb up


Why? Why should it matter to an employer if I've done LSD or psilocybin in my own free time if I'm keeping it separate from the workplace? The fact that I've done psychedelics a handful of times is not grounds to assume I'm gonna be showing up to work "high as hell."

If I do psychedelics at work, fire me. If not, leave me alone lol.

Because it separates you from someone who doesn't. Do I care that it seems unfair to you? Not at all. It's something I definitely want to consider when vetting applications.

socool8520
Originally posted by Scribble
Should we have anyone who has ever imbibed alcohol having that on their record, too? I don't want no drunks working for me.

Absolutely, especially if it's a trend. I also don't want drunks working for me.

Scribble
Originally posted by socool8520
Absolutely, especially if it's a trend. I also don't want drunks working for me. Yeah but that's a certain type of person, the kind of person who'd turn up to work drunk or high. That often has nothing to do with people who like to get drunk or high recreationally. It's no business of mine if someone wants to get ****ed out of their head as long as it doesn't affect their working ability. You'll be able to spot these kinds of people without something on their personal record that says "they like a drink" or "they like to get high" or "they took acid once". The idea of pigeonholing anyone who has done drugs or drinks as a social reprobate is fairly authoritarian, in a very narrow way that says little of the calibre of the human in question.

socool8520
Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah but that's a certain type of person, the kind of person who'd turn up to work drunk or high. That often has nothing to do with people who like to get drunk or high recreationally. It's no business of mine if someone wants to get ****ed out of their head as long as it doesn't affect their working ability. You'll be able to spot these kinds of people without something on their personal record that says "they like a drink" or "they like to get high" or "they took acid once". The idea of pigeonholing anyone who has done drugs or drinks as a social reprobate is fairly authoritarian, in a very narrow way that says little of the calibre of the human in question.

Yes, and if it was only once, then it probably won't even factor, but I would still like to see it reflected when I'm making employment decisions. If you like to get drunk every weekend, I want to know that. It will factor into my decision in hiring. I really don't care if that offends people. It doesn't mean I won't hire you, but it will definitely be a factor.

I'm not speaking from inexperience, I have tried marijuana and it is on my record. I am fine with the military or whoever my employer is knowing when making the decision to hire me. It is there right to pick whoever they think is best for the job. It's what i'd do.

Scribble
Originally posted by socool8520
Yes, and if it was only once, then it probably won't even factor, but I would still like to see it reflected when I'm making employment decisions. If you like to get drunk every weekend, I want to know that. It will factor into my decision in hiring. I really don't care if that offends people. It doesn't mean I won't hire you, but it will definitely be a factor.

I'm not speaking from inexperience, I have tried marijuana and it is on my record. I am fine with the military or whoever my employer is knowing when making the decision to hire me. It is there right to pick whoever they think is best for the job. It's what i'd do. I guess that's a personal choice then and I understand where you're coming from now. As a bit of personal perspective, would you hire someone fully qualified for the job who gets drunk every weekend over someone slightly less qualified who was tee-total?

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Then said documentation should be free of expense, easy to receive, and something that everyone is informed about. I could support that policy.


Here's the source:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

This doesn't say which documents cost so much. Which ones, do you know?

Here is what it says you need in Illinois, proof of:

Written signature,
Date of birth,
Social Security number, and
Address, or a Homeless status certification.

I'm confused. Seems like you should have most of those, like a birth certificate and proof of a SSN. Where do all these fees come into play?

I see $23 if you need to be given a copy of your birth certificate. But then, you should already have that somewhere and be able to just make a copy of it at a kinkos or something.

Seems like responsible people should have an easy time.

socool8520
Originally posted by Scribble
I guess that's a personal choice then and I understand where you're coming from now. As a bit of personal perspective, would you hire someone fully qualified for the job who gets drunk every weekend over someone slightly less qualified who was tee-total?

It really depends on the qualification gap. If the non-drinker can perform up to standard then I probably do hire them over someone who drinks every weekend. I would be less worried about them showing up late or their work slipping. From personal experience, people who I worked with that drink like that had more issues with punctuality than people who don't drink. If i'm running a business, I'm going with the safer option. That's just good business.

Scribble
Originally posted by socool8520
It really depends on the qualification gap. If the non-drinker can perform up to standard then I probably do hire them over someone who drinks every weekend. I would be less worried about them showing up late or their work slipping. From personal experience, people who I worked with that drink like that had more issues with punctuality than people who don't drink. If i'm running a business, I'm going with the safer option. That's just good business. Alright, cool. Every employer is different to be fair and I can see how you reached your conclusion so I understand why you hold your beliefs. Seems fair enough to me.

Emperordmb
My main issue with this isn't so much the liberty of the employer to make their own decisions in the hiring process, but moreso a concern for my own privacy. I'm not exactly comfortable with my social habits being under surveillance and made a matter of public record to be used against me.

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
My main issue with this isn't so much the liberty of the employer to make their own decisions in the hiring process, but moreso a concern for my own privacy. I'm not exactly comfortable with my social habits being under surveillance and made a matter of public record to be used against me.

That's one reason I don't use social media anymore.

Scribble
Originally posted by Emperordmb
My main issue with this isn't so much the liberty of the employer to make their own decisions in the hiring process, but moreso a concern for my own privacy. I'm not exactly comfortable with my social habits being under surveillance and made a matter of public record to be used against me. Yeah, that's basically what I'm uncomfortable about with it, too.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by socool8520
I disagree, but you have a right to your opinion.

Absolutely. I could totally see why it could be outlawed. You get no argument from there. lol
Can you see? Because outlawing booze in addition to the already unreasonably strict anti-drug laws would be a tremendously bad idea. The Prohibition + The War on Drugs = absolute societal catastrof*ck.

socool8520
Originally posted by Emperordmb
My main issue with this isn't so much the liberty of the employer to make their own decisions in the hiring process, but moreso a concern for my own privacy. I'm not exactly comfortable with my social habits being under surveillance and made a matter of public record to be used against me.

Well, don't get caught using illegal drugs and it won't show up anywhere lol.
If it becomes legal, then don't do anything stupid and it won't be reported. No issues.

If you are blabbing it on social media (I'm not meaning you directly) then it becomes public record and I would factor into my decision making process.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by socool8520
Well, don't get caught using illegal drugs and it won't show up anywhere lol.
Well that's part of the point I'm making. I don't think it should be a crime and thus don't think it should be involuntarily made a matter of public record as a consequence of my position that it shouldn't be a crime.

Originally posted by socool8520
If it becomes legal, then don't do anything stupid and it won't be reported. No issues.
Agreed, if you do drugs and commit crimes those crimes should appear on public record.

Originally posted by socool8520
If you are blabbing it on social media (I'm not meaning you directly) then it becomes public record and I would factor into my decision making process.
Fair enough, but that's more in the realm of what a person voluntarily reveals.

socool8520
^ That's my thing. If it shows up, i'm using it

Surtur
I've never been caught with illegal drugs. This is because I will not walk around with that shit in my pocket. I take precautions too. I always place it in my trunk. This way if you get pulled over a cop won't smell it. The shit I get SMELLS. It smells good, but you can tell it's weed immediately.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by SquallX

Voting is not a right, it is a privilege.
That's absolute nonsense.

Voting being a right is the fundamental foundation our democracy is based on.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Emperordmb


Agreed, if you do drugs and commit crimes those crimes should appear on public record.


Fair enough, but that's more in the realm of what a person voluntarily reveals.
Why? If you're going to be branding someone for life, then why are they doing time?

Why should the government actively aid in the sabotaging of people's lives?

And BTW, part of the reason we have so many criminals is because those who get out are always coming back, largely because of how hard it is to get back on your feet once you've already paid for your crimes.

Surtur

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by socool8520


Because one can be rectified by obtaining an ID (easy to get and makes things legal) while the other puts a restriction on an illegal activity. That's not hard to think through.
It's not easy to get for tens of thousands of people state by state, that's the point.

The only way you can argue for this policy is pragmatically, and that's going to get you nowhere since you're actively doing a lot of bad for an unknown amount of good.

You can implement voter id once you've made sure voter ID's are easy and free for everyone to access. Untill then though, it's just bad policy.

Rockydonovang
Are you fcking kidding me?

Surtur
Well no. I'm not saying that is correct. The ruling was from 2000 so maybe more recent ones changed?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
Well no. I'm not saying that is correct. The ruling was from 2000 so maybe more recent ones changed?
I know you don't think that. Doesn't change how utterly retarded that is.

Though no, unfortunately that still seems to be the case and is unlikely to change with a conservative supreme court,

Another really depressing article on this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/

The judges conceded Indiana Voter ID laws were partisan but said it was ok because it wasn't "excessively burdening".

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>