you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t use reason to get into

"One could make the pretty strong argument that given that basically no justification was provided for this war at all the entire operation is one giant war crime"..."This war is a damned tragedy. I blame the fact that it's completely unjustified with no clear goals"  ok, i guess maybe we already got to the bottom of that one.  it couldn't get much worse than that?  i assume nothing has changed?  it didn't . . . get better with new info?  ~a so maybe a topic we agree on, but . . . what are your guys thoughts on the iran war?  ~a paul:  "why not?" for lots and lots of reasons?  most of them have to do with the specifics of the save act though.  needing an allowable non-photo-id, and having a provision to allow voting anyways like Virginia is one thing, but what the save act requires is, over the top, crazy.  ~a "id"  "sorry if i cut you off" (lol.  oops.  i did also literally cut you off)  ~a paul:  "I don't know a ton about the save america act, but it seems like a reasonable id"  sorry if i cut you off, but i'm not sure you addressed the new requirements addressed by the save act.  your real id might not be enough.  are you ok with new id requirements where your old drivers license (pre-real-id) *and* current drivers license (real-id i assume) are potentially both disallowed for voting?  ~a a: There are probably hundreds of issues that I think are more important. -Paul a: "does that mean you would be fine if all the individual states decided to drop their photo ID and non-photo ID requirements?" I wouldn't care too strongly about it. Wouldn't think it's a great idea. Not gonna be the end of the world. -Paul a: It's like if there are conspiracy theories about a vaccine causing autism.... Why not have public health officials show themselves getting the vaccine on TV to help quell it? Small cost for potentially big gains. -Paul paul:  "But does that mean you would be fine if all the individual states implemented a photo ID requirement?"  yes.  does that mean you would be fine if all the individual states decided to drop their photo ID and non-photo ID requirements?  ~a a: And sure, it doesn't always make sense to cater to conspiracy theories like that, but I do think some practical reading of the situation on the ground is reasonable. And I also think there's nothing wrong with requiring a photo ID to vote. -Paul a: "you're trying so hard to solve a non-problem with this" I half agree. I agree that there is no substantial evidence that mass voter fraud is happening, but I DO think there is a problem that there is a perception of mass voter fraud. -Paul a: But given the popular support for requiring a photo ID, and the optics of our current system helping to feed conspiracy theories, and my own opinion that providing a photo ID to vote is perfectly reasonable.... why not? -Paul a: "you propose that presenting a non-photo-id, non-citizen-confirming-id to vote is a your end goal?" It's not my end goal, it's just something I don't see a huge problem with. I think I mentioned at the beginning that I don't see this is a major issue... -Paul a: "no i think producing an id is generally fine, but i'd much prefer each state be allowed to decide what is required" I think I generally agree that it should be left to the states. But does that mean you would be fine if all the individual states implemented a photo ID requirement? -Paul Suspicion and Doubt at the National Civics Contest.  ~a paul:  "I don't know a ton about the save america act, but it seems like a reasonable idea". I also wanted to grab this before it fell off the bottom.  the save act might not let you use your current photo id.  I don't know if you have a real id, but even if you do, it might not be enough.  ~a i think it would be cool if xpovos could give a run-down of how virginia works.  as i understand it, from my mom who does this stuff for virginia too, if you're registered to vote, you can just show up (with a bill in your name maybe?), and though it's super-non-optimal to do this, you can cast a ballot if you sign some stuff.  i also cast a ballot in virginia without any id (non-in-person).  ~a paul:  "grabbing a random homeless person off the street who has no idea what's going on and telling them to vote for a candidate"  this hypothetical seems unlikely.  you'd need to get them to vote legally:  which is very hard if they aren't registered.  and you'd have no indication that they voted for who told them to.  you're trying so hard to solve a non-problem with this.  trump is also trying so hard to solve this same non-problem.  ~a paul:  "I feel like this somewhat contradicts the spirit behind your previous comment"  does it?  i don't think so. at all. you have conflated a problem that doesn't exist *vs* a (hypothetical) problem that does exist: US in person voter fraud *vs* "if it prevented a thousand fraudulent votes".  you skipped right past the part where a thousand in person fraudulent votes doesn't exist in reality.  the spirit of my previous comment stands?  ~a paul:  so, i just want to make sure i'm clear.  you propose that presenting a non-photo-id, non-citizen-confirming-id to vote is a your end goal?  it seems what you propose is very different from the save act demands.  ~a paul:  "You think that presenting an ID to vote is a 'huge burden'?"  no i think producing an id is generally fine, but i'd much prefer each state be allowed to decide what is required, as long as the state laws don't go afoul our other laws, and constitution.  iow what we have now is fine.  link that shows what we have now so we can discuss it.  ~a Three strokes? -- Xpovos mig: Heh, am I a bad person because I chuckled? I think he's always been a bit of a troll. He's crossed the lines a few times in the past which has caused me to cringe a bit. -Paul a: What is the ratio? I honestly don't know. Would hundreds not vote? Millions? Is there really any good way to try to estimate? Also, I know (or suspect) you don't care about this, but does the nature of those votes matter? If it's somebody grabbing a random homeless person off the street who has no idea what's going on and telling them to vote for a candidate... would it be a loss to lose that vote? -Paul a: Obviously, then, the question becomes what the ratio truly is and what is an acceptable one, right? I think I would agree that based on the data I know about, doing something like requiring a picture ID to vote would probably cause more legitimate people to not vote than it would prevent fraudulent votes. -Paul a: "OK, nice.  NOW we're talking.  yes.  yes i would" Good. I think we're making progress. Because I feel like this somewhat contradicts the spirit behind your previous comment: "if a single person doesn't vote who would have otherwise: in order to resolve a problem that doesn't exist, then that is one too many" -Paul a: "you don't seem interested at all in balancing this." I think this is an unfair assessment. I guess we seemingly disagree about how big a burden it is to present an ID to vote, but I think it's a pretty low hurdle. On the flip side... I guess I would ask you if there are any actions you would support to try to secure elections. -Paul a: "it's a burden, i was . . . quoting you?" Got it. "it is a huge burden" So, I just want to make sure I'm clear. You think that presenting an ID to vote is a "huge burden"? -Paul this building explains the "american dream" scam.  she is on the city counsel in falls church.  i know someone who works in the executive there.  the changes in falls church have been huge.  she is practicing what she preaches.  ~a https://x.com/repthomasmassie/status/2074169633117004032?s=46&t=Moai17N0pQqdEnHyo4RV2Q jesus when did Massie start to become an absolute fucking turd. - mig mig:  yeah me neither.  but I think we'll probably disagree on reasonability.  ~a a:  I simply don’t view being unable/unwilling to comply with reasonable requirements to vote(i.e. provide a valid ID) is disenfranchisement. - mig (to clarify I'm treating fraudulent votes the same as disenfranchised votes.  I guess you probably won't see them as exactly equivalent, but please admit in some ways they are similar and we'll need an exchange rate to compare harm).  ~a paul:  "Would you accept one less person voting if it prevented a thousand fraudulent votes?"  OK, nice.  NOW we're talking.  yes.  yes i would.  (1:1000).  would you be ok with one more person voting if it produced ONE fraudulent vote??  (1:1).  your proposal has the numbers reversed (1:1,000 vs 100,000:0 maybe).  ~a paul:  "That's the same logic that kept the entire country locked down over COVID"  ok and?  a single person, dude, millions literally died.  i don't KNOW the lockdowns were all good, in fact i do know that they weren't all good. but, i also don't know that they were all bad.  did we go too far?  yeah probably?  did we not go far enough.  weirdly, also, yeah, probably.  ~a paul:  "if voting is so important, then why do we treat it as if it's not worth securing at all"  it's important.  but securing it has to be balanced against voting disenfranchisement.  you don't seem interested at all in balancing this.  ~a paul:  sorry, i realize now why that was confusing.  it's a burden, i was . . . quoting you?  a paraphrase / indirect quote?  from last time we had the discussion and forgot the quotation marks.  but, like, i get why you thought i was saying that.  it is a huge burden and that is often a point of disagreement between us.  ~a a: But it's also just not really applicable. It's not a problem that doesn't exist. Fraudulent voting DOES happen. We are just pretty sure it's not happening at scale. Would you accept one less person voting if it prevented a thousand fraudulent votes? -Paul a: "if a single person doesn't vote who would have otherwise: in order to resolve a problem that doesn't exist, then that is one too many" That's the same logic that kept the entire country locked down over COVID. "If a single person dies of COVID because you wanted your kids to go to school, that's one too many!" -Paul a: Just because there isn't massive fraud happening now doesn't mean it can't start happening. Again, if voting is so important, then why do we treat it as if it's not worth securing at all? -Paul a: "just how you aren't concerned with the burden on the working poor and disabled" Didn't you JUST say it was not a burden? You don't see any benefit at all to doing something 70-80% of Americans think should be done to try to prevent fraud in the future? -Paul paul:  if a single person doesn't vote who would have otherwise: in order to resolve a problem that doesn't exist, then that is one too many.  if five hundred thousand people don't vote who would have otherwise:  in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist, that is five hundred thousand too many.  ~a paul:  would you?  ~a paul: "I think if you are at all interested in trying to win back trust from half the country in our elections" I'm not.  I'm not interested in winning back their trust.  just how you aren't concerned with the burden on the working poor and disabled to get a real-id I'm not concerned with problems that don't exist.  if one quarter of the country wants to believe a lie, I won't change a thing, especially if doing so would have a cost.  ~a a: The polling obviously varies a lot based on how the question is worded, but I think it's generally agreed that sizable majorities of Americans (and even majorities of Democratic voters) favoring photo ID requirements for voting. -Paul a: I think if you are at all interested in trying to win back trust from half the country in our elections, I'm not sure fighting tooth and nail over the most basic checks on if somebody is eligible to vote is the best thing. -Paul a: And the Republican goes from clearly in 2nd place to 3rd place after a bunch of votes are counted after election day which have weird voting patterns where the third place Democrat clearly over performs? Yes. -Paul a: Do I think there is widespread fraud in our elections? No. But do I kind of understand why people can be suspicious when you have scenarios like the mayoral race in LA where there are virtually no safeguards against fraud... -Paul a: If voting is such a super important thing that nearly everybody keeps telling me, then why does it have some of the least security around it? -Paul a: I'm not necessarily strongly advocating FOR the law because I'm not convinced there is some massive problem that needs solving. But I'm also thoroughly unconvinced by the arguments against it. -Paul a: Yeah, some of the least motivated and least responsible people might get inconvenienced the first time or two. And then if it's important to them, they will check their registration or remember to bring an ID next time. -Paul a: Requiring an ID to drink at a bar might mean some people won't be able to buy a drink. Requiring a passport to travel abroad might mean some people won't be able to go. Requiring an ID to get on a plane might mean some people miss their flight. -Paul