BF2S Forums Should the US inact Voting requirements

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I can assure you that it is most certainly putting words in my mouth, and you really should be able to see that it is.

If you can point out to me where I said that rapists, batterers and murderers simply disagree with a law, then by all means, quote me. Until you produce these quotations, I am afraid that you are putting words in my mouth.

You wrote this:

mikkel wrote:

Okay, so what you're saying is that if you disagree with a law to the point where you disregard it, you shouldn't have the chance to vote for change?

and your response to this:

whittsend wrote:

If you think that rapists, batterers, murderers, and perpetrators of fraud, 'disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it, and should have the chance to vote for change'; I respectfully disagree.

was this:

mikkel wrote:

Prisons are called "correctional facilities". If you don't have faith in their purpose, why are you supporting their existance? Most crimes have victims. I can't see how someone who committed insider trading should be denied the right to vote after serving out his sentence in a correctional facility.

Hence this:

whittsend wrote:

Ah.  So you DO believe that rapists, batterers, muderers and perpetrators of fraud simply disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it,' and should have the chance to vote for change.  Well, as noted above I disagree.

You have also written this:

mikkel wrote:

You can disagree as much as you like with this, but as long as they're correctional facilities, ex-convicts are to be considered rehabilitated by the government as long as they abide by the law like everyone else.

Which indicates that I did not misinterpret you when I wrote the response above.  Sorry, chief.  Your own words fully justify what I said.

Whittsend, you really need to read what it is that I write. I have never once stated my personal opinion on whether or not prisoners are rehabilitated after they leave a correctional facility, I have simply stated that the government regards them as such, so I'm sorry, but my own words do in no way justify what you said, and you did indeed put words in my mouth.

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

No, it is not deniable, and yes, it is a fact. A prison is by definition a correctional facility. It doesn't matter whether or not they adhere to their charter. The definition is key here, not the outcome.

So you are saying that because something has a certain name, the object in question MUST be what the name indicates that it is?  How does one reply to a suggestion so ridiculous...I can think of two obvious ways.  1) Please tell me the location of the stone on which this unbending definition is carved, and; 2) You are a potato...no speaking now, you ARE a Potato!

A prison is by definition a correctional facility. It is called a correctional facility, and it serves as a correctional facility. The stone on which that unbending definition is carved is somewhere in the hall of records, where it ended up after being agreed to by the government. It is what it is, and there is no reason to lower yourself to the point of personal insults just because you fail to either comprehend or agree with this.

whittsend wrote:

Edit:  I want to make it clear, that I don't believe prisons are necessarily defined the way you say they are.  Remember, the system is also referred to as the PENAL system....indicating that it's primary function is one of punishment.

A penal system that administers punishment in the form of compulsory rehabilitation in correctional facilities.

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Convicts are sent to correctional facilities, and the pre-defined durations of sentencing are measures of how long it will take you to rehabilitate. These are in place to ensure the fair treatment of prisoners, and they are decided by how long it can be expected that the prisoner needs to be imprisoned to fully rehabilitate. These aren't arbitrary definitions, I can assure you.

I'm certain they aren't arbitrary, you probably read them out of a very nice, and very useless book.  Unfortunately, these 'definitions' of yours have nothing to do with reality.  I know some very nice men who work in prisons, and I'm sure you could have some lovely conversations with them about how fairly the prisoners are treated, and how well the rehabilitation is going.

I'm sorry, but you fail to grasp the points I'm making, despite them being plainly visible and easily comprehendable in the post you're quoting. Again, and hopefully for the last time, I will tell you that I am not arguing whether or not these prisoners are indeed rehabilitated, but I am arguing that the government cannot limit the rights of ex-convicts to vote if they regard them as such, as it would be contradictory.

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

You can disagree as much as you like, but as long as several states decline to allow felons to vote, it is clear that they were only being punished, and are perceived as irredeemable.


Um, no it doesn't.  As I have already stated, in many states felons can't vote.

And the whole point of my argument is that those laws are contradictory to the purpose of the sentence itself.

Have you ever heard of 'recursive thinking'?  You should look it up.  I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY THAT PURPOSE IS!!  That being the case, I'm not very likely to concede that those laws are contradictory to the purpose prisons, or the senences of those incarcerated therein, serve, now am I?

And I don't agree with what you say the purpose of prisons are, and neither does the government. That being the case, I'm not very likely to concede that those laws aren't contradictory to the purpose of prisons, or the sentences of those incarcerated therein serve. Now am I?

Honestly, yelling at me for sticking to my arguments just because you fail to properly argue against them is completely needless.

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I think you misunderstood the audience of this part. It was a general comment towards to current legitimacy of the proposed changes to voting rights. I'm sorry if I made it seem like it was directed at you specifically.

Apology accepted.  But I'm not proposing anything, it is already illegal for felons to vote in most states.

Hence why I said it was a general comment.

mikkel wrote:

I have never once stated my personal opinion on whether or not prisoners are rehabilitated after they leave a correctional facility, I have simply stated that the government regards them as such, so I'm sorry, but my own words do in no way justify what you said, and you did indeed put words in my mouth.

I never referred to your opinion.  I referred to your expressed desire to allow felons to vote.  In any case, I don't feel the need to discuss it any further.  It is plain that you believe felons should vote.  Moving on, you claim to understand what the government 'believes' and 'intends' and how it defines things quite a bit.  Care back any of it up, or is that an opinion?

mikkel wrote:

A prison is by definition a correctional facility. It is called a correctional facility, and it serves as a correctional facility. The stone on which that unbending definition is carved is somewhere in the hall of records, where it ended up after being agreed to by the government. It is what it is, and there is no reason to lower yourself to the point of personal insults just because you fail to either comprehend or agree with this.

In "The hall of Records" after it was "agreed to by the government."  Inspiring.  You haven't a clue what you are talking about.  That is not an insult, it is an observation.  A prison is by definition:

Merriam Webster wrote:

Main Entry: 1pris·on
Pronunciation: 'pri-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin prehension-, prehensio act of seizing, from prehendere to seize -- more at GET
1 : a state of confinement or captivity
2 : a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers; specifically : an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes -- compare JAIL

I don't see anything about rehabilitation there.  Must be in the 'Hall of Records.'  But, to be serious for a second, you seem to believe that there is some mystical definition in our DNA saying that we MUST try to rehabilitate prisoners.  It ain't so...and if you are going to insist that it is, you should dig up something to back it up - you won't find it.  Certainly some states will agree with you, the majority won't.  Prisons exist to confine those unable to work within the framework of the law.  The basic philosophy of prisons is not one of rehabilitation, but simply of confinement as punishment.  I.e. if a person cannot respect the protections civilization grants to other citizens, then those protections no longer apply to that person; he is therefore confined to punish him, and protect others.

The concept of rehabilitation is much younger than that of confinement, and, obviously, isn't universally held.  Primarily because it is demonstrably flawed (it simply doesn't work, most people know it, and while some pay it lip service, few take it seriously), and partly because many feel violent felons shouldn't be rehabilitated at the taxpayers expense, they need only be punished.

mikkel wrote:

A penal system that administers punishment in the form of compulsory rehabilitation in correctional facilities.

Which, no doubt had its founding principles inscribed by 'the government' in 'the Hall of Records.'    I find it higly amusing that you will say something like this:

mikkel wrote:

A prison is by definition a correctional facility. It is called a correctional facility,

And then turn around and say that a penal system exists to rehabilitate.  Talk about a double standard.  You do, I expect, know the root of the word 'penal'?  Right?

Merriam Webster wrote:

Main Entry: pe·nal
Pronunciation: 'pE-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin poenalis, from poena punishment -- more at PAIN
1 : of, relating to, or involving punishment, penalties , or punitive institutions
2 : liable to punishment <a penal offense>
3 : used as a place of confinement and punishment <a penal colony>
- pe·nal·ly /-n&l-E/ adverb

You have said this is about definitions, not outcome.  Well, by definition, tradition, expectation AND outcome, it's clear that there isn't much rehabbing going on in the Penal System.  Nobody is even trying in most of them.  That doesn't bode well for your view of the system, or even for what government is expecting.

mikkel wrote:

I'm sorry, but you fail to grasp the points I'm making, despite them being plainly visible and easily comprehendable in the post you're quoting. Again, and hopefully for the last time, I will tell you that I am not arguing whether or not these prisoners are indeed rehabilitated, but I am arguing that the government cannot limit the rights of ex-convicts to vote if they regard them as such, as it would be contradictory.

I understand your argument perfectly well.  I simply disagree with every one of your premises, and I'm not going to accept an argument based on a premise that I have already said is nonsense.  "Again, and hopefully for the last time," the government already limits the right of felons to vote, which, by your own logic, would seem to indicate that they, in fact do not regard them as rehabilitated; thereby invalidating your initial assumption.

mikkel wrote:

And I don't agree with what you say the purpose of prisons are, and neither does the government.

That's peculiar, because the actions of government in many states (denal of voting rights to felons) would seem to indicate that they do not believe felons are rehabilitated.  I have empirical evidence backing my point.  Where is your evidence?  No doubt it is in the 'Hall of Records' somewhere.

Prison=Punishment
Punishment=Deterrant
Prison=Deterrant
mikkel=Moron (as carved into stone in the Hall of Records annex of the Hall of Justice annex of the Justice League annex of WarnerBros.)

Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-05-18 16:14:15)

I'm perfectly happy to cease debating with you, as I feel like Rocky Marciano beating up a 6 year old girl.  You have consistently failed to supply a logical argument, or any evidence, written, or empirical, for your point.  To be blunt, you are like a retarded child insisting he is right about something he clearly knows nothing about.  In any form of debate I am aware of, you have lost.  Nevertheless, I do not intend to allow you to make points without responding to them.

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Ah.  So you DO believe that rapists, batterers, muderers and perpetrators of fraud simply disagree with a law to the point where they disregard it,' and should have the chance to vote for change.

Directly referring to and dictating my supposed opinion. As much as you want to run from this, I'm afraid that you can't.

Not interested in running from it, just tired of arguing about it.  What I said directly referrs to your EXPRESSED belief that felons should be allowed to vote...repeated here:

mikkel wrote:

You can disagree as much as you like with this, but as long as they're correctional facilities, ex-convicts are to be considered rehabilitated by the government as long as they abide by the law like everyone else.

Your words chief, and the CLEAR implication; in fact your point in this discussion is that felons should vote, is it not?  And that is exactly what I said.  No words being put in your mouth here.

mikkel wrote:

Actually, I appear to have more of a clue than you, since we're talking about correctional facilities, not prisons.

God help me for bothering with you.  Are you actually so dense that you don't know that a prison IS a correctional facility?

mikkel wrote:

Please this time, whittsend, understand that there is a difference of purpose.

No there isn't.  Do you think that governments maintain parallel prisons for punishment and 'correctional facilities' for rehabilitation?  This is ridiculous.

mikkel wrote:

Using the common definition of a prison when talking about correctional facilities is like saying that a tea spoon is precisely the same as a table spoon just because they're both spoons. They have different purposes, just like prisons, and no one definition governs them all. To think that you after I made it so clear would look one up really does not leave me with much faith in your desire to prove a point, and rather makes it look like you're just trying to "win" an internet argument.

You got me   Fortunately I don't have to try very hard, because the things you say here are so silly you are losing all on your own.

mikkel wrote:

Again you completely fail to comprehend the point. It's right there in that dictionary you had to look it up in. As I said, the punishment is compulsory rehabilitation in a correctional facility, just like community service is a punishment in the form of compulsory service to the community. Please, for the sake of yourself and everyone reading this, don't waste time on further confirming my arguments for me.

So now confinement is service?  Not only does it not say anything about service to the community in that definition, it simply doesn't occur in most prisons.  Prisons confine.  Confinement is punishment, not service.

mikkel wrote:

Again, and I really do hope, as I did the last time I said it, that you won't need more explanations. It does not matter how many states deny felons the right to vote. The point of a correctional facility being a correctional facility and not just a prison is that rehabilitation is meant to occur.   Just because some states have laws that contradict this doesn't mean that it isn't contradictory. It does not matter how many times or how many people make contradicting statements or laws. They'll still be contradictory.

Here's a point you really need to get acquainted with.  You need to supply some evidence to back up your point. You have not done so, except for an amusing reference to the 'Hall of Records', you have not been able to show even anecdotal evidece for the supposed intent of the penal system.  Your word on the subject isn't good enough.  For my part, as I have already said, is empirical evidence.  States deny felons the right to vote.  It isn't contradictory to the purpose of prisons, because they are not intended or asssumed to have been rehabilitated.

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

And I don't agree with what you say the purpose of prisons are, and neither does the government.

That's peculiar, because the actions of government in many states (denal of voting rights to felons) would seem to indicate that they do not believe felons are rehabilitated.  I have empirical evidence backing my point.  Where is your evidence?  No doubt it is in the 'Hall of Records' somewhere.

I'm rather amused at the depths you're lowering yourself to just because you don't agree with me on the internet.

I must admit, that crap about the Hall of Records is so obtuse that I couldn't resist.  But your last post might have topped it.

mikkel wrote:

I've explained over and over that these laws are contradictory, so I'm simply not going to waste time telling you that same thing once again.

And I have explained over and over that they aren't contradictory because your premise is wrong.  I'm game for stopping here if you are.

mikkel wrote:

If this is the height of your abilities to carry a discussion on the internet, to resort to petty insults when things aren't going the way you want them, I can't really waste any more time debating this with you.

I didn't insult you, I ridiculed your statements.  And they begged for it.

mikkel wrote:

I'm sure you're perfectly able to make yet another post saying the same things over and over again

Clearly.  Much as you have done continually.  The difference is evidence.  I have some.  You don't.

mikkel wrote:

but I'd rather spend my time more productively than listening to infantile and entirely unneeded insults

So would I, but I get bored at work, so I will keep reading what you write.

By the way, you never answered Gunslingers question.

I don't know why you would want to deny former fellons who have done their time in prison the right to vote.
If they are free men, they should also be free to vote.

Voting is a right, not a privilege. If you are old enough and are a legal citizen of the US, you should be allowed to vote. IMHO, paying taxes or having served in the armed forces are unfair prerequisites. This would mean that all those who don't have a job and those who are pacifists could not vote.

Excluding certain groups from voting is undemocratic. Age and legal status ( citizenship ) should be the only criteria.

Education is a difficult issue. It's kind of the same situation as with driver's licenses. Basically, the lawmakers assume that people of a certain age are capable of doing certain things responsibly, i.e. driving a vehicle or voting. The interesting thing is that there is a federal ( or state ) test for driver's licenses, while there is no such test for a voter's permit.

As I noted earlier, I do not believe in a requirement of service for the right to vote.  It is important that the military NOT be involved in the formulation of policy; so while the two (service and voting), should not be exclusive of each other, should not be related either.  Because we go to such lengths to ensure that the military does NOT formulate policy, this stance is flawed:

Bubbalo wrote:

I believe that my country sends it's army to unjust wars.  As such, I consider it my *duty* not to sign up, and thereby endorse their actions.

Because the army is an instrument in the execution of policy, and not in the formulation of policy, being a member of the armed forces clearly is not an action endorcing those policies.  I myself frequently disagreed with policy, and it didn't stop me from doing 12 years in the army.  If you don't want to serve, that's fine, but don't blame it on policy.  If you were serious about that, you wouldn't pay your taxes either, as, by your logic, that would 'endorse their actions.'

whittsend wrote:

Because the army is an instrument in the execution of policy, and not in the formulation of policy, being a member of the armed forces clearly is not an action endorcing those policies.  I myself frequently disagreed with policy, and it didn't stop me from doing 12 years in the army.  If you don't want to serve, that's fine, but don't blame it on policy.  If you were serious about that, you wouldn't pay your taxes either, as, by your logic, that would 'endorse their actions.'

Not so!  If I feel, for example, that the Iraq war is unjust, then, from my point of view, every time I kill someone there it's murder.  This is important for two reasons:

1)  I might justify paying taxes by imagining that my money goes to public services

2)  It means that if I were forced to serve, my sacrifice would be greater (other merely kill people, I commit a moral crime)

Bubbalo wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

4.  Have served Honorabley in Military (obviously some exceptions for handicaps and such):  Freedom isn't free and voting is a perk to being free.  I would encourage everyone to serve out of HS, and unless you have you could not possibly understand the concept/importance of duty, honor, and country.  But these are truely need by all politicians and voters.

Why not?  I believe that my country sends it's army to unjust wars.  As such, I consider it my *duty* not to sign up, and thereby endorse their actions.  My country often participates in wars in which the enemy has no chance, as such I see no *honour* in it.  I find your statements not only mass generalisations, but also offensive, not least to pacifists.  Here's an idea: why don't you go commit *honourable* seppuku?

Bubbalo wrote:

My country often participates in wars in which the enemy has no chance, as such I see no *honour* in it.

Dumbest statement I have ever read, thus I don't know how to address it.

Bubbalo wrote:

I find your statements not only mass generalisations, but also offensive, not least to pacifists.

Be a Medic, serve in the Coast Guard or what ever they call it now.  Pacifists and such can serve their country many ways.

Bubbalo wrote:

I believe that my country sends it's army to unjust wars.

Me too, that's why I would like the people who vote to be only the citizens who actually care about America enough to serve the country, are law abiding, and Responsible citizens who are actually productive and not just sitting back living off Social hand-outs.

How many Politicians Pander to the responsible citizens I just mentioned vs the hand me out tear down Evil America types.

Bubbalo wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

4.  Have served Honorabley in Military (obviously some exceptions for handicaps and such):  Freedom isn't free and voting is a perk to being free.  I would encourage everyone to serve out of HS, and unless you have you could not possibly understand the concept/importance of duty, honor, and country.  But these are truely need by all politicians and voters.

Why not?  I believe that my country sends it's army to unjust wars.  As such, I consider it my *duty* not to sign up, and thereby endorse their actions.  My country often participates in wars in which the enemy has no chance, as such I see no *honour* in it.  I find your statements not only mass generalisations, but also offensive, not least to pacifists.  Here's an idea: why don't you go commit *honourable* seppuku?

you got a real high regard for  your place in society and the world.  You must have been born royalty in a past life.

Bubbalo wrote:

whittsend wrote:

You are rationalising.  If you do not wish to do anyting wich endorses government policy, you wouldn't pay taxes.   Taxes enable policy far more than your military service would.  Your actions are inconsistent with your stated goal.

No, as taxes don't *just* go to the military.  If I refuse to pay them, I *might* cost the army a few bullets, or I *might* deprive a 6 year old of Thursdays breakfast.  If I join the army, there is no *might* about it.

Your logic is incorrect.  Money is a fungible commodity.  If you withold it, you withhold it from all expenditures proportionally.  By the same token, if you serve in the military, you save the taxpayers money in recruiting costs which could then go toward feeding that same 6 year old breakfast; so if you really support that expenditure, you should join up.  To be clear here, I'm applying YOUR logic to the situation in an effort to illustrate that there is no consistency in it.  The point being that serving in the military doesn't endorse policy, and failing to do so does not effectively protest policy, as the military does not formulate policy.

Bubbalo wrote:

My country often participates in wars in which the enemy has no chance, as such I see no *honour* in it.

War isn't about being fair, and to suggest that it should be is ignorance.  One cannot justify the expenditure of money men and equipment in ensuring that a fight is 'fair.'  Clausewicz said that war is politics continued by other means, and so it is.  In war, when talk fails, force is used.  To hold back force is to indicate that the way one fights is more important than the reason one is fighting.  If that is true, one has no business fighting in the first place.  Should we have left Britain to fight Germany on its own because there was no honor in ganging up on Hitler?  No, it is incumbent upon any military to end conflict as swiftly as possible.  Your notions to the contrary are misguided and silly.

Bubbalo wrote:

And the only thing serving in the army definitively demonstrates is you can wear a uniform.

Sure.  That is why 1/4th of my basic trainee (Infantry, Sand Hill) class washed out...because they didn't look good in a uniform.  The idiocy of your statement is beyond belief.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

But under your scenario, if he stood by his convictions and didn't pay taxes, then he would go to jail, and once released couldn't vote anyway.

Precisely.  That would take more courage than simply declining to serve, wouldn't it?  As far as the part about not voting goes, failure to pay taxes, in my opinion, should not be classified in the same category as other,  violent, felons.  I understand that in some states it is, but I do not support that.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-19 12:46:55)

Or maybe it will compell those who lack faith in democracy to vote and maybe find out that it does work?

Major_Spittle wrote:

Ok- to defend my statements.

1. Education: Lack of a HS diploma or GED shows a either a profound lack of judgement/drive or a disregard for being knowledgable about basic information and skills.  Either that or you are just plain retarded, but in any case you are unable to make a knowledgable informed decision most likely.

2. Being a US citizen and living in the US for 18 years:  You have to be 18 to vote then obviously, and this would mean you should be assimilated to US society and have developed allegance to only this country by then typically with no outside influences.

3.  Pay Federal Income Taxes for that Voting cycle (ie past 4 years for pres. election):  Don't get to say how MY taxes will be spent (on you most likely)

4.  Have served Honorabley in Military (obviously some exceptions for handicaps and such):  Freedom isn't free and voting is a perk to being free.  I would encourage everyone to serve out of HS, and unless you have you could not possibly understand the concept/importance of duty, honor, and country.  But these are truely need by all politicians and voters.

5.  No Criminal convictions(or currently convicted) in past 8 years (obviously only certain offenses, not speeding):  Part of the Punishment and obviously you need time to grow up and develope better judgement.

6.  And of course you would get a cookie after voting, and a good one like the Girl Scouts sell.

And to the idiot that tried to equate these to racism, shouldn't you be busy writing a speech for Jesse Jackson or something?????

I hope you and your 8 friends pick a good president.  Because you have eliminated approximately 85% of the US population.

What is more important than these kinds of changes is guarding against fraudulent votes with constant vigilance during election phases. Make sure nothing is conveniently "lost" or "found" at a critical moment.

Major_Spittle wrote:

ie you must have a high school diploma, no criminal convictions in the 8 years, pay federal income taxes, have lived in the US for at least 18 years, have served honorably in the US military.......

Just wondering what your thoughts are????  I figure voting is so low now that we might as well get the few votes we do from people that care about the country (and not just themselves) and are somewhat smart.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-24 11:38:44)