Democrats vote on November 5!

[Lonewulf]

I'm not that cynical. I don't think Americans are that stupid. The 4th is everywhere. All over TV. On the news. On talk radio and cable shows. The official election pamphlets say the 4th. I hope people aren't that stupid. Perhaps they are.

I once ran into someone that thought that Buddhism was "what that Osama terrorist was".

Believe me, when you actually deal with some people, you become used to the idea that there are individuals that actually lack education.

And it doesn't matter if you're cynical or not. Even the CHANCE that someone could be fooled is enough to worry anyone that has any command of his senses at all.

 

[Lonewulf]

Just a side note: Has Wildcat's bigotry grown so accepted that he can slip in "sorry for you foreigners", ignoring all of the Americans that disagree with this act, and I'm the only one to call him out on it?

Sigh.

 

[RandFan]

Believe me, when you actually deal with some people, you become used to the idea that there are individuals that actually lack education.

I'm sorry but I'm just not that cynical.

And it doesn't matter if you're cynical or not. Even the CHANCE that someone could be fooled is enough to worry anyone that has any command of his senses at all.

I've said before that I don't agree. However I respect your opinion. If someone goes to jail over this it won't bother me. If a law has been broken and a prosecutor can make a case then fine. But it is an old hoax.

 

[RandFan]

Just a side note: Has Wildcat's bigotry grown so accepted that he can slip in "sorry for you foreigners", ignoring all of the Americans that disagree with this act, and I'm the only one to call him out on it?

Sigh.

I don't condone any ill intent. I'm not sure he really is bigoted but if he is then I don't agree with it.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you. I have posted links to the laws and some people don't get it.
Here it is.
http://www.electioncenter.org/elect...Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007.pdf

Uh, Jeff, did you even bother to read your own link?

Sheesh.

From YOUR link.

...with intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote in that election...

(emphasis mine) I keep saying that intent is a component and everyone says it isn't. YES IT IS!

Ok, can we all agree that intent must be proven? Right? Yes?

 

[Lonewulf]

Obviously only a dirty FOREIGNER could have anything objection to fooling people in the U.S. elections.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do any of you really believe that this is some “joke” that a few people thought up for this election?

No, I think it's an old joke that people recycled for this election.

 

[RandFan]

Is it an attempt to dissuade voters? Is the above video a crime?

• You've not made a case that it was an attempt.
• You've not made a case that it succeeded at dissuading anyone not to vote.

I don't have to demonstrate those. It was a counterfeit, allegedly official state document that was disseminated in Virginia. It violated a federal election law passed in 2007. Fact.

Yes you do Jeff. The law you cite lists intent as a component. If there was no attempt to dissuade then there was no intent.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Would you cite the law?

No problem.
http://www.electioncenter.org/electionresources/legislation/2007/HR1281 Deceptive Practices & Voter

 

[RandFan]

No problem.
http://www.electioncenter.org/electionresources/legislation/2007/HR1281 Deceptive Practices & Voter

Thanks, now would you read it? Please note the part that says "intent".

 

[WildCat]

Name the pranks that you can get away with as long as you say "It's just a joke!"

We have forging money and passing out fake fliers bearing official logos above.

What else can we get away with?! Have fun!

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/072302.asp

OMFG, call the FBI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jeff Corey]

Intent? How do we ken that? By our judgement honed by our experience. Mine says this was crafted to deceive people.

 

[WildCat]

Intent? How do we ken that? By our judgement honed by our experience. Mine says this was crafted to deceive people.

Honed by experience, or honed by paranoia?

Frankly, I'm astonished this is being taken seriously by otherwise intelligent people.

 

[Lonewulf]

11 people in the poll may very well agree with you.

But ignore them, they're obviously FAR dumber than people like Wildcat.

 

[RandFan]

Intent? How do we ken that? By our judgement honed by our experience. Mine says this was crafted to deceive people.

Did the people who crafted it do it to keep people from voting? Can you prove that in a court of law?

 

[Lonewulf]

Randi, we aren't in a court of law.

We aren't lawyers.

There are two claims here.

One is that it's satire.

The other is that it was a deliberate attempt.

So what evidence do we have? We have the document itself.

The document shows no sign of satire anywhere on its page.

When new evidence comes in, this conversation will take a new turn. I'm perfectly willing to admit I was wrong about the whole deal if the evidence demonstrates it.

Until then, you are asking for more information from those that cannot provide it. Essentially, we can only wait until more come in.

Part of being a skeptic is that you CAN form an opinion, but you're willing to change it when new evidence comes in.

 

[RandFan]

Randi, we aren't in a court of law.

We aren't lawyers.

There are two claims here.

One is that it's satire.

The other is that it was a deliberate attempt.

So what evidence do we have? We have the document itself.

The document shows no sign of satire anywhere on its page.

When new evidence comes in, this conversation will take a new turn. I'm perfectly willing to admit I was wrong about the whole deal if the evidence demonstrates it.

Until then, you are asking for more information from those that cannot provide it. Essentially, we can only wait until more come in.

Part of being a skeptic is that you CAN form an opinion, but you're willing to change it when new evidence comes in.

No problem. Like I said, if the people who made this flyer go to jail it won't bother me. I think voter suppression is a real problem.

 

[WildCat]

So what evidence do we have? We have the document itself.

The document shows no sign of satire anywhere on its page.

Your failure to get the joke is not evidence.

 

[UserGoogol]

Mead,

The attempt to deprive someone of a basic right is never funny. It doesn't matter if the person is ignorant through their own fault, a lack of education or because they are gullible. This is not a "joke" being perpetrated on a presumably educated populace in a "gotcha" fashion. This is a deliberate attempt, targeted specifically at people who are unfamiliar with the election and voting process, to deny them their right to vote.

It is morally and ethically wrong and it is illegal.

I agree that it's morally and ethically wrong, (and it certainly sounds like it could be illegal, although I'm not a lawyer so who am I to judge?) but you're making a false dichotomy between funny actions and unethical/immoral/illegal actions. Something can be both. This can be seen by looking at the world of fiction, where people regularly do horrible things that are funny (the Dark Knight version of the Joker is a nicely extreme recent example). When the things actually happen that doesn't prevent them from being funny, (a person getting stabbed in the eye with a pencil is a person being stabbed in the eye with a pencil) it just prevents us from being able to appreciate the humor because other emotions get in the way.

I wouldn't call this particularly funny, though. Yes, making fun of stupid people is a valuable source of humor, but you need to have some style to it. For instance, saying that "did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary" is not funny unless you have some sort of setup to it, since too easy. Simply saying something that isn't true does not constitute a joke.

 

[Jeff Corey]

We agree about that.
Late response to Randfan.