His statement was, and I quote:
And we are in a topic regarding voter disenfranchisement.
In this context, your strawman and equivocation fallacies in response to that statement are still fallacious. Furthermore, they also require the fallacy of quoting out of context, especially since the previous comments in the chain are all in regards to the topic of voter disenfranchisement, with the exception of your own, which are the ones projecting the issue of “voter inflation” (weasel word fallacy) into a topic on voter disenfranchisement. And this is in the context of an article regarding conservative politicians openly admitting that the purposes of voter ID laws being for the purposes of disenfranchising people that may not vote for their ideology. So the only reason you can even attempt to claim that your interpretation on the contextual meaning of @nytespryte’s statement is because you say so, and because you keep saying so (fallacy of argument by assertion).
Meanwhile, you are also now instead attempting to induce both the moral equivalence fallacy (i.e. “This [other thing] is just as bad as [this thing]”) and the tu quoque fallacy (“both sides do it!”). However, your various fallacies in the appeal to “there are plenty of movements to expand voting rights to prohibited persons” are both off-topic in this context (feel free to start a topic on “people that shouldn’t be allowed to vote and here’s why” if you’re so passionate about it), and also smacks of deliberate obfuscation of the topic.
This is because, at the end of the day, UFO sightings and getting hit by lightning are both more common than voter fraud, much less voter “inflation”–there have been 42 new voter restriction bills passed in just the last 3 years–the franchise is being chopped away at relentlessly, and, as this topic shows, with a deliberate strategy and intent of disenfranchisement, not “inflated”.
Maybe in 15 years, if the political pendulum swings the other way, your boogeyman will be an actual concern, but, for now, it’s a distraction from discussion of the real-and-actual cases of politically motivated disenfranchisement by an organization that can accurately be described as having picked a neo-fascist as their potential leader.
