No. I'm not asking you to explain the harm. I'm asking you why I should care that I harmed you. The ethics of harming you is not in dispute. I agree, I've harmed you. I violated that ethical tenet. I'm saying, I don't care. I know I did wrong, and I don't care. In this instance. I'm asking you to explain why I should care. And then maybe I'll decide to actively work to no longer harm you. But as far as harming you. I don't care. In this instance. I don't want to shoot you, or anything. But I don't mind harming your pride, even though I know it is wrong to do so.
That's not true. I have trust in processes, which, I can verify, with my own eyes. And I trust my own eyes.
This one is old, man. OldVol was involved in it at one point. He did volunteer firefighting and got all upset when I said drinking and driving isn't wrong. Because he thought I meant, "ever." When I meant, "in specifics."
But I am saying I don't think it is wrong to wound someone's pride a little, now and then. So why would I explain to you why you should care about something I don't think is worth your time to be too concerned with? If my pride getting wounded was very harmful to me, why would I hang around here, through the years when I got poked at pretty good?
You are allowed to decide if it is harmful or not. I don't get to decide it. So if you tell me it is harmful, I agree. If you tell me it is not harmful, I agree, that it isn't harmful to you... not that it isn't harmful. I cannot conclude that simply because I cannot harm you over a little pride, that I cannot harm anyone. I know I can. We've met them here. And it was wrong. And I don't care. And that would be the same with you, if you thought it was harmful. But whether you find it to be harmful to you, doesn't speak for others. And ethics must speak for all, not just one.
During an interview with the “Fox News Rundown” podcast released on Thursday, Gabriel Sterling, the Chief Operating Officer for the Georgia Secretary of State’s office criticized many in the mainstream media, “who criticized and examined every claim of President Trump, takes similar claims from this president and Stacey Abrams and accepts it at face value.” Sterling said, “[N]obody’s actually read the 98-page bill. They’re looking at the press releases from either side and accepting what they’re saying like it’s being spooned to a baby. They all just accept what they’re saying without any critical thought. What I find interesting is a lot of the mainstream media, who criticized and examined every claim of President Trump, takes similar claims from this president and Stacey Abrams and accepts it at face value. And that’s not fair and it’s wrong and it’s a disservice to the American people and the people of Georgia.” On a side note I have known Gabriel for years. He was my city councilman. We butted heads on many zoning issues. Though we were on opposite sides he earned my respect when he took the time to explain why he disagreed with me; as opposed to avoiding me.
what is the counter argument for making it criminal to give someone water, and why should the state legislature be able to replace local election officials at will?
Campaigns shouldn’t be handing out anything to people in line - but I don’t see why poll workers cannot (without it being a misdemeanor).
It is not illegal to give water per se. Nobody will be charged for handing out water unless they are representative of one of the candidates using the excuse of handing out water to try one last time to influence votes. But fake news won't tell you that.
So I can hand out water in Georgia, so long as I am not representing any political campaign and am doing so indiscriminately? Good. Now, how long until someone decides they "know" someone was part of a particular campaign? If you have to stand in line for 5 hours, the state of Georgia ought to be passing out water. To be honest.
Fake News. - "(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place." The bill also states that poll workers can make available "self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote."
The bill is not the law. We'll have to wait to see what is codified. The bill could say: Change section 3 to read "no persons shall", and then commentary in the bill could say, "This is not meant to.." but that doesn't matter. What matters is what makes it into code, not the commentary about what it should be.
You mean right? Your link describes the food and drink law as indeed banning passing out food and drink, by the way.
