That's not even good hair splitting. According to you on the other sub-thread, WV doesn't even use it as an ID. For all the logic they're applying, you could just write your name on an index card and use that instead. Even if they were using it in a superficially reasonable way, I would still class them under "powerful fools", pretending the SSN is something it's not. I find it's a clarifying perspective to call that sort of thing what it is, rather than trying to keep one foot in and one foot out of the collective delusion.
So your argument is that you’re right and the state of West Virginia is wrong? All of a sudden the thing isn’t what it actually does because you disagree with whether it should?
> I would still class them under "powerful fools"
Cool, but your opinion of them is irrelevant. They get to decide what forms of ID they’ll take, and they’ve decided to take this one.
> you could just write your name on an index card and use that instead
Of course you couldn’t, the rule is very clear that you can identify yourself with specifically a social security card. You’re the one pretending. Your insistence that it’s not an ID will be small comfort when someone fakes yours and used it to identify themselves as you to steal your identity.
Again. The fact that it’s a terrible form of ID is my point. It being a bad ID doesn’t mean it’s not one.
Edit: I copy/pasted my point about W.Va from one thread to another. Both say, as the law does, that it identifies you. The mail ties the identified person to an address authorized for a license (i.e. an address in the state). It’s authn vs authz.
