Nah, the problem is that it makes complete sense in the imperfect would we actually live in. You want to have a perfectly logical reason to vote, but you’re never going to find it, so good luck. You’re going to have to compromise somewhere. I’m just honest about when/where.
…you need to show that the general reasoning of choosing the lesser evil is a valid line of thought.
I really don’t though. There isn’t an ethics test after the vote. You don’t have to show your work. The fact that you’re so hung up on this makes me think you just want to “win” an ideological debate, but I’m not having one of those.
You can vote or not, but there’s only two possible outcomes at this point. Believe it or don’t. Excuse it or don’t.
[Resolved] Third parties splitting the vote
“Working as intended.”
It seems like you expect me to vehemently defend this ideology “in general” when I told you it’s only for specific circumstances because of the way the system has been rigged since before we were born.
It’s also a smart move to double down bets in specific situations in Vegas, but I’m not going to defend always doing that “in general”. Context matters, and you seem to be ignoring the fascist in the room.
None of these examples are government elections, which is the only place where I’m using this ideology.
Lesser-evilism is not correct, however it’s the system we currently have.
It’s the natural result of a system with a single vote. You might be able to change enough people’s minds to impact a single election, but the system will default back to a two-party system eventually. That is not an ideology you can break people out of, it is simply how the system works.
It sure would be nice to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone else, but that’s not a choice we have the luxury of making right now. We have to change the system first before that has a chance of succeeding. Otherwise it’s just helping elect Super Hitler.
“Objectively” in that in the same situation (i.e. being the deciding vote between Hitler and Super Hitler) you would decide to not vote, allowing Super Hitler to win and I would Vote to have Hitler win.
Super Hitler is objectively worse than Hitler because one is made up and the other is dead, so what are you really arguing with me for?
It isn’t controversial, but voting isn’t the same as supporting.
Nowhere in this scenario between Hitler and Super Hitler would I support Hitler, but I would still vote for Hitler out of the two because it would lead to best results out of the possible outcomes at that time.
Your pearl-clutching is saying you’re equally fine with both Hitler and Super Hitler, which is objectively worse.
"In this example, your options are:
A. Voting for Hitler. (Hitler wins)
B. Voting for Super Hitler. (Super Hitler wins)
C. Voting 3rd party (Super Hitler wins)
D. Not voting (Super Hitler wins)"
Me: Ok, those options suck, but ‘A’ I guess?
“OMG, wow, advocating voting for Hitler? Literal fascist.”
The difference is between cursing and cursing AT someone.
“The garage door broke.” “Ah, fuck.” - Fine “You fuck.” - Not acceptable
If you get a written warning, it’s probably time to start looking for a new job regardless.
No no, because it’s FINE that I have unique obstacles no other tech user has. It’s actually a bonding experience that only other Apple users can laugh about. /S
Good luck dismantling the system with Hitler+ in power. You’d have an easier time dismantling it while ‘regular’ Hitler is in power.
Hey look, a reason to vote.
I remember getting a hand-me-down digital ‘black book’ to store phone numbers during the age of the palm pilot. It had a ‘dial’ button and a speaker on the back. You could pick up the phone, put the speaker against the phone’s mouthpiece and it would ‘dial’ by playing the correct tones. Blew. My. Mind.
That depends. Do you want them to learn, or do you want to feel superior to them?
“If you’re trapped and can’t figure out how to escape the trap by yourself, you deserve to be trapped?”
Is that really what you’re saying here?
Which part? The spoiler tag is working on my client. Or did you mean the content?
“What does cyanide have to do with eating to survive?” It doesn’t - exactly like eating meat. You don’t need either to survive, and both are completely “natural”.
By saying that “partaking in natural things should be free from judgement”, you’re also arguing that we shouldn’t judge someone when they commit murder, rape, incest, and a whole slew of morally objectionable things because those things happen to also exist in nature.
If you meant that, you’re too far gone to have a reasonable conversation. If that’s not what you meant, then you need to rephrase your argument because “natural” does not mean “good”.
Being “natural” is not an indicator of “good” or “bad”.
Cyanide is natural. Eyeglasses are unnatural.
Maybe pick better metrics for society.
My math teacher (at a private school) was just a random students’ mom. She had no higher degree and only taught the book. If you got the right answer by using a method not included in the book, it was marked half-credit because she didn’t understand and wasn’t interested in hearing your logic, because “that’s not what the book says”.
Being taught by people who have no drive for knowledge and just want to teach the standardized test answers SUCKS.
Sure, Jan.