You want to hate the guy for pulling the lever that leads to fewer deaths at the expense of allowing the one who will ignore the lever and allow for the most death.
I didn’t say I wouldn’t pull the lever. I asked why you wouldn’t hate the person who tied everyone to the tracks. Even if you pull the lever and kill fewer I would despise the person who set up the problem at all.
a third party (who won’t win but maybe doesn’t love genocide).
That “maybe” is doing all the work here.
Maybe that third party candidate orgasms to genocide.
But main point is you admit they won’t win so what you’re, which you feel alleviates you from being culpable. This entire process is occurring in your imagination, all based on the fantasy of a maybe.
You cross the line when you attack others for making a choice among the valid options. Getting upset that people don’t go along with your story is weird and antisocial.
you’ve lost me sorry. I don’t remember saying I was voting for the third party. You seem to have imagined that from the use of the word maybe. I definitely prefer a person who isn’t supporting genocide to win but as I have myself admitted that is unlikely.
You are the one attacking me for not liking the Democrats for supporting a genocide. The original comment I replied to said:
I don’t hate Democrats, I just disagree with them.
And I asked
Why don’t you hate the party currently aiding a genocide?
Which to me seems reasonable. Like I hate people supporting genocide. Sorry if that’s weird or antisocial. I’ll try and be more social and adore genociders… Is that what you’re saying? I really can’t imagine it’s What your trying to say. But please correct my logic.
There was no mention of third parties or voting for or against them until you implied I was weird for disliking those who do genocide.
The main point is that you seem unable to condemn those currently doing evil things because someone else might also do evil things.
Classic trolley problem and you have failed it.
You want to hate the guy for pulling the lever that leads to fewer deaths at the expense of allowing the one who will ignore the lever and allow for the most death.
I didn’t say I wouldn’t pull the lever. I asked why you wouldn’t hate the person who tied everyone to the tracks. Even if you pull the lever and kill fewer I would despise the person who set up the problem at all.
The person who set up the problem isn’t on the ballot.
We’re voting for the person at the lever.
Hatred isn’t going to change anything. One could argue that hatred is how people end up in the tracks.
Removed by mod
That “maybe” is doing all the work here.
Maybe that third party candidate orgasms to genocide.
But main point is you admit they won’t win so what you’re, which you feel alleviates you from being culpable. This entire process is occurring in your imagination, all based on the fantasy of a maybe.
You cross the line when you attack others for making a choice among the valid options. Getting upset that people don’t go along with your story is weird and antisocial.
you’ve lost me sorry. I don’t remember saying I was voting for the third party. You seem to have imagined that from the use of the word maybe. I definitely prefer a person who isn’t supporting genocide to win but as I have myself admitted that is unlikely.
You are the one attacking me for not liking the Democrats for supporting a genocide. The original comment I replied to said:
And I asked
Which to me seems reasonable. Like I hate people supporting genocide. Sorry if that’s weird or antisocial. I’ll try and be more social and adore genociders… Is that what you’re saying? I really can’t imagine it’s What your trying to say. But please correct my logic.
There was no mention of third parties or voting for or against them until you implied I was weird for disliking those who do genocide.
The main point is that you seem unable to condemn those currently doing evil things because someone else might also do evil things.