You're viewing part of a thread.
I was young once too. Eventually you'll figure out that the party that got 1% of the vote last time isn't suddenly gonna sweep it with 51% this time. Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.
I was young once too
this is ad hominem. what i'm saying is true or false regardless of how old i am. also, you don't know how old i am. and on the internet, no one knows you're a dog: you could be 12 years old for all i know.
this statement is pure sophistry. it's disgusting rhetoric, and you should be ashamed.
It's not ad hominem. I'm not saying you're wrong because this is your first election, I'm saying I can tell this is your first election because voting third party is incredibly naive. If this isn't your first election, then you should know better.
It’s not ad hominem
it is. you're attacking me instead of what i said.
No, I'm attacking what you said by calling it naive. I never once intimated that your belief was wrong because you were young. I also think that anyone above the age of 22 who doesn't vote Biden is also wrong. It has nothing to do with age.
I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you'd never been burned by voting third party before. Am I wrong to do that? Are you actually stupid, and not naive?
my identity has nothing to do with what I'm saying. it's an ad hominem and you should be ashamed.
Like I already said, your identity isn't what makes the decision to let Trump win any more or less wrong. This being your first election would just make it a much more understandable and forgivable mistake. If this isn't your first time abstaining from voting, then it's a much less forgivable mistake.
instead of being defensive, just apologize and do better
Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.
i only vote for someone i want to have the office. you don't get to tell my what i value or how i should express my values. you certainly don't get to tell me how to vote.
I can absolutely tell you how to vote, and you can absolutely ignore me. But next year, if Trump wins, it will be your fault. Just like it's my fault that so many women don't have access to basic medical care because I didn't want Clinton in office. The country and the world will be worse if we let Trump win, and there is exactly one legal way that we can work against Trump winning.
if Trump wins, it will be your fault
the only people responsible for electing trump are those who vote for him. i'm not doing that, so it can't be my fault.
If there are 10 people including you and the majority chooses who gets to be president and the vote ends up as 5 for Biden (including you) and 5 for Trump. Then the vote gets recast and the only thing that changes is that you decided not to vote for Biden, it would be 5/4 for Trump and the person responsible for electing Trump would be everyone who voted for him and you. If you had voted against Trump instead of abstaining, he would not have become president.
That's a very basic concept and it's clear that it extrapolates to the actual election.
voting for a bad person is bad.
Voting for a bad person to prevent a horrible person from winning is good.
not according to kant.
Screw Kant then.
deontological ethics are favored by most professional philosophers.
Woah there, hold your argumentum ad populum! No ethics model is unflawed and just because deontological ethics work often doesn't mean they don't have problems. Instead of looking at the actions you can take, let's look at the results that could be reached:
- Biden wins presidency
- Trump wins presidency
- 3rd party wins presidency
No 3rd party has ever achieved presidency. Votes for a 3rd party have instead commonly resulted in votes being drawn from one party benefiting the other. So realistically we could generalise to:
- Voting 3rd party: Aiding Trumps victory
- Voting Trump: Aiding Trumps victory
- Voting Biden: Aiding Trumps loss
I hate dichotomies as much as you, these shouldn't be the options, I would seriously love to be proven wrong. Am I missing something?
Not voting for the only person who stands a chance against him is helping him win. The distinction is meaningless. If we're playing CoD Zombies and you don't help barricade the house we're in or shoot zombies and we lose on the second round, you don't get to say "it's not my fault we died, the zombies were the ones who broke in and killed us!"
it's not a videogame, and I am not voting for Biden.
Yeah, in a video game the people that die because of your inaction get to respawn.
The way you make a new reply to each sentence, spamming threads with dozens of replies reminds me of Commie. Is this one of their alts? I kinda regret blocking them, arguing with them was fun even though I know they're a troll
if all you have is attacks on my identity, please block me, too
Never attacked your identity lmao
that's exactly what an ad hominem is
To quote Wikipedia:
The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate.
I fulfilled one part of an ad hominem—I asserted (implied, but whatever) that you have a personal trait, quality, or physical attribute. This is not enough to accuse me of committing ad hominem, because I fulfilled no other portions of it. I never implied that the fact that you are relatively young is a negative trait, I never concluded that you were wrong because of it, and I did address the main point of the debate. Calling someone young or stupid or naive isn't ad hominem if I then go on to explain why what they're saying is incorrect.
Eventually you’ll figure out that the party that got 1% of the vote last time isn’t suddenly gonna sweep it with 51% this time.
no one proposed that
The. What is the goal? To get to the magical 5%?
How’d that work out for Nader in 2000 when he didn’t even get to 3%? Was it worth it, when nearly 100k people voted for him in Florida, and Gore lost to Bush by a margin of only 537 votes? Would the environmentalists who supported Nader be more appreciative of Bush’s outcome than they would have been if Gores?
Third parties are great. We absolutely need them. But they cannot and will not ever get a foothold starting at the top of the ballot. Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.
Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.
if you think that, you should put energy toward that. but I don't and won't.
gore didn't lose that election
It shouldn’t have even been a question in the first place. 100k people thought Gore wasn’t good enough for them, and as a result, they all got us Bush.
the supreme Court got us bush. the military industrial complex got us bush.
Right wingers probably said this same shit when Biden got elected
Nah they just say he didn’t.
The best possible outcome for Palestine is Biden reversing his support for genocide. They don't have till the election.