Of course I understand what a hypothetical is, and I answered what I would do in the situation you presented me with. You don’t accept that answer for some arbitrary reason, but you won’t explain why it wouldn’t be an option.
My position is perfectly defensible. This is like asking a vegan “Would you rather eat pork or beef?” and when they reject both options, you claim that it means their position is indefensible.
Of course I understand what a hypothetical is, and I answered what I would do in the situation you presented me with.
No, you created your own hypothetical and answered based on that. My hypothetical has only 2 possible answers, and you refuse to answer it because you know it dismantles your stance.
The hypothetical you presented about asking a vegan if they’d eat pork or beef is perfectly valid by the way. If they answered “neither” they would also not be answering the question. But that wouldn’t make veganism indefensible, don’t put words in my mouth.
Both options are fundamentally unacceptable to me. There is no conceivable situation where I would vote for either.
If you’re somehow compelling me to act against my will, then, I don’t know, I might pick one randomly, or I might pick the one you don’t like out of spite, or I might pick the one you do like out of the hope you’ll be merciful to me in the future, since in this universe you can apparently control my body against my will.
Kamala winning, at least in the short term, but it does set a bad precedent if it means the democrats learn they can support genocide and get away with it.
So in the short and long term, based on our best assessments, we agree the better outcome of this election is for Kamala to win over Trump*.
Do you also agree that there is an (effectively) 0% chance of a third-party candidate winning this election? That come election night, the winner will either be Kamala or Trump?
Of course I understand what a hypothetical is, and I answered what I would do in the situation you presented me with. You don’t accept that answer for some arbitrary reason, but you won’t explain why it wouldn’t be an option.
My position is perfectly defensible. This is like asking a vegan “Would you rather eat pork or beef?” and when they reject both options, you claim that it means their position is indefensible.
No, you created your own hypothetical and answered based on that. My hypothetical has only 2 possible answers, and you refuse to answer it because you know it dismantles your stance.
The hypothetical you presented about asking a vegan if they’d eat pork or beef is perfectly valid by the way. If they answered “neither” they would also not be answering the question. But that wouldn’t make veganism indefensible, don’t put words in my mouth.
Both options are fundamentally unacceptable to me. There is no conceivable situation where I would vote for either.
If you’re somehow compelling me to act against my will, then, I don’t know, I might pick one randomly, or I might pick the one you don’t like out of spite, or I might pick the one you do like out of the hope you’ll be merciful to me in the future, since in this universe you can apparently control my body against my will.
Since you refuse to engage, let’s rephrase:
Which would be the better outcome, Trump winning, or Kamala winning?
Kamala winning, at least in the short term, but it does set a bad precedent if it means the democrats learn they can support genocide and get away with it.
And in the long term?
(Thank you for finally answering)
I’m not a psychic, so it’s difficult to say, but I will answer Kamala since you are so insistent on unambiguous answers.
So in the short and long term, based on our best assessments, we agree the better outcome of this election is for Kamala to win over Trump*.
Do you also agree that there is an (effectively) 0% chance of a third-party candidate winning this election? That come election night, the winner will either be Kamala or Trump?
Yes.