That’s the kicker. If you don’t have a clean, single-cycle transition then you’re handing control to your worst enemies.
If we’re going to fracture a party, let’s fracture the right. Destroy the worse one first, then siphon from the less worse one once the fracture takes.
What? That’s nonsense. They have control because people didn’t do the smart thing. If enough people do the smart thing, the bad thing wouldn’t have happened.
Your logic is equivalent to:
Chain-smoke and you might get cancer. Don’t chain-smoke and you might get cancer anyway, so might as well chain-smoke. It’s nonsense.
Blame the people in power always. Your enemies have control because of the failings of Democrat leadership. We blame the people with the most power in everything, why not politics?
With that point aside and dealing with your smoking anology. Here’s what my logic actually means.
Stay smoking and you will be miserable. Quit smoking and you might still be miserable. Quit or no?
You know:
Do the good thing and a bad thing might happen. Don’t do the good thing and the bad thing will happen anyways.
Might as well do the good thing.
Unless you think chain smoking or cancer are good things, if not you can’t parse that quote with your smoking analogy and make it make sense:
Do the good thing [chain smoking] and the bad thing will happen [get cancer]. Don’t do the good thing [chain smoking] and the bad thing [get cancer] will happen anyways. Might as well do the good thing [chain smoking]. You see how you have a fundamental misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of the argument?
You’re getting distracted. I’m not saying smoking is a good thing (not that I think what you’re calling a “good thing” actually is good anyway). I’m demonstrating your logical misstep.
The same logic your argument is based on (If you vote Democrat, a Republican might win anyway, so you might as well throw your vote away on a third party) justifies my ridiculous argument (If you don’t smoke, you might get cancer anyway, so you might as well smoke).
I reject your suggestion that throwing your vote away is a “good thing”. It’s a stupid thing that temporarily makes you feel good, like smoking.
If you vote Democrat [bad thing, genocide is bad no?], a Republican might win [bad thing] anyway, so you might as well throw your vote away on a third party [bad thing]
You see how you have once again either misinterpreted or misrepresented the argument? 2nd time now, how many before we can assume deliberate misrepresentation?
Smoking was a good analogy, why run from it? Voting democrat [chain smoking] is the devil a lot of people know, and it sure as hell beats voting republican [heroin]. No argument from me: chain smoking > heroin.
But… you could quit smoking and not do heroin either.
But… you could quit smoking and not do heroin either.
Which is probably where you’re getting confused.
Republicans are cancer.
Voting Democrat is like not smoking.
Voting third party is like smoking.
The probability of getting cancer anyway does not mean that increasing your probability of getting cancer by smoking is smart, it is much better to not smoke. Maybe you still get cancer anyway, but at least you’ve improved your odds.
The probability of getting a Republican anyway does not mean that increasing your probability of getting a Republican by voting third party is smart, it is much better to vote Democrat. Maybe you still get a Republican anyway, but at least you’ve improved your odds.
Voting third party is not good or virtuous. It is counterproductive and contributes to the greater harm.
You’re right, here is where the disconnect is. Seems strange to blame it on me being confused, can you not accept I’m a rational person in any way? Because I don’t 100% agree I have to be “confused”?
Anyways, we can drill down to just here. Is genocide bad? To those that think “genocide=bad” voting democrat cannot be a good thing, which is why you struggled so much fitting it into my argument right? You can think it’s a necessary thing, but it can’t be a good thing.
So, empathy time:
Can you accept that it’s a rational thing to assert: “genocide=bad”?
You can disagree that it is “bad enough”, damage limitation is also a rational argument right? At least I accept damage limitation to be a valid POV. I don’t think we can move on until you accept “genocide=bad” is a rational POV, not born of confusion.
Once we have “genocide=bad” it’s easy to get to “republicans=heroin”, “democrats=chain smoking” and you now have a few years to quit.
Because I don’t 100% agree I have to be “confused”?
No, you’re confused because your logic is bad. Logic isn’t something you can disagree with. You can disagree on the axioms you apply logic to, but you can’t disagree with the logic itself.
Can you accept that it’s a rational thing to assert: “genocide=bad”?
Yes, obviously. However, voting for someone who opposes genocide, but stands no chance of winning is not good; it does nothing to curtail the genocide.
No matter who you vote for, the result will be Democrat or Republican for the foreseeable future. If you actually care about the genocide, it’s better to choose which of those two is less bad. Additionally there are other issues, so even if the two are identical on genocide, there’s still a rational choice.
Voting third party does not help obstruct genocide in any way. I compared it to smoking because it feels good, it scratches an itch, but long term it’s bad.
That’s the kicker. If you don’t have a clean, single-cycle transition then you’re handing control to your worst enemies.
If we’re going to fracture a party, let’s fracture the right. Destroy the worse one first, then siphon from the less worse one once the fracture takes.
Do your worst enemies not currently have control?
Do the good thing and a bad thing might happen. Don’t do the good thing and the bad thing will happen anyways.
Might as well do the good thing.
What? That’s nonsense. They have control because people didn’t do the smart thing. If enough people do the smart thing, the bad thing wouldn’t have happened.
Your logic is equivalent to:
Chain-smoke and you might get cancer. Don’t chain-smoke and you might get cancer anyway, so might as well chain-smoke. It’s nonsense.
Blame the people in power always. Your enemies have control because of the failings of Democrat leadership. We blame the people with the most power in everything, why not politics?
With that point aside and dealing with your smoking anology. Here’s what my logic actually means.
Stay smoking and you will be miserable. Quit smoking and you might still be miserable. Quit or no?
You know:
Unless you think chain smoking or cancer are good things, if not you can’t parse that quote with your smoking analogy and make it make sense:
Do the good thing [chain smoking] and the bad thing will happen [get cancer]. Don’t do the good thing [chain smoking] and the bad thing [get cancer] will happen anyways. Might as well do the good thing [chain smoking]. You see how you have a fundamental misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of the argument?
You’re getting distracted. I’m not saying smoking is a good thing (not that I think what you’re calling a “good thing” actually is good anyway). I’m demonstrating your logical misstep.
The same logic your argument is based on (If you vote Democrat, a Republican might win anyway, so you might as well throw your vote away on a third party) justifies my ridiculous argument (If you don’t smoke, you might get cancer anyway, so you might as well smoke).
I reject your suggestion that throwing your vote away is a “good thing”. It’s a stupid thing that temporarily makes you feel good, like smoking.
You see how you have once again either misinterpreted or misrepresented the argument? 2nd time now, how many before we can assume deliberate misrepresentation?
Smoking was a good analogy, why run from it? Voting democrat [chain smoking] is the devil a lot of people know, and it sure as hell beats voting republican [heroin]. No argument from me: chain smoking > heroin.
But… you could quit smoking and not do heroin either.
Which is probably where you’re getting confused.
Republicans are cancer.
Voting Democrat is like not smoking.
Voting third party is like smoking.
The probability of getting cancer anyway does not mean that increasing your probability of getting cancer by smoking is smart, it is much better to not smoke. Maybe you still get cancer anyway, but at least you’ve improved your odds.
The probability of getting a Republican anyway does not mean that increasing your probability of getting a Republican by voting third party is smart, it is much better to vote Democrat. Maybe you still get a Republican anyway, but at least you’ve improved your odds.
Voting third party is not good or virtuous. It is counterproductive and contributes to the greater harm.
[…]
You’re right, here is where the disconnect is. Seems strange to blame it on me being confused, can you not accept I’m a rational person in any way? Because I don’t 100% agree I have to be “confused”?
Anyways, we can drill down to just here. Is genocide bad? To those that think “genocide=bad” voting democrat cannot be a good thing, which is why you struggled so much fitting it into my argument right? You can think it’s a necessary thing, but it can’t be a good thing.
So, empathy time:
Can you accept that it’s a rational thing to assert: “genocide=bad”?
You can disagree that it is “bad enough”, damage limitation is also a rational argument right? At least I accept damage limitation to be a valid POV. I don’t think we can move on until you accept “genocide=bad” is a rational POV, not born of confusion.
Once we have “genocide=bad” it’s easy to get to “republicans=heroin”, “democrats=chain smoking” and you now have a few years to quit.
No, you’re confused because your logic is bad. Logic isn’t something you can disagree with. You can disagree on the axioms you apply logic to, but you can’t disagree with the logic itself.
Yes, obviously. However, voting for someone who opposes genocide, but stands no chance of winning is not good; it does nothing to curtail the genocide.
No matter who you vote for, the result will be Democrat or Republican for the foreseeable future. If you actually care about the genocide, it’s better to choose which of those two is less bad. Additionally there are other issues, so even if the two are identical on genocide, there’s still a rational choice.
Voting third party does not help obstruct genocide in any way. I compared it to smoking because it feels good, it scratches an itch, but long term it’s bad.
deleted by creator