Except the two choices are never “ice cream and driving off a cliff.” The options are “drive off a cliff at the speed limit” and “drive off a cliff full speed.” If you demand the choice to not vote for a cliff diving, then it’s your fault we’re driving off a cliff.
Disagree. It doesn’t matter how fast you’re driving off the cliff, everyone in the bus dies. The choices were more like “drive the bus into a building” and “drive the bus into a building and and explode.” The time to demand a “don’t crash” option was long before November 5th last year. As of November 5th, your choices were “explode” or “don’t explode”
The idea that both parties are equally bad misses the part where one of them explodes.
If you think that what Trump is doing is the same thing as what would have happened if Harris won, then you’re delusional. I literally can’t communicate with you. You’re incapable of thinking past the two words “genocide bad.” You can’t even get as far as “more genocide worse.” It’s three words, it’s too much for you
I get the feeling I’m about to get a reply proving that last sentence right
Genocide is not my issue. My issue is everyone I can vote for us taking this country in the same direction. The only difference is how nice they are about it.
Right now, since we’ve been forced into the mean path, is the best time to switch out the less bad path to the good one.
Once we are confronted with a situation that extends past our moral gray area and into firmly awful territory, nothing beyond that point is any deeper shade of gray - it is all equally morally black. So person A with a wide moral gray area sees a thousand people on the path to senseless death, and an alternative path of senseless death for two thousand people, and finds one thousand deaths a reasonable choice given bad options. Person B with a narrow moral gray area sees the same options and no moral difference - both choices are equally morally black. They rail against the options and see no value in trying to reduce the deaths by one thousand, because that’s not enough to bring the situation into their moral gray zone.
I guess that’s the fundamental moral disconnect I’m running into. To me, it’s unthinkable to shut down my moral faculties at any point. 1,000,001 senseless deaths is objectively worse than 1,000,000 senseless deaths.
Except the two choices are never “ice cream and driving off a cliff.” The options are “drive off a cliff at the speed limit” and “drive off a cliff full speed.” If you demand the choice to not vote for a cliff diving, then it’s your fault we’re driving off a cliff.
Disagree. It doesn’t matter how fast you’re driving off the cliff, everyone in the bus dies. The choices were more like “drive the bus into a building” and “drive the bus into a building and and explode.” The time to demand a “don’t crash” option was long before November 5th last year. As of November 5th, your choices were “explode” or “don’t explode”
The idea that both parties are equally bad misses the part where one of them explodes.
No one said the parties are equally bad. That’s a stereotype centrists trot out.
~the person who replied to this comment one hour before you did
So?
Yes that’s the point. Both choices lead to the same place the only difference is how fast we get there.
If you think that what Trump is doing is the same thing as what would have happened if Harris won, then you’re delusional. I literally can’t communicate with you. You’re incapable of thinking past the two words “genocide bad.” You can’t even get as far as “more genocide worse.” It’s three words, it’s too much for you
I get the feeling I’m about to get a reply proving that last sentence right
Genocide is not my issue. My issue is everyone I can vote for us taking this country in the same direction. The only difference is how nice they are about it.
Right now, since we’ve been forced into the mean path, is the best time to switch out the less bad path to the good one.
Once we are confronted with a situation that extends past our moral gray area and into firmly awful territory, nothing beyond that point is any deeper shade of gray - it is all equally morally black. So person A with a wide moral gray area sees a thousand people on the path to senseless death, and an alternative path of senseless death for two thousand people, and finds one thousand deaths a reasonable choice given bad options. Person B with a narrow moral gray area sees the same options and no moral difference - both choices are equally morally black. They rail against the options and see no value in trying to reduce the deaths by one thousand, because that’s not enough to bring the situation into their moral gray zone.
I guess that’s the fundamental moral disconnect I’m running into. To me, it’s unthinkable to shut down my moral faculties at any point. 1,000,001 senseless deaths is objectively worse than 1,000,000 senseless deaths.