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!”
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
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.
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.
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?
jill stein says she’s on track to hit 5% this fall, so that’s an outcome you’re not considering. also, biden has been enabling a genocide, but you dont seem to see any problem with putting himback in power.
Thank you for spelling it out! Unfortunately, most of the "Biden is literally supporting a genocide which is why you should vote 3rd party) are suspiciously obtuse.
I am fairly sure this is part of a Russian Psy-Op aiming to demobilize Democrat-leaning voters in order to push their preferred candidate and sow division. Trump being elected again would be Putin’s wet dream, since Trump would (try to) leave NATO and cut all support to Ukraine. With NATO gone and the US busy with infighting under an isolationist and repressive government, Putin would have free reign to stir more shit in eastern Europe to further his imperialist agenda.
For this reason, posters trying to frame voting for Biden as actively supporting genocide don’t get the benefit of the doubt from me. And they’re everywhere, unfortunately.
![Accelerationist [RULE]](https://files.catbox.moe/052f42.jpeg){kind=link}
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.
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:
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.
your explanation didnt prove me incorrect. but you did insult me at least three times already.
And I never did that either lmao
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:
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:
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?
jill stein says she’s on track to hit 5% this fall, so that’s an outcome you’re not considering. also, biden has been enabling a genocide, but you dont seem to see any problem with putting himback in power.
Thank you for spelling it out! Unfortunately, most of the "Biden is literally supporting a genocide which is why you should vote 3rd party) are suspiciously obtuse.
I am fairly sure this is part of a Russian Psy-Op aiming to demobilize Democrat-leaning voters in order to push their preferred candidate and sow division. Trump being elected again would be Putin’s wet dream, since Trump would (try to) leave NATO and cut all support to Ukraine. With NATO gone and the US busy with infighting under an isolationist and repressive government, Putin would have free reign to stir more shit in eastern Europe to further his imperialist agenda.
For this reason, posters trying to frame voting for Biden as actively supporting genocide don’t get the benefit of the doubt from me. And they’re everywhere, unfortunately.
they are literally the experts.