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?
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!”
![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.
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.
Removed by mod
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?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
if all you have is attacks on my identity, please block me, too
Removed by mod
that’s exactly what an ad hominem is
Removed by mod
yes you did.
Removed by mod
your explanation didnt prove me incorrect. but you did insult me at least three times already.