That’s something you may think if you’re 5 y/o and going on vibes. Every decision you face not only has the consequences if you choose it, but also if you don’t.
A pure hypothetical to demonstrate the general principle on an extreme example (not a direct comparison): you have an election with two candidates: one runs on a promise of Holocaust 2.0 and the other will twist your ankle after he wins. Would you say you can’t choose because both are bad? Obviously you would under any case want to avoid the worse outcome. Because not doing anything is risking that bad outcome, even if the alternative is bad. The upcoming election is not that extreme, but my example should have demonstrated the principle: inaction in face of greater evil is wrong.
There is no absolute good in this world, and if you can’t choose between Kamala Harris and those horrible people you moral compass is out of whack. When you don’t vote, the choice is made for you. Whether something is good or bad has to be evaluated considering possible alternatives, you can’t just not choose and expect a miracle to happen.
I don’t vote because I believe voting is an immoral act, but for those that do vote, I think this is a significant comment. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and that may be a bridge too far for some.
Yeah, I used to think that when I was young and ignorant. There is a real difference, and if you don’t know that, you haven’t been paying attention at all.
Just say that you don’t care, don’t pretend to be on some moral high ground.
If you don’t vote, stay out of the conversation, because this has nothing to do with you. If you want to join and share your opinion, do some research and take some action.
Surprisingly, I haven’t died early. I just celebrated six decades of life last week. I guess if I pass in the next couple of years that might still be considered early.
I think you’d be surprised at the number of people who’s lives i have enriched over those years. I certainly am.
Sorry, gonna have to disagree. I have no right to tell others how to live, whether directly or indirectly. Voting for individuals is indirect, voting for ballot measures is direct.
I have no right to tell you if you can own a gun or not.
I have no right to tell you if you can or cannot have an abortion.
I have no right to tell you if you can or cannot ingest a substance that alters your reality.
I have no right to tell you if you can or can’t smoke in public.
I have no right to tell you if you can or can’t buy alcoholic beverages before 1300 on Sunday.
I have no right to tell you if you can or can’t use paper or plastic bags at the grocery.
I have no right to tell you if you can or can’t sell drinks with paper or plastic straws.
That list can go on and on.
There are some who may believe “it’s all we’ve got so I’m going to participate.” I am not one of those people.
As to the hyper-indivualistic, I understand why you might say that. It’s not entirely true. I do believe that the individual is the smallest minority, but I also fully believe in voluntary community.
The debate shouldn’t be about voting for the lesser of two evils. The entire debate should be focused on opening up more options and the actual ability to vote for third party candidates without throwing your vote away, by implementing a different system, like ranked choice voting.
Continuing to focus on which Sith lord will blow up the country the least if elected is a losing play. We have to do better and focus our attention elsewhere if we have any chance of getting anything reformed.
Compared to what? Trump? DeSantis? I don’t think so.
Some voters may see two bad choices and not seeing any decent choice won’t vote at all.
Not voting is a vote for Trump
That’s the point.
That’s something you may think if you’re 5 y/o and going on vibes. Every decision you face not only has the consequences if you choose it, but also if you don’t.
A pure hypothetical to demonstrate the general principle on an extreme example (not a direct comparison): you have an election with two candidates: one runs on a promise of Holocaust 2.0 and the other will twist your ankle after he wins. Would you say you can’t choose because both are bad? Obviously you would under any case want to avoid the worse outcome. Because not doing anything is risking that bad outcome, even if the alternative is bad. The upcoming election is not that extreme, but my example should have demonstrated the principle: inaction in face of greater evil is wrong.
There is no absolute good in this world, and if you can’t choose between Kamala Harris and those horrible people you moral compass is out of whack. When you don’t vote, the choice is made for you. Whether something is good or bad has to be evaluated considering possible alternatives, you can’t just not choose and expect a miracle to happen.
I don’t vote because I believe voting is an immoral act, but for those that do vote, I think this is a significant comment. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and that may be a bridge too far for some.
Yeah, I used to think that when I was young and ignorant. There is a real difference, and if you don’t know that, you haven’t been paying attention at all.
Just say that you don’t care, don’t pretend to be on some moral high ground.
If you don’t vote, stay out of the conversation, because this has nothing to do with you. If you want to join and share your opinion, do some research and take some action.
Well then apparently I’m old and ignorant.
deleted by creator
So I should engage in an immoral act because other people might do something wrong?
I have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives, and that is what I attempt to do any time I cast a ballot.
deleted by creator
Surprisingly, I haven’t died early. I just celebrated six decades of life last week. I guess if I pass in the next couple of years that might still be considered early.
I think you’d be surprised at the number of people who’s lives i have enriched over those years. I certainly am.
deleted by creator
Sorry, gonna have to disagree. I have no right to tell others how to live, whether directly or indirectly. Voting for individuals is indirect, voting for ballot measures is direct.
I have no right to tell you if you can own a gun or not.
I have no right to tell you if you can or cannot have an abortion.
I have no right to tell you if you can or cannot ingest a substance that alters your reality.
I have no right to tell you if you can or can’t smoke in public.
I have no right to tell you if you can or can’t buy alcoholic beverages before 1300 on Sunday.
I have no right to tell you if you can or can’t use paper or plastic bags at the grocery.
I have no right to tell you if you can or can’t sell drinks with paper or plastic straws.
That list can go on and on.
There are some who may believe “it’s all we’ve got so I’m going to participate.” I am not one of those people.
As to the hyper-indivualistic, I understand why you might say that. It’s not entirely true. I do believe that the individual is the smallest minority, but I also fully believe in voluntary community.
The debate shouldn’t be about voting for the lesser of two evils. The entire debate should be focused on opening up more options and the actual ability to vote for third party candidates without throwing your vote away, by implementing a different system, like ranked choice voting.
Continuing to focus on which Sith lord will blow up the country the least if elected is a losing play. We have to do better and focus our attention elsewhere if we have any chance of getting anything reformed.
Then you have no right to an opinion on who gets elected.
I didn’t see myself offering an opinion on who gets elected.