basmati @ basmati @lemmus.org

Posts

0

Comments

303

Joined

10 mo. ago

How is being genocided without restraint better than being genocided without restraint?

There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.

I'm not the one murdering them, quite literally. Just like in real life, there is no mystical unstoppable force of nature in play. It's another person, like you. Their choices aren't your choices.

To put it another way, if you sold a kid a bike and he later crashes and dies despite the bike having no faults, are you responsible? Most would correctly identify that you are not responsible in that scenario, as the kid is responsible for what they did with the bike.

There already has been no restraint from Biden. Genocide is genocide, and Harris supports genocide.

I'm not voting for genocide, there is no moral argument to do so.

I'm not ever going to vote for a genocide, and there is no moral high ground if you do .

Well of the two candidates, Harris actually receives untraceable funding, and no Russian funds have been linked to stein.

Democrats have no interest in democracy or anything that weakens their corporate power, like rcv/star/democratic voting methods.

It's almost as if NK doesn't want war. Weird how they took a defensive posture in response to invasion of their territory by a country backed by the most war hungry country in the history of humanity.

I don't think any undecided voters are going to be moved by Michelle Obama, the definition of "only mildly appealing to center right wine moms as a vague topic of conversation."

The man who appointed Hitler wasn't a fascist.

I'm not voting for genocide. In fact I already voted against genocide.

The Dems nor Republicans have a candidate that is against genocide.

Dem think-tank funded healthcare.

I'm sure the Nazis that just voted felt the same way.

Obama still proving black men can be as racist as whites.

Have fun in international court.

Not really it means the only thing that passes is the lowest common denominator items, like funding genocide and bailing out large corporations.

Exactly, you think being a murderer is okay.

That is the core philosophical difference.

You are completely okay with killing innocent people. These people are not, normal people are not.

This difference cannot be reconciled. These people will never think the way you do, and thank every God ever imagined for that, as someone needs to be the moral party if only as an example of how normalized and justified pure evil is.

Way ahead of you.

It's a basic philosophical question.

Say you find yourself locked in a room with a gun, and two people tied to a chair. A voice announces that if you kill one of them, you and the other go free, if you don't kill anyone or if you kill yourself, everyone dies.

Your solution to this, voting Harris, is trust the voice is telling the truth and figure out who is the worse person so you don't feel as bad about being a murderer.

Their solution is not being a murderer.

Maybe the voice is telling the truth, and thus the voice will be a murderer, but they won't be -- you would be though with your choice. Maybe the voice is lying, in which case they made the right choice and you objectively made the wrong one, the worst one.

Most humans, ideally, would choose to not be murderers, even if that means a psychopath does a murder "because" you refused to.

Just a general reminder, there is no legal reason to have a filibuster. There is no philosophical or theoretical good a filibuster can do. If the Dems do maintain a majority and don't get rid of the filibuster, they DON'T WANT to change anything.