Lemdro.id

1 point

14 days ago

They are trying to appeal to right-leaning democrats and centrists who might consider voting republican.

Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.

Whether it is directly applicable or not isn’t important

It doesn’t matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.

The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate that one thing can be marginally less bad than another, but both options still fundamentally unacceptable

No shit. But it completely ignores the part where you are stuck with one of those “unacceptable” options no matter what.

Every single one of your analogies conveniently ignores that vital factor.

report

[ - ]

OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml

-1 points

14 days ago

Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.

That doesn’t follow at all. Just because they’re not concerned about leftists becoming republicans, that in no way shows that they’re not concerned about leftists voting third party.

It doesn’t matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.

I don’t think you understand how analogies work. An analogy doesn’t have to reflect every aspect of reality. It only has to be comparable as far as it’s relevant to the specific point that it’s attempting to establish or explain. The specific point of the analogy is that one option being better than another does not mean that either option is worth considering. That’s not specifically about the election, it’s a general point.

All analogies deviate from reality in some way, that’s what an analogy is. The question is whether it deviates in a way that’s relevant to the specific point being discussed. I only made the analogy to establish that specific point, and not as a more general reflection of the election, as you’re trying to take it.

you are stuck with one of those “unacceptable” options no matter what.

There’s a difference between there being two possible winners and there being two possible choices. Just because Trump and Harris are the only ones likely to be elected doesn’t mean I have to vote for either of them. We’ve been over this, I feel like.

report

[ - ]

1 point

14 days ago

Just because they’re not concerned about leftists becoming republicans, that in no way shows that they’re not concerned about leftists voting third party.

Exactly – I agree that the two are unrelated, so I’m not sure why you used it to support your claim. It makes perfect sense for them to try to steal voters directly from their only other actual opponent. That means they gain a vote and the other side loses a vote.

I see no reason why they would feel any more pressure to capture 3rd party voters than they would to capture apathetic voters or any other non-Republican-voting group.

There’s a difference between there being two possible outcomes and there being two possible choices. Just because Trump and Harris are the only ones likely to be elected doesn’t mean I have to vote for either of them. We’ve been over this, I feel like.

Of course there are more than two possible choices. You could choose to saw your arm off and put it in the ballot box. Choosing to use your vote to prevent the worse of the only two possible outcomes from happening is a better choice than throwing it away.

report

[ - ]

OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml

-1 points

14 days ago

Exactly – I agree that the two are unrelated, so I’m not sure why you used it to support your claim.

You’re the one who brought up the question of whether democrats are concerned about me voting Republican. The point is that they are concerned about the possibility of gaining or losing voters, which honestly isn’t a point I should even have to argue for, because it’s obvious.

Choosing to use your vote to prevent the worse of the only two possible outcomes from happening is a better choice than throwing it away.

I disagree, you haven’t established this. Since neither option is acceptable, it is not correct to accept either.

report

[ - ]

0 points

14 days ago

You’re the one who brought up the question of whether democrats are concerned about me voting Republican.

Right, in response to your ridiculous assertion that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on them.

The point is that they are concerned about the possibility of gaining or losing voters, which honestly isn’t a point I should even have to argue for, because it’s obvious.

I agree, it’s extremely obvious. I’m not arguing against it. I’m arguing against your claim that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on Democrats.

I disagree, you haven’t established this.

Because it’s obvious. The outlandish claim is that throwing away your vote is better than using it to avoid the worse outcome.

report

[ - ]

OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml

-1 points

14 days ago

I agree, it’s extremely obvious. I’m not arguing against it. I’m arguing against your claim that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on Democrats.

It’s not “outlandish” at all. You can’t agree that it’s “extremely obvious” that democrats care about gaining or losing votes in one case and that it’s “outlandish” in another, it’s completely arbitrary.

Because it’s obvious. The outlandish claim is that throwing away your vote is better than using it to avoid the worse outcome.

I don’t consider that obvious at all. First off, I dispute the claim that voting third party is “throwing your vote away,” because I’ve already established the effects it can have regardless of not winning. But I also assert that it’s better to throw away your vote than to support someone who is fundamentally unacceptable.

I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, or to act utilitarianism. It is not ethical to kill a healthy person to get the organs necessary to save five people. It is not ethical to murder someone because someone threatens to murder two people if you don’t. Y’all act like your ethical framework is just “obvious,” objectively true, and the only one that exists, but that’s completely false, and it falls apart as indefensible under scrutiny.

In addition, it’s just a bad negotiation tactic.

report

[ - ]

1 point

14 days ago

It’s not “outlandish” at all. You can’t agree that it’s “extremely obvious” that democrats care about gaining or losing votes in one case and that it’s “outlandish” in another, it’s completely arbitrary.

I didn’t say it was “outlandish” to claim they care about gaining votes. I said it’s outlandish to claim that voting 3rd party does anything to meaningfully pressure them into changing their policies to capture your vote. They are more concerned about changing their policies to capture the center-right, like you said.

I don’t consider that obvious at all. First off, I dispute the claim that voting third party is “throwing your vote away,” because I’ve already established the effects it can have regardless of not winning

No you have not.

But I also assert that it’s better to throw away your vote than to support someone who is fundamentally unacceptable.

That is a ridiculous assertion.

I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, or to act utilitarianism.

There it is. You don’t care any of the work that has to happen over the next 4 years to push for positive change. You just care about virtue-signaling.

report