I don’t really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what’s changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it.
It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there’s a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you’re helping to kill them. Doesn’t that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic?
Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time.
Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead… does this sound familiar to you?
If you’d prefer, I’ll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That’ll be about $25 if I buy the name brand.
I’d greatly prefer that, yes. Then you’d be actually helping people instead of hurting them.
Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I’m not going to accuse people of “murder” based on that, and I don’t think it would be reasonable to.
One of the problems you people have is that you think you’ve found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it’s what you’re doing. You don’t see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn’t notice water. You don’t consider that they could be wrong because you don’t identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply “common sense.”
So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, “Don’t murder hundreds of thousands of innocents” is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small.
In practice of course, it’s only the left that’s expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as “antisemites” whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights.
As someone who doesn’t even subscribe to your framework of “Lesser-Evilism,” and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can’t even conceive of someone who doesn’t believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don’t even realize it’s a belief, again, like water to a fish.
This was an awful lot of words to explain that you don’t understand how your government works. It’s not a “framework of “lesser-evilism.”” It’s just how the system works.
If you don’t think the one of two candidates closer to your side is far left enough, primary them. It’s that simple.
Do you know why we all know this is how it works? The GOP did it 15 years ago. Right leaning voters showed up consistently, and so they dragged the GOP to the right. You (yes you!) could do the same to the Democrats, but you refuse, so the GOP wins and the DNC says “wow fuck these progressives let’s try to win over centrists with Liz Cheney!”
You are the reason the DNC you complain about sucks. Should I buy smooth or crunchy, or a mix? I’m leaning towards smooth.
I don’t really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what’s changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it.
It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there’s a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you’re helping to kill them. Doesn’t that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic?
Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time.
Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead… does this sound familiar to you?
If you’d prefer, I’ll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That’ll be about $25 if I buy the name brand.
I’d greatly prefer that, yes. Then you’d be actually helping people instead of hurting them.
Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I’m not going to accuse people of “murder” based on that, and I don’t think it would be reasonable to.
One of the problems you people have is that you think you’ve found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it’s what you’re doing. You don’t see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn’t notice water. You don’t consider that they could be wrong because you don’t identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply “common sense.”
So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, “Don’t murder hundreds of thousands of innocents” is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small.
In practice of course, it’s only the left that’s expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as “antisemites” whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights.
As someone who doesn’t even subscribe to your framework of “Lesser-Evilism,” and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can’t even conceive of someone who doesn’t believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don’t even realize it’s a belief, again, like water to a fish.
This was an awful lot of words to explain that you don’t understand how your government works. It’s not a “framework of “lesser-evilism.”” It’s just how the system works.
If you don’t think the one of two candidates closer to your side is far left enough, primary them. It’s that simple.
Do you know why we all know this is how it works? The GOP did it 15 years ago. Right leaning voters showed up consistently, and so they dragged the GOP to the right. You (yes you!) could do the same to the Democrats, but you refuse, so the GOP wins and the DNC says “wow fuck these progressives let’s try to win over centrists with Liz Cheney!”
You are the reason the DNC you complain about sucks. Should I buy smooth or crunchy, or a mix? I’m leaning towards smooth.