• OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    -122 days ago

    Of course I understand what a hypothetical is, and I answered what I would do in the situation you presented me with. You don’t accept that answer for some arbitrary reason, but you won’t explain why it wouldn’t be an option.

    My position is perfectly defensible. This is like asking a vegan “Would you rather eat pork or beef?” and when they reject both options, you claim that it means their position is indefensible.

    • @null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Of course I understand what a hypothetical is, and I answered what I would do in the situation you presented me with.

      No, you created your own hypothetical and answered based on that. My hypothetical has only 2 possible answers, and you refuse to answer it because you know it dismantles your stance.

      The hypothetical you presented about asking a vegan if they’d eat pork or beef is perfectly valid by the way. If they answered “neither” they would also not be answering the question. But that wouldn’t make veganism indefensible, don’t put words in my mouth.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        -122 days ago

        Both options are fundamentally unacceptable to me. There is no conceivable situation where I would vote for either.

        If you’re somehow compelling me to act against my will, then, I don’t know, I might pick one randomly, or I might pick the one you don’t like out of spite, or I might pick the one you do like out of the hope you’ll be merciful to me in the future, since in this universe you can apparently control my body against my will.

        • @null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          There is no conceivable situation where I would vote for either.

          Since you refuse to engage, let’s rephrase:

          Which would be the better outcome, Trump winning, or Kamala winning?

          • OBJECTION!
            link
            fedilink
            222 days ago

            Kamala winning, at least in the short term, but it does set a bad precedent if it means the democrats learn they can support genocide and get away with it.

              • OBJECTION!
                link
                fedilink
                -122 days ago

                I’m not a psychic, so it’s difficult to say, but I will answer Kamala since you are so insistent on unambiguous answers.

                • @null@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  4
                  edit-2
                  22 days ago

                  So in the short and long term, based on our best assessments, we agree the better outcome of this election is for Kamala to win over Trump*.

                  Do you also agree that there is an (effectively) 0% chance of a third-party candidate winning this election? That come election night, the winner will either be Kamala or Trump?

    • @null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      222 days ago

      Let me make this simple for the people that might be swayed by your rhetoric.

      When you throw away your vote, you will still be forced to have either Kamala or Trump as your president after the election. That’s a simple fact.

      But as a vegan, you will continue to have the option of not eating any meat.

      Again, you’re not stupid enough to actually try and make that comparison. I’m just appalled that you’re so disingenuous that you’d do it anyways.