• IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    …you need to show that the general reasoning of choosing the lesser evil is a valid line of thought.

    I really don’t though. There isn’t an ethics test after the vote. You don’t have to show your work. The fact that you’re so hung up on this makes me think you just want to “win” an ideological debate, but I’m not having one of those.

    You can vote or not, but there’s only two possible outcomes at this point. Believe it or don’t. Excuse it or don’t.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      OK, so you’re just speaking complete nonsense that you can’t defend at all.

      • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nah, the problem is that it makes complete sense in the imperfect would we actually live in. You want to have a perfectly logical reason to vote, but you’re never going to find it, so good luck. You’re going to have to compromise somewhere. I’m just honest about when/where.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          It doesn’t make any sense in the world we live in, which is exactly why you can’t defend your position. If there’s no defensible reason to vote for someone, then I’m not going to vote for them, obviously.

          You’re not really being honest because you don’t actually believe in lesser evilism. The reality is that you’re voting for Kamala because you’re perfectly fine with her, and the lesser evil line is something you use as a rationalization to explain away any cognitive dissonance. There’s nothing honest about saying that choosing the lesser evil is the basis for how you act when it isn’t.