• db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The philosophical problem assumes only one action available to you with clear results. Neither of these is true here.

    More to the point. The philosophical problem is about the agony of inaction. You don’t need to bastardize the meme to add a third “inaction” route. That’s just inane.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Again that dodges the conclusion that one of the two WILL win. Understanding your district and the “cost” or teinal result of inaction still funnels all choices and interests to one of two results.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        One of these winning, doesn’t mean the results are foreseen. Which is unlike the meme where the results are foreseen.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 month ago

          All outcomes are foreseen. The one that will occur is not. Abstaining and 3rd party voting has known impacts that lead to one or the other possible outcome.

            • GBU_28@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 month ago

              That’s untrue. We know each candidates general stance from past time in executive office. It’s easy to look up trump’s past actions and current words on the middle east, and to the meme, we know his stance on minority communities, abortion, citizen rights, etc. as well.

              No love for Harris, but her platform is far saner and even ethical than trump’s.