cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21396125
Stephen Starr in Hamtramck, Michigan
Mon 14 Oct 2024 11.00 EDT
I’m not ever going to vote for a genocide, and there is no moral high ground if you do .
But you realize that a Dem or Rep is who will be president. And they won’t handle the situation exactly the same. So you’re allowing the person who will handle it worse a better chance to be in power. That is literally what you’ve done. So if the worst happens, the option you could have helped prevent, just know you had a chance to make it less bad and decided your conscious was worth more than people’s lives.
There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.
Yes, yes there is. Omfg. Honestly look at this and tell me there isn’t.
If there are 3 candidates.
Candidate A wants to spend 100 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate B wants to spend 1 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate C wants no spending.
It’s obvious candidate A is much worse, 100x worse actually. Now if candidate A and B are very close in who will win, while candidate C has 0 chance how can you best help people. Voting for candidate C does nothing. They won’t get elected. But voting for candidate B prevents as much death as you are able. By voting for C you are one less vote against A. So if A wins, you’ve not prevented that in any way and have enabled 100x more death than B. If you want to stop death you need to look at the situation and see how you can have impact. Being overly idealistic can end up hurting you, like voting for C and changing nothing when you had a chance to save lives.
