Yes, because you've said nothing about your vote shaming habits. You do as always like to cut out parts of posts you don't want to respond to, and then pretend they never happened.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Oh! Righto.
"Harris supporters are supporting genocide"
"you don't hate genocide that much"
"I'm going to ask you how much genocide you like in a candidate. How much genocide do you like voting for? What timetable for the extinction of a people tickles your fancy?"
Like you showed zero contrition for all this (far more extreme) vote-shame stuff? It's funny, you expected me to immediately accept you'd "moved on" without any acknowledgement of it
I do do that to be honest. As does everyone on this forum without exception, including you.
Well you're still trying to be a weirdo vote shamer to Tippy at this very moment, so yeah, I don't think you're going to show any remorse, but more importantly you're going to keep doing it.
I actually used to not to, but now I do it to you, specifically, because you do it. And are like the only person on the forum that does. It does make arguing very easy when you just selectively remove parts of reality you don't like. At least for rhetorical arguments. Very non-endearing trait though.
The only interaction I've had with Tippy since our entire back-and-forth began was me telling him specifically that my criticism didn't apply to one of his statements. I actually think I'd been too censorious towards him early on.
This is how I knew you hadn't "moved on" too, ya know.
You think I'm like the only person who snips the posts they're responding to? I mean, that's just so obviously untrue, a look at almost any forum page will instantly show it.
Last edited:
Even though the original post about it was you vote shaming Tippy.
Hey, I am on the hard "no-vote shaming" train. I'm pushing it. Yet you keep arguing against it like you hate the idea about being against vote shaming. It's really weird.
You are about the only person who edits posts to not respond to parts of someone's argument. I don't remember Tstorm doing that to me, I don't remember Agema doing that, I don't even see Phoenixmgs do that. They might deliberately misunderstand something, or downplay part of a post, or whatever else, but you're honestly the only person I can say regularly outright deletes parts of posts aimed at you and then pretend they aren't there at all.
See, you just want to wallow in vote shaming. Completely insincere. Not a serious person.
Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’
The Republican nominee’s preoccupation with dictators, and his disdain for the American military, is deepening.
www.theatlantic.com
- At a certain point, according to two people present at the meeting, Trump asked, “Did they bill us for the funeral? What did it cost?”
According to attendees, and to contemporaneous notes of the meeting taken by a participant, an aide answered: Yes, we received a bill; the funeral cost $60,000.
Trump became angry. “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a fucking Mexican!” He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: “Don’t pay it!” Later that day, he was still agitated. “Can you believe it?” he said, according to a witness. “Fucking people, trying to rip me off.”
....
The personal qualities displayed by Trump in his reaction to the cost of the Guillén funeral—contempt, rage, parsimony, racism—hardly surprised his inner circle. Trump has frequently voiced his disdain for those who serve in the military and for their devotion to duty, honor, and sacrifice. Former generals who have worked for Trump say that the sole military virtue he prizes is obedience. As his presidency drew to a close, and in the years since, he has become more and more interested in the advantages of dictatorship, and the absolute control over the military that he believes it would deliver. “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this. “People who were totally loyal to him, that follow orders.
I truly do not understand how you can believe such obvious fiction.Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’
The Republican nominee’s preoccupation with dictators, and his disdain for the American military, is deepening.
- At a certain point, according to two people present at the meeting, Trump asked, “Did they bill us for the funeral? What did it cost?”
According to attendees, and to contemporaneous notes of the meeting taken by a participant, an aide answered: Yes, we received a bill; the funeral cost $60,000.
Trump became angry. “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a fucking Mexican!” He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: “Don’t pay it!” Later that day, he was still agitated. “Can you believe it?” he said, according to a witness. “Fucking people, trying to rip me off.”
....
The personal qualities displayed by Trump in his reaction to the cost of the Guillén funeral—contempt, rage, parsimony, racism—hardly surprised his inner circle. Trump has frequently voiced his disdain for those who serve in the military and for their devotion to duty, honor, and sacrifice. Former generals who have worked for Trump say that the sole military virtue he prizes is obedience. As his presidency drew to a close, and in the years since, he has become more and more interested in the advantages of dictatorship, and the absolute control over the military that he believes it would deliver. “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this. “People who were totally loyal to him, that follow orders.
I truly don't understand how you can fail to see how plausible this is.
There is so much to potentially unpack here.Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’
The Republican nominee’s preoccupation with dictators, and his disdain for the American military, is deepening.
- At a certain point, according to two people present at the meeting, Trump asked, “Did they bill us for the funeral? What did it cost?”
According to attendees, and to contemporaneous notes of the meeting taken by a participant, an aide answered: Yes, we received a bill; the funeral cost $60,000.
Trump became angry. “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a fucking Mexican!” He turned to his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and issued an order: “Don’t pay it!” Later that day, he was still agitated. “Can you believe it?” he said, according to a witness. “Fucking people, trying to rip me off.”
....
The personal qualities displayed by Trump in his reaction to the cost of the Guillén funeral—contempt, rage, parsimony, racism—hardly surprised his inner circle. Trump has frequently voiced his disdain for those who serve in the military and for their devotion to duty, honor, and sacrifice. Former generals who have worked for Trump say that the sole military virtue he prizes is obedience. As his presidency drew to a close, and in the years since, he has become more and more interested in the advantages of dictatorship, and the absolute control over the military that he believes it would deliver. “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this. “People who were totally loyal to him, that follow orders.
If I vote Green Party, there is no probability that I voted anything else. Because I voted Green Party. It happened. There is no moral significance to some hypothetical "likelihood" to have voted for some other candidate. What was your most likely second choice is of no consequence whatsoever. Some people think that buying a coffee every morning is morally equivalent to walking past a drowning baby and doing nothing; that is actually a smarter argument than the one you presented, though with a similar flaw (because it doesn't introduce this asinine idea about the relevance of supposedly likely alternatives).
These are all perfectly reasonable things to ask of someone who supports Harris. Or Trump, for that matter. If you vote for Harris, you don't hate genocide enough to decline to give a genocide-complicit candidate your vote. It's just true. And doesn't depend on tortured logic about 'likely' alternative behavior.
You think it's plausible because it matches 1000 other similar stories, all of which are hearsay at best. And quite tragically, you incentivize these sources to lie to you, as further lies make the rest seem more plausible to you.
Popular Vote Winner 2024
Polymarket | This market will resolve to “Yes” if Joe Biden is the candidate who receives the most votes in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, otherwise th...
polymarket.com
40% of people there are morons got it.
Gambling on who will win the presidency by default is stupid so 100% of the people on there are morons (and this is coming from a degenerate gambler that is Tippy betting on his fantasy football team!).
Popular Vote Winner 2024
Polymarket | This market will resolve to “Yes” if Joe Biden is the candidate who receives the most votes in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, otherwise th...
40% of people there are morons got it.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,516
- 3,008
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Alright everyone, election's over, Kamala has the juggalo support.
consequence.net
Insane Clown Posse endorse Kamala Harris
Insane Clown Posse’s Violent J has endorsed Kamala Harris for president, telling The Daily Show, “I want her to win because she’s a Democrat, and I love my mom.”
consequence.net
Or "hating genocide enough" doesn't affect my weighting between Stein and Harris, on the grounds that voting for either one has an exactly identical likelihood of stopping genocide.
Alternative possible behaviours, and the opportunity/likelihood of them, are the fundamental reason inaction is considered immoral in certain situations. You've understood the morality of inaction problem in a surface-level or emotional way, but not fundamentally.
((To be clear, that fundamental nature of it doesn't make one answer fundamentally 'correct', of course-- neither mine or yours)).
Last edited:
Opportunity, yes. Likelihood, absolutely not. There is no moral difference between a Republican or a Democrat voting Green. It's the same action in both cases. And they have the same choices.
That's just saying the same thing with words that don't make you feel as bad about it.