• PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I didn’t especially “want” to brush my teeth last night, but I did anyway. Because I know that the alternative is opening up the door to things I don’t want, even more than I don’t want to brush my teeth.

    If someone woke up and said, I’m proud I didn’t brush my teeth, because I didn’t want to, I would have trouble looking at them as a source of wisdom about how to accomplish the goals they’re trying to pursue.

    • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      Cute analogy, But that doesn’t apply to voting because voting isn’t a routine obligation—it’s an opportunity to choose what you believe in.

      Just like choosing not to brush your teeth doesn’t change the necessity of dental hygiene, choosing to vote third party isn’t ignoring reality, it’s actively rejecting a system that fails to represent true change. Thanks! :)

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        Just like choosing not to brush your teeth doesn’t change the necessity of dental hygiene

        choosing to vote third party isn’t ignoring reality

        You’re so close to getting it. Millimeters away.

          • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Yeah, for Trump. Because that’s what a vote for Jill Stein is.

            Your refusal to accept reality in circular logic does not make you correct.

            • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              No, they’re voting for Pro-Israel candidate Rachele Fruit. Quoted earlier this year:

              And anyone who is interested in reading and learning about the history of Hamas will be convinced that it’s not about liberation. It’s about genocide against the Jews.

            • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              1 month ago

              No, a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein.

              I’ve already voted. And I didn’t vote for Stein. Or Trump. Or Harris. Thank you! :)

                  • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy: being popular doesn’t make you correct. And obviously not many really think that, or Stein would actually be a viable candidate.

                    Once again, Your refusal to accept reality does not make you correct. And, by the numbers, it doesn’t make you popular either.

              • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                You are simply wrong about this. Completely wrong, and blindly pretending you’re right. I pride myself on giving people as much benefit of the doubt as possible, but you appear to be willingly trolling now, or you are incapable of learning new concepts and ideas and understanding the consequences of your actions. It’s quite selfish and concerning actually. In any case, I’m done trying. If that was your plan, to tire us out of arguing against your complete lack of logic or willingness to understand reality, then you win. Just know, you’re still wrong about some very fundamental concepts of our society.

      • finley@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        But that doesn’t apply to voting because voting isn’t a routine obligation

        Voting is routine and an obligation. Brushing those one’s teeth is not “a moral or legal duty”. Your reasoning is flawed.

          • finley@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Nobody claimed that voting was compulsory. Just an obligation. Those aren’t the same thing.

            So you know that what you said was false. Then why did you say that?

              • finley@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Not everyone feels it’s an obligation. Plenty of people don’t vote

                So? That doesn’t address the question— it’s just a non-sequitur. And clearly you do believe it’s an obligation, because you did vote.

                Now that you’ve acknowledged that your claims were false, why did you say them?

                  • finley@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    So? Peoples feelings, don’t change the meaning of a word, and you are still avoiding the question. Why are you too scared to answer?

      • finley@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Rejecting the system by participating in it? And how does a candidate that will definitely never win “represent change“?