137
Jill Stein formally launches 2024 White House bid as Green party candidate
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
137 points (79.7% liked)
News
22874 readers
5200 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And republicans don't do that even more?
there aren't acceptable degrees
So given the choice between someone actively demanding genocide and someone who's passively supporting a genocide, you'd sooner see more people murdered than vote for the lesser evil?
id sooner not support either one. neither is acceptable
So you would sooner choose to let more people suffer than involve yourself in seeing fewer people suffer. What an awful person you are.
in the trolley thought experiment, I don't pull the lever because I'm not a murderer
Yeah you are. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You don't get to not involve yourself, not pulling the lever is as much an active choice to kill 5 people as pulling the lever is a choice to kill one.
You value your own sense of self righteousness over the lives of other people, and that's awful and selfish.
and I'd say you value your own sense of power over the lives of the person you killed.
That's totally incorrect. I value the lives of the people that aren't going to die. Unlike you, I don't make decisions based on how I personally feel about them, but rather what the outcome will be.
if you think the ends justify the means, you should look into eugenics! very interesting stuff!
that's not what deontologists believe
I don't care what deontologists believe. They value their own sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority over the lives of other people, and that's evil. If you would rather see a woman raped than commit an act of violence against her rapist because committing violence is always wrong, you are evil. If you accept that there are situations where committing acts of violence aren't necessarily wrong, you aren't a deontologist and don't get to use it as an excuse not to pull the lever.
You're not a deontologist, so I'm not going to take your opinion on what I believe.
I don't think violence is always wrong.
Then you're not a deontologist. It's definitional. Actions have inherent moral value, regardless of the situation. If something is ever not permissible, then it's always not permissible. That's what deontologists believe, isn't it? If not, then you're still taking a consequentialist stance on morality, but with extra steps that allow you to claim that your own inaction is actually the right thing to do, but only when you decided not to take action.
If you don't think violence is always wrong, then what's your excuse for not pulling the lever, or voting for the person who would cause less suffering? To my eyes, those are situations where the "violence" I'm commiting is permissible because it leads to less suffering than inaction would.
wrong. what does kant think we should do about murder?
I don't know, and frankly I don't care. You reply too much. Enjoy the blood on your hands when you see every Palestinian dead and every American woman who has a miscarriage jailed because you allowed Desantis to win in 2024. At least you can pay yourself on the back and say "it's not my fault, I didn't want him to win, but the guy who wouldn't have funded the genocide of the Palestinians and stacked the supreme court with religious extremists was mean to people!"
biden is funding the Palestinian genocide now.
this has no bearing on whether I'm right (I am)
You would rather see every Palestinian dead than only some Palestinians dead. If that's what you think is right, then you are evil.
id rather no Palestinians were dead, and I'm not going to vote for someone who will find their genocide-- a little or a lot.
That's too bad, the choices are some or all. One of the two will happen, and you will have an impact on which one does. If all of them die because you voted 3rd party, that's partially on you.
it's on the people that voted to kill Palestinians. will you be voting to kill Palestinians?
I'm going to take the action that will lead to the least unnecessary suffering. It's not my fault that the two choices are some or all, and given the choice between the two, allowing all of them to die would be evil. Will you be allowing all Palestinians to die?
I'm going to do what I can to prevent any of them from being killed.
Short of assassinating presidential candidates, there is nothing you can do to prevent any Palestinians from being killed. Your choices are some or all. You can plug your ears and say "LAH LAH LAH I'M NOT LISTENING" all you want, but you're refusing to face reality. I did the same thing in my first election, which helped lead to religious extremists taking over the supreme court. I learned my lesson, and I hope you learn too.
the categorical imperative. if I were tied to the track I would not want someone to send a trolley hurtling at me when they have the choice not to do that.
Regardless of whether you pull the lever, you are sending the trolley hurtling at someone. You don't get to say you didn't choose for the 5 people to die. Walking away from the lever is as active a choice as pulling it. Deontology is just an excuse to not do the right thing when it makes you feel bad.
If you were tied to the track, there would be a 5 in 6 chance that you're among the ones that the trolley is already hurtling towards. With your own reasoning here, pulling the lever is desired by far more people than not pulling the lever. Doesn't that mean you have a moral imperative to pull it?
no.
no, I'm not. someone else has put all the pieces into place.