And don’t affect change. You might as well never have been born, as far as your impact. So it sounds like this is actually only about your moral high ground. That’s cool. Means nothing when Trump is president. Brilliant plan.
To be clear, you’re not ENTIRELY wrong. But don’t attack other users. Removed, rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
So the 66% of the population who don’t vote for no particular reason at all are, “doing the right thing.”
that’s a leap of logic
No it isn’t. You’re not standing out or standing up. Nobody knows the difference why you stayed home and let Trump get elected.
the individuals who abstained for moral reasons know.
And don’t affect change. You might as well never have been born, as far as your impact. So it sounds like this is actually only about your moral high ground. That’s cool. Means nothing when Trump is president. Brilliant plan.
doing the right thing is always right.
removed by mod
it’s not to prove anything. as you said, I’m likely the only person who will know.
To be clear, you’re not ENTIRELY wrong. But don’t attack other users. Removed, rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
It’s functionally the same. All you’ve done is exclude yourself from the system just like what the majority of people do every cycle.
that’s a consequentialist view of ethics, and one to which i don’t subscribe
removed by mod
Removed, rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
nonconsequentialist ethics are strongly preferred by professional philosophers, so someone here might be ignorant, but it’s not me.
Professional philosophers! Oh, I’m sold.
they’re the experts on ethics
They are! They are professionals!