After a day and several replies from people. I’ve come to the conclusion that people here are ok with their party and leaders supporting genocide and they attack the questioners (instead of their party leaders) who criticize those who support genocide. Critical thinking is scarce here.

I’m shameful of humanity.

  • when@lemmy.worldOP
    1·
    10 months ago

    You seem very happy with this democrat government. But would you start hating them if they include policy like ending support/funding of genocide?

      • when@lemmy.worldOP
        1·
        10 months ago

        I think supporting/funding genocide shouldn’t be democratic party policy, it would suit more on far-right. But reality is different. Even after thousands of posts, emails to representatives, cases in court, protests in campuses and rallies. Democrats are eager to support/fund a genocide.

        Democratic party has become a far-right party.

      • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
        1·
        10 months ago

        threatening to let conservatives further mangle the country when you have a progressive alternative is selfish and incredibly narrow-minded.

        And how exactly is not voting doing that when…

        the democrats are already winning the votes of young and decided voters

        Either the Democrats are comfortably winning (in which case we can vote with our conscience), or they’re not (in which case vocal opposition to genocide might encourage them to change policies to garner our vote).

        The alternative is that nothing will get them to change policies because they’re not interested in our vote. In which case the whole “turn up and the Democrats will move left” theory is nonsense.

          • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
            1·
            10 months ago

            none of this is the neat logic game you want it to be.

            And yet…

            in this election, Harris is the clear better choice for people who are not selfish.

            So presumably it is the “neat clear logic game” you want it to be.

            You haven’t answered any of the criticisms raised against your argument.

            It’s OK to just disagree with me and explain why, you know. You don’t have to label all opposing arguments as ‘nonsense’ (or misinformation, or ideologically biased, or whatever the latest buzz-term is…). You can just disagree. Humans are marvellous like that, we look at things differently from each other and form different views as a result. We even have this amazing tool ‘rational discourse’ whereby we can dissect those differences. It’s great.

            If you think one (or more) of my criticisms flawed, then quote it and point out the flaw. Try it, you might like it.

              • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
                1·
                10 months ago

                I literally said it isn’t the clear logic game you wanted to be.

                Yes,and then you went on to present a clear logic game of your own (vote for Kamala=good), hence my criticism.

                Go ahead, ask away.

                I thought I had but…

                If the Democrats are not assured victory (as you now seem to be saying) then why is the anti-genocide strategy supposed to be ‘vote for them anyway’, and not ‘refuse to vote for them unless they change their policy’.

                We start from the premise that Democrats need votes (either because they’re losing, or because they don’t want to rest on their laurels). We agree one of these is the case, yes?

                So your anti-genocide solution is to just give them the votes they need without asking for anything in return.

                The solution @[email protected] suggested, which you’re arguing against, is to negotiate. To use the power we have as voters whose vote they need (or really, really want), to ask for a change in policy in return for that vote.

                You haven’t explained why the latter won’t work other than the Democrats not wanting those votes, or not wanting to end the genocide.

                If we assume both - the Democrats want to end genocide and want more votes, them why wouldn’t they offer to end genocide in exchange for more votes?

                  • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    Tl;Dr

                    “I’m really clever and have thought through my decision really carefully so anyone who disagrees with that decision must be really ignorant because for some reason it’s literally impossible for rational people to just disagree about something and discuss it.”

                    Do you have any intention of actually answering the question, or is it all just going to be “you’re so ignorant, you don’t understand”?

                  • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    Have a read of this paper by David Christensen (Chair of Epistemology at Brown University). https://philarchive.org/archive/CHRDQA

                    It’s s good overview of the issue we’re stuck on here. You’re taking a strict ‘Steadfast’ position that since you’ve reasoned P, anyone reasoning not-P must be either of lower epistemic status, or have reasoned poorly. But as Christensen shows, most epistemologists recognise that this position is flawed (p.2).

                    Anyway, have a read, if you feel so inclined. See if any of it makes sense to you, or maybe opens up some epistemological issues you perhaps hadn’t considered.