That a disingenuous reply at best, the choice is clearly “person doesn’t do enough to help your people” vs “person who actively allows great harm to your people”.
The example could probably have done with being gender neutral, but even so.
I’m not sure why you zeroed in on the female part and not the “doesn’t do enough to help your people” part.
As i said, i don’t disagree in principle.
All i was saying in that response was that inaction should also be factored in to any consideration of morality.
I don’t disagree in principle.
Lets take your scenario of not voting for fascist-lite as a means to fight against Full-Fat fascist.
In the current American system ( the greatest and most functional system /s), not voting effectively gives the vote to the eventual victor (that’s reductive but you know what I mean)
Assuming the BigFash win, the choice of inaction would be more impactful than the action of voting for DietFash.
On a relative scale and depending on how you feel about fascism I suppose.
So yes the participation and outcome matter but the effect isn’t always equal.
Inactively participating in the rise of the GrandMasterFash would be the cost of feeling good about not actively voting for the LesserFash.
Ultimately it’s shit choices all around, but that’s the point of the lesser of two evils, right?
Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.
One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.
It’s very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.
The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.
I like to think of it as a large list of granular, contextual rpg stats.
“You get an average 6 for concentration while in a quiet room between 15-20 deg c. Assuming you’ve not taken more than 10 points of psychic damage in the last 3 hours and are well rested.”
They are, in theory, comparing your scores in a set of somewhat defined contexts to see if , overall, it’s causing you problems that might be helped in someway by a treatment that has worked for other people who have similar scores in the same set of criteria.
That sentence being so full of caveats is why I think diagnosis is hard for this sort of thing.
The typical troll never gives up on the last word either.
Oh noes, proven to be a hypocrite for doing the thing i said was childish…wait…that never happened.
I must be thinking of someone else :
Anyway , my apologies i hadn’t realised i was competing with an olympic level mental gymnast (you should really put that in a flair or something so people know upfront).
I defer to your gymnastic prowess.
And as posted in the link, the definition of alien has nothing to do with % population.
If something doesn’t align with the facts, its factually incorrect.
I’m not sure how I’m politically motivated by pointing that out.
“strange and not familiar” as well as “coming from a different country, race, or group”, which you conveniently ignored.
I didn’t ignore them, strange and unfamiliar also don’t have anything to do with % population.
It seems you want to ignore logic and facts to complain about people ignoring logic and facts.
That seems exhausting to me, but you seem to enjoy it, so have at it i suppose.
also: something …downvotes…childish…something
The first one is factually incorrect.
The second one is factually incorrect because it relies on the correctness of the first one.
You could perhaps argue common usage/colloquialism, then you’d be subjectively incorrect, but that would be my opinion not a fact.
I vaguely recall the TV show (and that it wasn’t great).
Also, if any of you are old enough to remember the TV show “sliders” there was an episode that dealt with this same general scenario.
Yeah, it could definitely have gone a different way and there were certainly actors pushing for that with various motives.
That it didn’t end up that way but still touched on the topic in general made it a much better read IMO.
It’s really not, definitely worth a read
5g microchipped psuedo-butter, outstanding.
I disagree somewhat, though not entirely.
TL;DR;
It’s advertising and or brand/cause awareness.
This is effective in drawing attention, good or bad attention is subjective i suppose.
It’s one of those brand awareness things, but instead of a brand it’s a cause.
You aren’t supposed to see this type of demonstration and think to yourself “they have made an excellent point, I’m going to immediately do all i can to support this cause”.
It’s a background awareness thing that builds trust and/or familiarity and works in concert with other things to try and ensure that if/when you are “ready” for action in the same vein, this is the name/cause you have in the forefront of your mind.
Because it’s people, there are probably many different goals and approaches.
There are definitely people doing this just for the attention, others who are working with a ted from scrubs mindset and I’m sure many others that are less than kind.
It absolutely has downsides as well, you’ll piss off a lot of people by disrupting their daily life, a lot of those people have their own immediate survival shit to deal with and lofty causes aren’t a thing they are going to get to any time soon.
Point is, just like any advertising, just because it doesn’t feel like it’s working doesn’t mean it isn’t.
It might put you off entirely but it’s a numbers game.
Fair enough.
You realise that the fact you’re even talking about it means it’s doing more than just making cars idle.
Now, whether it’s actually helping anything in a tangible way, that’s a different conversation entirely.
Possibly , but that’s not what you said.
The implication was that making cars idle was the point of blocking in the road, which is wasn’t/isn’t.
How does <this thing that i know was not the point> <fulfil the goal i know is unrelated to the thing i just mentioned> ?
A failure of sentence structure or purposeful trolling.
That’s like looking at a tennis match and asking “how does wearing white win the game?”.
Ignoring context to feign confusion is some weaksauce trolling.
Aside from the existing deficit due to hundreds of years of systemic discrimination you mean?
Yeah, re-reading it myself , it was a weird example and that may have been where they were going with it.