Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[widdershins]

Speaking of which, let's talk about Jill Stein for a second

Holy shit!  Did this poor little white girl just say, "A comedian made fun of me, a plight is as bad as that of black people"???

[PickelledEggs]

Holy shit!  Did this poor little white girl just say, "A comedian made fun of me, a plight is as bad as that of that of black people"???

"I'll show them. I'll show them all! "

[FaithIsFilth]

Because "proof or your wrong" isn't just for theists any more.

Theists aren't wrong because they won't provide proof. Theists are (likely) wrong because (imo) god is an illogical concept. Proof (or evidence) is what I was asking you for. Proof that she had nothing to do with it. You don't have that proof, so instead you should have said "There is no evidence that she had anything to do with killing anyone" then I would have agreed and there would be nothing to respond to. Instead you made a claim that can not be backed.

It would be fine for Hillary herself to say that she had nothing to do with it, because she knows whether she did or not. She has that knowledge. You do not know, though, and are just assuming because you don't want to feel shitty about voting for her. You shouldn't even say that your best friend or your wife or your brother are not killers, because you simply do not know that. The more correct statement would be "My best friend, and wife, and brother have not killed anyone, as far as I know." When you say that Hillary has not killed anyone, that may or may not be correct. You simply do not have enough information to make that call. Why don't you wait until more information comes in before you make that call? That doesn't mean that you have to be right in the middle of the fence like I am when it comes to these suspicious deaths. Call it farfeched and silly and highly unlikely, that's all fine, but don't put the burden of proof onto yourself by making a positive claim that just can't be shown to be correct or even probably correct. As long as you simply state that you are going to dismiss any claims about her having anything to do with any deaths, because of the lack of evidence, then there is no burden of proof on you, and that burden of proof will belong to the one's making the claim that she did have people killed.

[PickelledEggs]

Because "proof or your wrong" isn't just for theists any more.

Correct. Thank you. I was about to say that

[PickelledEggs]

I actually am less frustrated with people that aren't voting at all than people that think voting third party will do anything.

[FaithIsFilth]

Correct. Thank you. I was about to say that

Sorry. I just realised that you guys are not meaning to be literal when you say 'wrong' or 'she didn't', but probably instead mean 'I'm going to assume it's not true or she didn't do such and such until evidence comes in showing that she did'. If he literally meant that one is wrong until they prove their case, then that would mean that a few years ago it would be correct to state that the higgs boson does not exist, but of course reality doesn't change based on evidence. The higgs boson existed whether we had enough evidence to show that or not. When we know that Hillary talked about killing the guy who was having the information leaked to him (Assange), I don't think it's that far of a stretch to say that maybe she could have had similar thoughts about the guy who was leaking that information to Mr. Assange, especially when there are billions of dollars on the line here. Gang members kill over thousands of dollars, or sometimes maybe even hundreds. We are talking about billions of dollars being on the line here and someone who has talked about killing people for releasing her information. This isn't some situation like where we have someone claimed to be killed because they were going to talk about UFOs or aliens or some bunk like that. Unlike the alien spaceships, the money on the line here is very real. She floated the idea of killing someone for leaking her information before, and I'm not naive enough to think that she wouldn't have probably had that same idea for someone else caught leaking her information.

[PickelledEggs]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You asserted something to be true and there is nothing you have to support it, so we dismissed it.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[FaithIsFilth]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You asserted something to be true and there is nothing you have to support it, so we dismissed it.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I did not assert anything. I'm on the fence.

[Shiranu]

Why voting is important, even if your individual vote doesn't swing the election.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/h2/fbac/moreofthis/heres-a-bunch-of-people-who-are-sort-of-depending-on-your-vo?utm_term=.xkWzQVeKj#.cfD4O8q6l

You say if everyone would just vote third party, things would change... even though all evidence points to the contrary since no third party is running on an actual platform other than, "We aren't the big two!" and thus are just a lesser of two evils vote themselves. I personally rather make sure my vote goes towards actual people who need my help rather than trying to further my own personal agenda and ego, even if it doesn't win.


Insuring the candidate who best represents them wins is important, and so is making a statement. Trump is expected to only win by a few percentage points here in Texas, where Republicans normally win by double digits. You think that doesn't send a message that the masses are growing sicker of his right wing bullshit? Do you not think that in an election or two, seeing that Republicans no longer have a strong hold here, more people who said, "Whatever, the Republicans are just going to win anyways..." won't come out to vote?

[Baruch]

Theists aren't wrong because they won't provide proof. Theists are (likely) wrong because (imo) god is an illogical concept. Proof (or evidence) is what I was asking you for. Proof that she had nothing to do with it. You don't have that proof, so instead you should have said "There is no evidence that she had anything to do with killing anyone" then I would have agreed and there would be nothing to respond to. Instead you made a claim that can not be backed.

It would be fine for Hillary herself to say that she had nothing to do with it, because she knows whether she did or not. She has that knowledge. You do not know, though, and are just assuming because you don't want to feel shitty about voting for her. You shouldn't even say that your best friend or your wife or your brother are not killers, because you simply do not know that. The more correct statement would be "My best friend, and wife, and brother have not killed anyone, as far as I know." When you say that Hillary has not killed anyone, that may or may not be correct. You simply do not have enough information to make that call. Why don't you wait until more information comes in before you make that call? That doesn't mean that you have to be right in the middle of the fence like I am when it comes to these suspicious deaths. Call it farfeched and silly and highly unlikely, that's all fine, but don't put the burden of proof onto yourself by making a positive claim that just can't be shown to be correct or even probably correct. As long as you simply state that you are going to dismiss any claims about her having anything to do with any deaths, because of the lack of evidence, then there is no burden of proof on you, and that burden of proof will belong to the one's making the claim that she did have people killed.

Hillary is a long term member of The Family ... a Congressional Christian group.  So you know she has to be crazy ;-)

Oh, Hitler never killed anyone ... those 66 million who died in WW II, did it to themselves perhaps.  Or space aliens.

[Baruch]

Sorry. I just realised that you guys are not meaning to be literal when you say 'wrong' or 'she didn't', but probably instead mean 'I'm going to assume it's not true or she didn't do such and such until evidence comes in showing that she did'. If he literally meant that one is wrong until they prove their case, then that would mean that a few years ago it would be correct to state that the higgs boson does not exist, but of course reality doesn't change based on evidence. The higgs boson existed whether we had enough evidence to show that or not. When we know that Hillary talked about killing the guy who was having the information leaked to him (Assange), I don't think it's that far of a stretch to say that maybe she could have had similar thoughts about the guy who was leaking that information to Mr. Assange, especially when there are billions of dollars on the line here. Gang members kill over thousands of dollars, or sometimes maybe even hundreds. We are talking about billions of dollars being on the line here and someone who has talked about killing people for releasing her information. This isn't some situation like where we have someone claimed to be killed because they were going to talk about UFOs or aliens or some bunk like that. Unlike the alien spaceships, the money on the line here is very real. She floated the idea of killing someone for leaking her information before, and I'm not naive enough to think that she wouldn't have probably had that same idea for someone else caught leaking her information.

Trillions, not billions.  You slipped a few zeros.

Shiranu ... I help people every damn day.  This happens if I vote or not.  If you aren't helping people every damn day ... check your image in the mirror, in case you are related to Dorian Gray.  My voting may or may not help anyone.  I am pretty sure being in a march or protest won't help anyone ... and other such Leftist direct action is always the same "captured opposition" shit.  You are being played by the Dark State ... way back to the 1960s.

[SGOS]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/04/fox-news-poll-clinton-ahead-trump-by-two-points.html

A two point spread.  It's unbelievable.  Trump and Clinton both with high negative ratings making it a race between who is the least less desirable.  All partisan stuff aside, it has got to make people wonder.  I can't believe it, but I should.  It's all right there in the numbers.  America is split almost even, and that's equally unbelievable.  I doubt I will ever see us a united nation again in my lifetime.  Polarization just keeps getting more entrenched.  It's a dynamic that seems to have a life and momentum of its own.  Not that two points is the main issue.  It's the deep hatred that is developing between two halves.  I think that's what bothers me the most.

[Shiranu]

So an intentionally bad deed is excused by an intentional good deed, and thus no one can judge.

Since Hitler has been brought up, he did various good things for the German people, so you can't judge him for the holocaust.

[Baruch]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/04/fox-news-poll-clinton-ahead-trump-by-two-points.html

A two point spread.  It's unbelievable.  Trump and Clinton both with high negative ratings making it a race between who is the least less desirable.  All partisan stuff aside, it has got to make people wonder.  I can't believe it, but I should.  It's all right there in the numbers.  America is split almost even, and that's equally unbelievable.  I doubt I will ever see us a united nation again in my lifetime.  Polarization just keeps getting more entrenched.  It's a dynamic that seems to have a life and momentum of its own.  Not that two points is the main issue.  It's the deep hatred that is developing between two halves.  I think that's what bothers me the most.

While I don't believe the polls, or even the counted votes ... there is a great divide.

"I can hire half of the working class to kill the other half" ... Jay Gould ... robber baron ... you are all being played, and I am enjoying my popcorn.

[Baruch]

So an intentionally bad deed is excused by an intentional good deed, and thus no one can judge.

Since Hitler has been brought up, he did various good things for the German people, so you can't judge him for the holocaust.

I assume that was in jest ... unless you would like to join the Holocaust deniers.  And I don't judge Nazis, I just kill them.