Define “red line” for me. It really seems like you think that less suffering and more suffering are morally equivalent, which indicates a defective moral compass incapable of understanding magnitude. Either that, or you have a defective moral compass that allows you to extricate yourself from moral dilemmas by saying that, because you can’t pick the option you wish you had, you’re somehow justified in not picking the best available option.
In your little Hitler analogy, you think it’s morally superior to let 60,000 more Jews die just to say “well, I’d prefer if we didn’t kill any,” and you’re saying I have a broken moral compass. Please tell me if I’m wrong. I would genuinely prefer to know that you understand that it is a worse thing when more people die
You moral compass is so broken you don’t even know what a “red line” is.
You will excuse any crime, no matter how abominable, as long as your monster is running against someone you can convince yourself is a tiny bit worse.
A red line is saying, “no, fuck this. There are some things you just can’t excuse. Both of these people belong in jail. I will not vote for either of them, as neither of these people are going to help. I’m voting for someone else and looking towards the next election.”
Your ethics are actually highly aligned with those of the Nazis. They had no red lines. Everything was utilitarianism to them. The disabled had to be killed off because they were drains on society, and on a whole the greater good demanded they be liquidated. The greater good required the Nazis to kill the Jews, as the Nazis had a theory of history centered around racial conflict. Killing off the entire population of Eastern Europe was “the lesser of two evils” in their eyes.
Your ethics would fit right in at Hitler’s table. You both care only of the greater good. Individuals have no innate value as human beings. Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all share your ethical reasoning. They just measure the “greater good” different than you do. And that is precisely what makes them, and you, so unforgivably evil. The greater good leads nations straight to Hell.
A red line is saying, “no, fuck this. There are some things you just can’t excuse. Both of these people belong in jail. I will not vote for either of them, as neither of these people are going to help. I’m voting for someone else and looking towards the next election.”
So it’s the “extricating yourself from moral dilemmas” kind of broken. The option you wanted wasn’t on the ballot, so the entire world can burn for all you care. I don’t want more people dead, and that’s EXACTLY THE SAME as wanting all the disabled people and jews dead. I’d call you a clown but you’re not even funny
“They all thought they were being good people, and so do you, which makes you evil like them” is such a weird take
Biden ran concentration camps. I’m sorry to have to inform you of this.
I’m aware of this. Trump’s are worse.
Your moral compass is broken.
“Less suffering is preferable to more suffering” indicates a functioning moral compass
Removed by mod
You have no red lines. You would vote for Hitler if he was running against someone 1% worse. Again, your moral compass is broken.
Define “red line” for me. It really seems like you think that less suffering and more suffering are morally equivalent, which indicates a defective moral compass incapable of understanding magnitude. Either that, or you have a defective moral compass that allows you to extricate yourself from moral dilemmas by saying that, because you can’t pick the option you wish you had, you’re somehow justified in not picking the best available option.
In your little Hitler analogy, you think it’s morally superior to let 60,000 more Jews die just to say “well, I’d prefer if we didn’t kill any,” and you’re saying I have a broken moral compass. Please tell me if I’m wrong. I would genuinely prefer to know that you understand that it is a worse thing when more people die
You moral compass is so broken you don’t even know what a “red line” is.
You will excuse any crime, no matter how abominable, as long as your monster is running against someone you can convince yourself is a tiny bit worse.
A red line is saying, “no, fuck this. There are some things you just can’t excuse. Both of these people belong in jail. I will not vote for either of them, as neither of these people are going to help. I’m voting for someone else and looking towards the next election.”
Your ethics are actually highly aligned with those of the Nazis. They had no red lines. Everything was utilitarianism to them. The disabled had to be killed off because they were drains on society, and on a whole the greater good demanded they be liquidated. The greater good required the Nazis to kill the Jews, as the Nazis had a theory of history centered around racial conflict. Killing off the entire population of Eastern Europe was “the lesser of two evils” in their eyes.
Your ethics would fit right in at Hitler’s table. You both care only of the greater good. Individuals have no innate value as human beings. Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot all share your ethical reasoning. They just measure the “greater good” different than you do. And that is precisely what makes them, and you, so unforgivably evil. The greater good leads nations straight to Hell.
So it’s the “extricating yourself from moral dilemmas” kind of broken. The option you wanted wasn’t on the ballot, so the entire world can burn for all you care. I don’t want more people dead, and that’s EXACTLY THE SAME as wanting all the disabled people and jews dead. I’d call you a clown but you’re not even funny
“They all thought they were being good people, and so do you, which makes you evil like them” is such a weird take
Removed by mod
“But I don’t understand, I voted for fascism lite the last 6 elections, why am I suddenly living under fascism?”