6mo ago

The debate gets interesting sometimes

You're viewing a single thread.

434 comments

If that third track were an option the trolley problem would never have existed. If there really is a third track in the real-life situation, then the trolley problem is not a good analogy of that problem.
Sadly, in this election there is no third track and we are forced into choosing the lesser of two evils.
If you want a third track, push for ranked choice voting!
- the joke is that you are actively removing yourself from the situation by making a decision to do nothing. In essence, that track has no trolley on it, and no people on it, meaning nobody dies.... As long as you don't look over your shoulder.
  
  meaning nobody dies… As long as you don’t look over your shoulder.
  
  The real joke is how the "no choice" position is such extreme nonsense that even something as dumbed down as a meme can't make any part of it seem logical.
  
  it's not explicitly nonsense, one of the decisions that you can make in the trolley problem is doing nothing, this is the equivalent of doing nothing in a comedic fashion.
  
  Standing at the lever, close your eyes real hard and wish there was a third choice as you hope someone else makes that choice for you
  
  plug your ears, close your eyes, and yell "I CANT HEAR YOU" repeatedly over and over again.
  
  In the same way 'would you rather' is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).
  The third rail is just redundant.
  
  This is the problem with the trolley problem.
  If it were replaced with, say, being told to shoot one group or another by a sadistic guard, the possibility of refusing to choose would be more obvious in terms of what it means morally.
  The trolley is an inanimate object. It isn't making choices.
  Political parties are more like the sadistic guard. They are making choices.
  
  In the same way ‘would you rather’ is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).
  in a really reductive sense, yes. The trolley problem is at it's heart, a question of whether being involved in an atrocity is better than being uninvolved in an atrocity.
- Very well, I shall push for it by
  voting the same way regardless if the candidate supports it, and
  suddenly participating in direct action, because we weren't already doing that.
- There literally is a third option that will be printed on most of not all ballots. Rank choice voting is huge but people should be willing to vote earnestly. Nobody wants to be the one to make the change and wants the world to change first but that's not how it works.
  
  In a FPTP voting system, you cannot vote earnestly. To do so all but guarantees the election of the opposition.
  Explanation: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
  
  that video is more about the problems of strategic voting. if you sohuld learn anything from it, it's that voting for someone you don't want to win is not a good decision.
  
  that video explains well how strategic voting ends up with two parties.
  
  And we have an electoral college, so actually you can still vote earnestly in most states without major concern.
  
  No. In the current system you should not vote earnestly. In a fair system you should. Not in the one we have. The only moral choice is to select the lesser evil. Otherwise you might as well vote for the greater one.
  
  Only if your vote might change the results. Which isn't true for millions of Americans.

434 comments