It’s not a false equivalency. If I don’t vote - the matter in question here - it’s not a foregone conclusion that Trump will win. Harris might still win but only by a very very narrow margin.That would be a great outcome as far as I’m concerned. A Harris presidency, but clear message that votes cannot be relied on and if they want a safer win next time, they’d better drop the genocide support. Harris might also change policy. Very.much like the examples you gave, other options exist.
It remains a risk not a consequence. And very much like soldiers dying. Have you ever heard of a war in which no soldiers died? No. Yet we still don’t say “you want soldiers to die” when describing someone who thinks it’s a necessary risk to defend one’s country. The likelihood of the risk coming about clearly doesn’t make any difference to the way we talk about it. It’s about intent. I’m not aiming for a Trump presidency. If I was, I’d vote for him. I’m aiming to avoid normalising genocide. A collateral risk in that aim is a Trump presidency. A risk I think is worth it for the objective.
What is utterly false is suggesting that because there are two options I must “want” one of them. That’s just garbage. My preferences are not determined by the options offered. I could want neither options, or genuinely not care which, or like both equally. In this case I “want” neither. I am prepared to accept either. I will accept the risk of a Trump presidency.
I know you think you’ve set up some clever ‘gothca’, but it’s just nonsense to say that because there are two options I must actually “want” one of them. Anyone can see that.
It’s not a false equivalency. If I don’t vote - the matter in question here - it’s not a foregone conclusion that Trump will win. Harris might still win but only by a very very narrow margin.That would be a great outcome as far as I’m concerned. A Harris presidency, but clear message that votes cannot be relied on and if they want a safer win next time, they’d better drop the genocide support. Harris might also change policy. Very.much like the examples you gave, other options exist.
It remains a risk not a consequence. And very much like soldiers dying. Have you ever heard of a war in which no soldiers died? No. Yet we still don’t say “you want soldiers to die” when describing someone who thinks it’s a necessary risk to defend one’s country. The likelihood of the risk coming about clearly doesn’t make any difference to the way we talk about it. It’s about intent. I’m not aiming for a Trump presidency. If I was, I’d vote for him. I’m aiming to avoid normalising genocide. A collateral risk in that aim is a Trump presidency. A risk I think is worth it for the objective.
What is utterly false is suggesting that because there are two options I must “want” one of them. That’s just garbage. My preferences are not determined by the options offered. I could want neither options, or genuinely not care which, or like both equally. In this case I “want” neither. I am prepared to accept either. I will accept the risk of a Trump presidency.
I know you think you’ve set up some clever ‘gothca’, but it’s just nonsense to say that because there are two options I must actually “want” one of them. Anyone can see that.