• Franklin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Typical, always there to tell people how it should be, completely detached from consequences

          • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            Yes, that’s typically how democrats are, but this time I think you’re gonna experience them with us. You’ll finally get a taste of that solidarity you’re always going on about from the comfort of your couch. See you on the protest line, comrade.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’m think you’re missing the point.

      You face three choices:

      1. Most death and harm, 50% chance of happening
      2. Less death and harm, 50% chance of happening
      3. Principled choice for no death and harm, but that practically makes choice 1 more likely to happen because it has 0 chance of happening.

      Choosing choice 3 is equivalent to choosing choice 1 because you’re contributing to choice 1 happening practically.

      Choosing choice 3 is directly creating more death and harm than choosing choice 2 and in that way is morally worse.