317
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Here’s how I put it elsewhere in this thread:

You have two choices, one is to poison a towns water supply without telling them.

The other choice is poisoning the town’s water supply, not telling them, and then shooting the survivors as they flee the town.

No question that slaughtering fleeing survivors is worse. But either way, you’re being asked to sign your name to poisoning innocent people.

You can only see “you’re voting for slaughtering fleeing townspeople!” But plenty of people cannot stomach voting for poisoning the townspeople in the first place.

You’re both looking at the same situation but seeing different elements.

The nuance comes in here: both are valid stances to take. If you don’t vote “against” shooting the survivors, there’s a greater chance survivors will be shot. But voting for the people poisoning the water supply is untenable for many, and not understanding why that is, is a huge problem.

this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
317 points (94.6% liked)

People Twitter

5162 readers
1672 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS