Seeing as how another has posted the exact sentiment that I try and avoid....
But I've known you for almost two decades, so I know that's not where your thoughts originate from.
It was said with a bit of snark, but not really. The major reason is the policy and the things that the politician actively stands up for. (I'd be shocked if you didn't know where this was heading) That policy is on elective abortion. That single topic says so much about the person. So yes, I would rather take a crooked Republican then an honest Democrat. Why? Because eventually the law will catch up with that Republican and they will be pulled. However that honest Democrat will be still in office advocating for, advancing the cause of, and even sometimes funding an action which I see morally reprehensible.
If that one, single topic is what decides how my vote is cast...that's fine. It's my vote to do with as I see fit.
Does this stance excuse the actions of that candidate? Or mitigate it in any way what-so-ever? Absolutely not However like I said, I would rather vote for that individual then the other. Much like this last General Election. I didn't want to go third party. Instead, I cast my vote for the lesser of two candidates which I didn't prefer.
~Jeordam
Devil's Advocate question that will seem like I am being an asshole, but let me ask it for me and you have different views and I am trying to understand your views.
I am trying to view this from a Utilitarian viewpoint (which you can agree or disagree with) and to you this is a single issue vote.
But in the US we have about 926,000 abortions per year (roughly), which is about 14.6 abortion for 1,000 women of child bearing years. (Note it used to be far worse and we are at an all time low, it was 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 1981).
And lets concede (though you can disagree) that these 926,000 abortions are lost human life.
But what makes those humans life any better or worse than other human life we are "indifferent to", there are 800 million people that are suffering from malnutriton and far more people than die to starvation and drought the 926,000 abortions.
64,000 deaths happened last year due to opiods and fentanyl.
-----
So I agree life is sacred and I am not questioning your believe in that we need to protect sacred life. The thing I am asking is why did you choose to organize around this specific single voting issue when there is so much suffering in this world and some of these other ways we can save sacred life may be a more productive way to reduce suffering.
I can't understand hyperfocusing on one specific way that humans die and man kills them either directly or due to collective indifference. Can you explain it to me?
------
Note: I am not trying to be an asshole, nor am I saying you are being a hypocrit, I just do not understand, and I wonder if our believes are just so fundamentally different or am I missing something?
- 13/11/2017 08:54:50 PM
574 Views
something about people throwing stones *NM*
- 14/11/2017 02:17:30 AM
281 Views