• 2 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle



  • Consider two scenarios: one where you vote, one where you do not, all else is the same. In the scenario where you vote, the candidate that you vote for, that you least disagree with, has a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario. In the scenario where you don’t vote the candidates that you wouldn’t have voted for, the ones you most disagree with, have a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario.

    Not voting is effectively voting for the people you most disagree with.

    democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn’t vote had actually voted democrats?

    That’s a different argument than what I was making. “Not voting is effectively approval of whoever wins.” related but not the same.



  • wanderer@lemmy.worldtoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.comFrench libs right now
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.

    That is such a stupid mindset. In many states you have to be a member of the party to vote in their primary. If you are not voting in any primary then you are letting people that you disagree with decide who will be in the candidate in the election. And considering that not voting is effectively voting for the candidate that you most disagree with, all the leftists that refuse to associate with the democratic party are effectively voting for the people they disagree with.


  • The Phoenicians founded a new city in North Africa and called it ‘New City’ (Qart Hadasht), we now call it Carthage. The Carthaginians founded a new city in Spain and called it ‘New City’ (Qart Hadasht). The Romans conquered both of these cities, and found that having cities with the same confusing so called the second one ‘New New City’ (Carthago Nova).














  • The UU MOU demonstrates that they still discriminate. Any Christian denomination is automatically acceptable, for atheists they have to pick and choose saying “you’re one of the good ones”.

    If a scout wishes to define god as thermodynamics, BSA accepts it.

    OK, that’s irrelevant. Those were clearly MY opinions, a demonstration of how I refuse to label things with the term ‘god’, followed by the rationale for me doing so.

    You are using a completely different, contradictory definition.

    I am not using any definition of ‘god’, I am just saying that it has a definition, not any specific one just some definition, otherwise the term would be meaningless. And if I were to label anything ‘god’ it would be because that thing fulfilled the requirements for this unspecified definition. If I were to label something as ‘red’ it would be because it fulfills the requirements to be called ‘red’. If it did not fit the definition of ‘red’ I would not apply the label ‘red’. In the same way, I would not label something as ‘god’ unless I thought the label fit. If I were to label something as ‘god’ it would imply that there was something different about it when compared to something that I would refuse to apply the term ‘god’ to. And there is nothing that I would be willing to label ‘god’.