Because the severity of the threat is a knowable variable, whereas the efficacy question is an unknowable variable.
-
-
Replying to @mtracey @EricLevitz
It's not utterly unknowable. We can apply reasoning and historical precedent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thitchner @EricLevitz
It's impossible to know with certitude because it hinges on the outcome of future events.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No, I said if you take that premise to be true, certain logic follows. Did not endorse the premise.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @EricLevitz
I would say that accepting the premise that the fascist threat is real, simply waiting around for the election is inconsistent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey @EricLevitz
Given the level of danger posed, waiting for the election to transpire would not be an ethically consistent course of action.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey @EricLevitz
If you're content to wait around for 6 months and roll the dice, you must not believe that fascist takeover is a true danger.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
I disagree. But appreciate engagement and found your thought experiment a useful exercise in clarifying my own thoughts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Likewise, I think the nailing down the significance of the efficacy question does require more fleshing out.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.