but it's problematic to make (imo) a weak but more persuasive argument and fall back to the stronger but less persuasive.
-
-
Replying to @wycats
My tweet gave one reason a Stein vote is beneficial. It did not presume to say that's the only reason or prime reason I'd vote for her.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg
am I presuming incorrect that you think that argument is persuasive to people not already persuaded?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
I hope it's persuasive to some people, especially those in states that typically are pretty safe for one or the other major-party candidate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg
fair enough re: safe states. I just think you have an obligation not to use a moral argument based on unavailable outcomes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @BenSpielberg
I hope you will agree that there ARE consequences to the decision, and if the tipping point in an unsafe state is 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @BenSpielberg
someone believing in an unavailable outcome, I think you own the consequences for making the crucial moral argument. 2/2
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @BenSpielberg
as a thought experiment: I think you would agree it's morally problematic to tell someone to vote for
@DrJillStein saying 1/1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @BenSpielberg
"if you vote for her I guarantee she will win" 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
I would say it's more factually wrong than anything else, & to the extent the person knows that, it's morally problematic to lie :).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
right so I'm just asking for more rigor about your belief it can be accomplished.
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.