So um, the united states just started another war in the middle east. We're going to need a shit ton more memes to distract americans from the nightmare they are enduring. Thanks in advance...
-
Not voting was tacitly supporting Trump.
wrote last edited by [email protected]A good chunk of Kamala's platform was also tacitly supporting Trump.
-
Fuck homie I dunno, I didn't have television through his first term.
I don't watch TV either. Did you have Internet?
-
Sooo.. I've never had a chance to see the inside of a voting facility. Not for lack of trying though.
Is that what happened in 2024 as well?
Nope, I was in a different state that day, unscheduled trip.
-
Yes, it's definitely our fault they rigged the election.
Your elections are rigged since 1812
-
Fuck homie I dunno, I didn't have television through his first term.
Is online, found Lemmy, popping off as though informed, but only outlet for information is the damned tele. Weak excuse is weak.
-
I don't watch TV either. Did you have Internet?
Nope. I was effectively completely off grid from 2016 to 2019.
-
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a video that Trump called him after the strikes: “It was a very warm conversation, very emotional.”
Speaking in Hebrew, he called Trump a friend of Israel like no one before him.https://apnews.com/live/israel-iran-war-updates#00000197-9582-d77f-a797-ffaf39a20000
Thanks guys, real glad we didn't vote for that evil fascist Harris and paved the way for Mr. No New Wars...
Has Kamala come out yet to denounce a single one of Trump's Israel policies? Unlike a lot of other Democratic lawmakers, she has yet to publicly condemn the strike on Iran. From what evidence we can actually observe, it seems she supports the current strike. Or at least she doesn't oppose it. There's little reason to think she wouldn't have ordered the exact same type of strike Trump just did. She would spin it as "being the tough cop on the international scene."
-
Is online, found Lemmy, popping off as though informed, but only outlet for information is the damned tele. Weak excuse is weak.
I didn't have TV from 2016 to 2019.
I didn't have Internet from 2016 to 2021.
-
Christ, do they not teach the trolley problem anymore?
It's honestly quite funny and downright sad that you would quote the trolley problem. There's a reason it's brought up in ethics courses. The whole point of the trolley problem is that there is no correct solution to it. Different ethical systems arrive at different conclusions. But here you are, going, "fuck how it's actually used, I've decided the trolley problem proves that utilitarian ethics is the correct answer!"
In a utilitarian ethics framework, you would choose to run over the 1 guy or choose to vote for Kamala. In a respect for persons ethical framework, you would take no action and would refuse to vote for either Kamala or Trump.
You've completely failed to learn the core lesson of the trolley problem.
wrote last edited by [email protected]What are you talking about? In any ethical framework, the trolley problem presents you with the conflicting guilts of action and inaction. The ethical frameworks don't do anything but justify whichever guilt you choose.
-
Sounds like some young people who haven't been through this before. This is not going to lead to a war. The USA has been bombing other countries continuously for decades.
There are different levels of bombing. This wasn't the US assassinating a single general. This was a strike on strategic assets comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We just did a Pearl Harbor against Iran.
-
Nope. I was effectively completely off grid from 2016 to 2019.
Then you had 5 years to witness the fallout from 2019 to 2024.
-
I didn't have TV from 2016 to 2019.
I didn't have Internet from 2016 to 2021.
wrote last edited by [email protected]OK, so you're ignorant. That's fine. Catch tf up before popping off.
-
What are you talking about? In any ethical framework, the trolley problem presents you with the conflicting guilts of action and inaction. The ethical frameworks don't do anything but justify whichever guilt you choose.
https://medium.com/@ashwinjitsingh/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs-deontology-bd624a8e321e
If one were to take a utilitarian standpoint, the means are justified by the end, which from a utilitarianist perspective, is the maximization of benefit. Hence, for a utilitarianist, whatever option guarantees the outcome of the maximum benefit is what is moral. Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.
The deontological perspective in contrast, advocates for the means justifying the end. This, for a deontologist, the morality of the action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than being based on the consequence. In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong.
Again, this is the entire point of the trolley problem. No one actually give a shit about the hypothetical trolley. The whole point is to explore how different ethical systems can lead to different outcomes. There is no "right answer" to the trolley problem.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Disteact [Americans] from the nightmare THEY are enduring"???
-
Then you had 5 years to witness the fallout from 2019 to 2024.
Um, wasn't that largely Biden's administration?
-
"Disteact [Americans] from the nightmare THEY are enduring"???
Yeah. Keep them in the memes as to distract them from the dystopia right outside their doors.
-
Um, wasn't that largely Biden's administration?
Jfc. Do you think that ramifications end on a dime? Can you not extrapolate information based on context? The biden admin has plenty to criticize, but this appeal to ignorance is lame as shit. If you've been living under a rock then just shut tf up for a minute and read or some shit.
-
https://medium.com/@ashwinjitsingh/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs-deontology-bd624a8e321e
If one were to take a utilitarian standpoint, the means are justified by the end, which from a utilitarianist perspective, is the maximization of benefit. Hence, for a utilitarianist, whatever option guarantees the outcome of the maximum benefit is what is moral. Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.
The deontological perspective in contrast, advocates for the means justifying the end. This, for a deontologist, the morality of the action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than being based on the consequence. In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong.
Again, this is the entire point of the trolley problem. No one actually give a shit about the hypothetical trolley. The whole point is to explore how different ethical systems can lead to different outcomes. There is no "right answer" to the trolley problem.
wrote last edited by [email protected]How does that have anything to do with what I said? What I said was
In any ethical framework, the trolley problem presents you with the conflicting guilts of action and inaction. The ethical frameworks don't do anything but justify whichever guilt you choose.
When did I say there was a right answer?
-
"Disteact [Americans] from the nightmare THEY are enduring"???
Well to be fair, there's no memes in the world that distract people living under the shadow of bomb and missile strikes.
-
I didn't have TV from 2016 to 2019.
I didn't have Internet from 2016 to 2021.
So you had an internet connection for three years prior to the election of 2024 to include the very long campaign cycle, and didn't think "You know what? This guy has already been president, so let's look up how that went."
You should not have the right to vote.
