• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Not voting for the candidate when you could’ve doesn’t improve the opponents odds?

    No, it doesn’t. Not voting for a candidate neither increases nor decreases their chances. Voting for a candidate is what increases their chances, voting for their opponent is what decreases them.

    Actually mathematically false. You’re saying 1+1=4 because if it doesn’t your feefees will be hurt.

    Nope, it’s actually mathematically false, you’re the one twisting numbers around. Remove me from existence and Trump and Kamala’s chances will be the same, so I’m not increasing or decreasing either’s chances.

    Voting is in no way shape or form an endorsement of anything

    Definitionally, endorsing a candidate is when you say, “This candidate is the best choice and I intend to vote for them.” It doesn’t mean, “I agree with everything this candidate says or does.” If you vote for a candidate, tell people you vote for them, and encourage others to vote for them, that is definitionally an endorsement.

    You’re obviously a teenager whose brain has not fully developed. If you’re an adult, god help us.

    I’m in my 30’s. You’re just wrong about everything you said.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        if you choose not to, you will decrease their chances

        False. If you chose not to, the chances remain the same.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            No, the same which is the same for the candidate you prefer. The chances only change if you vote for them or for their opponent. It is objectively, mathematically false to say that the chances change when you do nothing, it’s not even a coherent statement, doing nothing by definition changes nothing.

            • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              20 days ago

              and the same is a lower chance for the candidate you prefer than if you had voted for them.

              How are you confused by this???

              if you vote for kamala

              +1 chance for kamala

              if you do not vote

              +0 chance for kamala

              If trump is an option, and you didn’t increase the chance for kamala, you have increased the chance for trump

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                20 days ago

                Than if you had voted for them. You didn’t say that before. When you don’t specify that, the statement is false.

                Relative to a baseline of starting nuclear war, I stopped a nuclear war today. That doesn’t mean that I actually stopped a nuclear war in an absolute sense, or relative to doing nothing. If I went around telling people I stopped a nuclear war, I’d be lying. In the same way, it’s false to say that not voting is “helping” Trump, unless you specify that you mean relative to doing something that hurts Trump.

                If trump is an option, and you didn’t increase the chance for kamala, you have increased the chance for trump

                For example, this is false.

                if you do not vote

                +0 chance for kamala

                There you go, you just said it yourself. Neither an increase nor a decrease.

                • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  20 days ago

                  Neither an increase nor a decrease.

                  how do you not understand that neither an increase or a decrease, when there are two choices, is equivalent to a neutral vote, and therefore you are increasing the odds of the side that you don’t want to win, than if you had voted for the side you do want to win.

                  How is this so complex for you? I am genuinely baffled.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    20 days ago

                    It’s not at all complex, and I am not confused by it. You are just obviously and objectively wrong.

                    than if you had voted for the side you do want to win.

                    Of course, as long as you specify that, then you are correct. In the same way it’s correct to say that I stopped a nuclear war today compared to if I had started one. But it is incorrect to say that I stopped a nuclear war with no disclaimer about what I’m comparing it to, and it is incorrect for you to claim that I’m helping Trump by not voting for Kamala with no disclaimer about where you are setting the baseline.

                    In an objective sense, I am not helping Trump. I am only helping him relative to if I were going to vote for Kamala (which I wasn’t).

                    It would be much clearer to simply say, “You are failing to take an opportunity to increase Kamala’s chances and decrease Trump’s,” which is 100% true. But you can’t accept that, because that’s using language in a way that’s actually fair and accurate. Instead, you’d rather make the dishonest, false accusation that I’m not merely failing to hurt Trump, but actively helping him. And then you call me names and say I’m “confused” and too dumb to understand when I call out your dishonesty and manipulative use of language.

    • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Seriously man… how many people are you going to let eat your lunch before you just tap out?

      You’re all over this post getting wrecked left and right. Just stop man. It’s getting sad.