Former landed gentry.
Recording home videos for personal use within your immediate family was protected. Screening for people beyond that was not. Mr. Rogers famously gave us what little protection we had and insured that we could even have home VHS recorders. Testified before a congressional committee that was on the verge of banning it, changed one critical mind and that stopped it.
I’m willing to bet $100 this ain’t happening.
I didn’t realize there was a problem. So did all the streaming services fuck up the colors or something?
Thought I blocked you, my mistake
I said some people. If that’s not how you operate then you have nothing to worry about.
Do you know what’s so frustrating about these people? They often won’t show up until 6-9 months before the election and start complaining about the lack of choice. They don’t vote in the primaries, they don’t work the other 3 1/2 years on campaigns or for causes they care about. They do nothing at the local or state levels. They show up last minute, scream “nothing we do matters,” then fuck off until the next general.
Just grenades complaining and griping and destroying things with no end in sight.
Missed that fair point. Either way you’re both being ridiculous.
And the reason OP’s analogy falls apart is choosing nobody or someone else is actually valid when you are deciding who to date. But there is going to be a president, it is going to be one of those two people, and not voting/voting third party in 2024 does not change that.
The whole point of the trolley problem is to illustrate how difficult culpability/blame is and how a single choice can be incredibly multi-faceted to the point where you can’t possibly untangle it and find the “correct” answer unless you adhere to a strict, well-defined moral framework. Which usually means making a choice to ignore other factors and other valid moral frameworks. Hence the conundrum. It’s real use is to test drive how each framework handles the situation and to see your reaction to it.
You’re missing the lesson here, or purposely obscuring it to win an internet argument in the hopes no one looks too closely because you cited a thoroughly-meme’d smart sounding philosophical question.
It was in response to your patronizing nonsense. Yes, they should have turned the other cheek, but you literally started this! So yeah, you forfeit your right to critique it
these flippant “just let them secede and suffer and die” comments are sad to read.
You’re also not allowed to complain about him calling you “bro” after you ended with “babe“ previously.
I don’t understand the question. We don’t elect based on popular vote.
I didn’t dodge questions. Some of us critiqued your shit analogy and you got butthurt. That’s what happened here.
Have a good one mate. Last word is all yours - I’m sure it’s very important to you.
And the point is she doesn’t have to have anybody. We do. We have 2 people and 1 of them will be here whether we like it or not. We can’t opt out.
That would make way more sense tbh
I live in the gulf coast. The violence is not removed from me. It’s arguably worse here than anywhere else in the US, they test those insane policies here. You know nothing about me or my family.
Interesting you dropped off that SCOTUS discussion. You seemed pretty smug and sure there too.
If you and I choose not to vote for Trump or Biden, who do we wind up with?
If she says no to both guys, who does she wind up with?
If the comment was sufficient we wouldn’t be here. It’s a bad analogy. Accept that it has flaws or make your case. Don’t keep pointing to the same insufficient comments as if the only answer is our lack of comprehension. Several people clearly disagree with it on the same grounds so maybe consider you’re wrong.
The beauty of working in video production is I always have a tool I can run stuff through for very legal and very cool capture purposes.