There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.

  • @null@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    It certainly does not establish “the logical framework” for the opposing case. Again, as I explained, the framework deals with 2 parties negotiating, which is not applicable to the argument presented.

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      You haven’t provided any reason why the situations aren’t comparable. If you introduce more parties, it doesn’t change the dynamics of the situation.

      • @null@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.

        If you introduce more parties, it doesn’t change the dynamics of the situation.

        Of course it does.

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.

          That’s called an analogy.

          Of course it does.

          No it doesn’t.

          • @null@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            That’s called an analogy.

            Not when it isn’t analogous to the situation presented. Which yours is not.

            No it doesn’t.

            Prove it.

            • OBJECTION!
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.

              • @null@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous.

                That’s not at all how the burden of proof works.

                I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.

                You’re leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn’t. You need to start by proving that it is.