Viewing last 25 versions of post by Gyro in topic Vent Thread

Not voting doesn't take away consent. Instead it merely makes you passively acquiescent to whoever gets into power. The way the people in power see it, it means YOU DO NOT CARE and so they can do what they want. There are terrible aspects about both parties, and in many ways they are similar, but that is not to say that there are no differences and that one party wont actively cause more harm than the other. I dont like either candidate, but I can recognize that one candidate will lead to less overall harm than the other. One candidate is able to be pushed, and has shown that, by moving further on some important policy matters, including pursuit on anti global warming measure, (Though yes, still not far enough)


 
Which ethical system to you follow then, where it is acceptable to allow more harm to come to people through inaction? Voting is not consent so much as one action that can lead to harm reduction.


 
Seatbelts kill people too when they might have otherwise survived an accident, but in most cases the opposite is true. Sometimes harm reduction includes realizing that harm may increase in other areas even as the net harm overall decreases. To choose to say fuck it, I dont care which choice harms people less is to help lead to more harm overall.
 

 
 
So I ask again, what theory of change are you following where not voting will lead to the change you want to see, rather than voting for at least harm mitigation?

Not voting doesn't take away consent. Instead it merely makes you passively acquiescent to whoever gets into power. The way the people in power see it, it means YOU DO NOT CARE and so they can do what they want. There are terrible aspects about both parties, and in many ways they are similar, but that is not to say that there are no differences and that one party wont actively cause more harm than the other. I dont like either candidate, but I can recognize that one candidate will lead to less overall harm than the other. One candidate is able to be pushed, and has shown that, by moving further on some important policy matters, including pursuit on anti global warming measure, (Though yes, still not far enough)

Which ethical system to you follow then, where it is acceptable to allow more harm to come to people through inaction? Voting is not consent so much as one action that can lead to harm reduction.

Seatbelts kill people too when they might have otherwise survived an accident, but in most cases the opposite is true. Sometimes harm reduction includes realizing that harm may increase in other areas even as the net harm overall decreases. To choose to say fuck it, I dont care which choice harms people less is to help lead to more harm overall.