Okay. So, which one do you think we should vote for?

I guess I’m confused. Are you advocating for accelerationism regardless of the cost to human life?

That doesn’t seem particularly at odds with what I said, but I guess I’m glad you’ve got it all figured out. I’m hoping your plans to change the system work out. Genuinely. If you have actionable, realistic, achievable ideas for removing the corrupting influence of money from the world at large, I’m all ears.

In the meantime I’ll to continue to vote for whichever candidate (that stands a realistic chance at winning) I feel will do the least harm to the people I love and the institutions I begrudgingly tolerate.

I’ve already mentioned that I’m a moron, this should reinforce that.

I see. In that case, I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the world. You seem to want to frame it up as though there’s some master plan or conspiracy, instead of a bunch of individuals working in hotly contested fields, just trying to keep their jobs by doing what they perceive as best at any given moment.

From my point of view Biden didn’t have to lift a finger to expose Donald Trump as worse. Trump seemed happy to do that himself. But then, as I said, I’m a moron.

Stupid as I am, though, I don’t have to lower myself to calling people “losers”. I retired that word from my vocabulary when I graduated from elementary school.

We must have watched different debates, then. I saw one weak but curated personality, and one flawed human being. Maybe both of us are just incapable of seeing past our biases?

Is this… are you… Are you serious?

This is a ridiculous equivalence on its face, and you should feel ridiculous for saying it. A debate does not have a “winner” beyond that which any number of biased observers, such as yourself, attempt to assert. This is not baseball.

The winners in any debate, if there must be any, are the people who use what they see and hear to inform their voting choices. What, exactly, do you perceive DJT to have said and done on that stage that will convince supposed “undecided” voters to vote for him? What do you perceive Biden to have said or done that would make them decide that Mr. Trump is the better choice?

As you said:

“Undecided” voters fall into two categories:

Trump voter: “Iah aint tellin’ YEW who IAHM a-votin’ FER!”

Undecided voter trying to choose between voting and not voting.

Nobody is undecided between the candidates.

Were you yourself undecided? Or perhaps planning to vote for Biden prior to the debate, but now will vote for Trump instead? Given your analysis of undecided voters, I fail to see how the debate would have motivated the non-voters to go out and vote for a President Trump.

What I saw, personally, was two very old men who have wildly different takes on ethics and the seriousness of the position. One of which has a lot of practice being on camera. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden’s performance at the debate was at least somewhat intentional, setting up a wonka-esque reversal for debate #2. Considering recency bias, along with the media’s desperate need to turn everything into contentious clickbait, I think it would be a pretty brilliant tactic, even.

Of course, what do I know. I’m a moron. Much like your opinion, mine has very little value.

Given the available choices, and acknowledging the realities of game theory, the choice seems pretty obvious.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,

This is some top tier mental gymnastics. Holy shit, I hope you’re a troll. You’re literally on the internet discussing your plans to commit fraud. Mensa-level shit, here.

People are going to buy CP one way or another… that means you should make it and sell it to them, right?

Grow the fuck up, and maybe train a LLM on ethics, you’re going to need some education on the subject if you hope to stay out of prison.

In the medical industry they refer to motorcycles as “donorcycles”, since, in the event of a fatality you can usually still salvage at least one or two organs from the corpse.

That said, I own a motorcycle myself. :)

I think people (not me, I agree with glitchdx, overall) are probably down voting because it’s a classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, with a healthy dose of smug mixed in. Smugness is a great dialectical tactic if you hope to entrench people deeper into their views, rather than convince them to consider alternatives through reasoned discussion.

Do I agree that ideally we’d have robust public transit and increased usage of smaller, greener personal transport solutions? Of course I do.

But, incrementalism is progress. Valuable progress. We could argue whether it’s more likely to get us to the aforementioned vision of robust public transit or not, but history has proven time and time again that progress takes time and is resisted tooth and nail by monied interests. I don’t like it either. I want to wave a wand and have everything change. OP is right. Electric cars are not the solution. But treating symptoms while you work on curing the disease is best practice.

Downvotes don’t make me wrong, chuds.

Oh look, a child is on Lemmy!

Say what you will, but this person absolutely knows what they’re about.

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^{https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf}

They weren’t even that good as a kid if you read anything else

Here’s an excellent analysis of how and why the Harry Potter hype of the late 90s was very intentionally manufactured and sold to kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBftW7FzOVI

People who twist words around to intentionally misrepresent their conversational partners are neither arguing in good faith, nor are they good people, generally. Your parents should have taught you this. Do better.

Bad Faith Arguments:

It means that you’re not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate/argument, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds. If you tell someone you want a “debate” but you really just want to antagonize them or preach to them, you are lying when you say you want to “argue”.

Bad faith generally is an intent to deceive.

Here are some resources:

• Identifying fallacies.
• List and description of various fallacies. (You may want to pay particular attention to the Straw Man section)
• How to have better arguments

You can do better if you decide to. The first step to being better is learning how to converse and debate like a mature adult. You will continue to be labeled a troll if you decide you’d rather just keep acting like an uneducated, petulant child.

Well, at least you acknowledge it. That’s a start. You’re more self-aware than the bulk of the ‘righteous crusaders of truth™’ that I’ve encountered.

Just for fun, because I’m bored, what facts have I ignored so far in our conversation? Remember, I’m @LengAwaits. Don’t get me confused with the other people you’ve been talking to. I’m a different person who hasn’t weighed in on any of your supposed “facts” so far. I’m not here to argue about popular political figures. I’m only here to call out glaring biases and bad faith arguments. Surely you’ll engage with me on a more intellectual level than what you’ve so far managed to muster?

No thank you. I don’t like to engage too much with people who can’t be bothered to proof-read their own posts.

Nor do I enjoy discussions with people who are so assured of their own self-righteousness that they ignore documented facts in lieu of their own personal opinions.

It just so happens that I also don’t much enjoy arguing with people who have a documented public history of arguing in bad faith.