On Apr 7, 8:50 am, "Paul G." <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:22 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
You're both wrong, or drama divas.
> > No matter the evil, when you choose it, it grows.
Sometimes, it grows whether you choose it or not.
You utter a nice-sounding aphorism that obscures the
fact that sometimes, there is no "good" choice, but
doing nothing doesn't help, other than to provide
the self-satisfaction of not being involved.
> My father-in-law chose to have his feet amputated, rather than die of
> gangrene. He chose the evil of amputation to stop the greater evil -
> gangrene- from growing. There's a real-life, simple example proving
> your statement is false.
Diseases aren't evils. There's no moral component.
Voting for a president that you think will be less bad
than the other candidate is a legitimate example. One
of them is going to be president, so doing nothing
just enables the worse one while letting you feel like
you had nothing to do with it. It's passive-aggressive.
The exception is if both of the candidates are so
bankrupt you can't bear to associate with either of them.
This is the situation Greg is permanently in since he
believes in a different ideal of what our government
should be, but for the rest of us, saying we're too good
for the candidates has an element of cheap self-righteousness.
The same was true of people who voted for Nader in 2000
because they said there was no difference between
the major candidates. "Hah-hah," as that kid from the
Simpsons would say.
Ben
