And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Is genocide not too far to compromise on? Or is it less of an issue because it’s a genocide of Arabs?

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Which do you choose: genocide or WORSE genocide? You have to pick one. Not picking either gets you the latter by default. Make a choice.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It’s a stupid question. But that’s the reality. So genocide or worse genocide? If you say neither, it’s probably going to be worse genocide.

          • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Some people really don’t grasp the concept of the trolley problem.

            A train is headed towards 5 people, you can pull a lever and switch tracks to kill 1 person. What do you do?

            • Grapho@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              Español
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              People who think the trolley problem has a clear cut solution that we have to “get” are on the starting edge of the Dunning-Kruger curve.