This is the first response that I think is actually engaging with my question.

My disagreement stems from not seeing that adding of legitimacy as worth as much as actual people’s lives that are different in count on the different tracks.

It’s okay, I apparently made a faux pas trying to engage to learn here on this issue but this community is clearly more for comradeship like its name suggests rather than outreach. That’s fine, I’m going to discontinue this conversation here as my interjections are clearly unwelcome.

I agree with you on all the ways with which the trolley thought experience falls to reflect reality.

However, the objective isn’t really to reflect reality but rather to elucidate the essence of the moral principle being examined.

The principle in this case I struggle to fully understand is OP’s idea that there is a threshold of evil beyond which lesser of two evils is morally bankrupt to follow. But why should that be the case when direct action can be combined with voting with no effect? In terms of the trolley problem that would be if you could instantaneously pull the lever while simultaneously attempting to get people off or derail the train or sabotaging the track.

I don’t really get OP’s stance but I don’t feel like I’m getting much honest engagement from anyone here that’s holding that stance. Just down votes and blow off responses which make me wonder why I’m bothering to have an open mind on this issue instead of just scrolling by.

OP talked about how there is a certain level of evil where supporting becomes morally bankrupt even if the two sides aren’t the same. Your formulation lacks that completely. One side has genocide, the other side has genocide and destruction of the environment and persecution of LGBTQIA+ and a lot of other substantive things not found on the first side.

I’m being genuine here but on the verge of rolling my eyes and walking away from learning here. Is there a simplified formulation that is in the widely understood philosophical trolley format that can help me understand the position?

Could you or anyone convert the scenario then into a trolley problem that does fit in your view?

So if the election only had two candidates and was a dichotomy would it apply?

I’m trying to understand the reasoning here.

However, we must not forget that there exists a moral threshold below which neither choice is acceptable. To suggest that enabling a literal genocide can be considered a lesser evil is a morally bankrupt stance.

How would you apply your reasoning on the trolley problem? I.e. on one track there are two anonymous people and on the other track there is one, the trolley is heading towards the two. Is it unethical to pull the lever to divert it because killing anyone is morally unacceptable?

Doesn’t the USA subsidize electric vehicles a ton too with tax credits and other subsidies at both the consumer and producer levels?

I read the article but I’m still confused how this works.

My understanding is the herpes virus DNA is integrated into our own. So once the gene editing molecules snip at the herpes virus damaging it, how does the chromosome get put back together?

Is it actually sniping at two places in the herpes genome in a way that the two ends match up and reform while cutting out a section in the middle?

Of course, not roads only, the USA is still terrible and China and India are still not on the list.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/

North America makes its cities catered to cars rather than people and then people spread out into suburbs. Then North Americans say they can’t make the cities suck less because the people are too spread out.

Seems worth noting he’s not being charged with anything spying or geopolitics related, but instead he’s been charged with theft. No details in the article about what he’s accused of having stolen. Seems like almost the only notable fact in this whole story is his being a US soldier in Russia, otherwise there’s a ton of Americans accused of pretty crimes while abroad every day.

That doesn’t really contradict their premise about making modern RTS. StarCraft and Age of Empires 2 are ancient at this point. An entire generation of kids has grown up since they came out.

I don’t think the fact that you could make a successful mainstream RTS way back then really says much about whether you could make one in 2024.

When asked why the Times doesn’t see its job as trying to “stop Trump,” Kahn completely missed the point and said journalism’s role is to provide “impartial information” rather than becoming a “propaganda arm.”

That’s pretty rich when you read any of the New York Times’ coverage of countries that are America’s geopolitical enemies. Their articles practically read like State Department press releases.

Meanwhile, Representative Elise Stefanik—the star browbeater of the hearings on campus antisemitism called by the House Education and Workforce Committee—has been gunning forthe resignation of Columbia President Nemat (Minouche) Shafik (a matter that is not the purview of politicians, but of faculty, administrators, and trustees).

It’s funny how even after kowtowing to right wing demands, she faces demands to resign not only from the left that she sicced the police on, but also the right that she has been groveling towards.

It was a tough sacrifice, but the really important thing going forward is making sure Elon gets his 56 billion dollar bonus reinstated that was so cruelly taken away.

Trump has that incredible either-you-see-it-or-you-don’t charisma.

For every Trump there are a thousand wannabes like DeSantis who get destroyed by their gaffes and screw ups (like is supposed to happen) instead of being boosted by them. The exception, despite being very prominent, doesn’t break the rule that coverage of a politician’s gaffes is normally very, very bad for them.

I really don’t think so. The fact that we’re still talking about this week’s later is an indication of how dead her national political career is. Her brand is the dog killing politician now.

She was a contender to be Trump’s VP candidate, and he can’t stop talking about what a fool she is with no political acumen.

Sadly that strategy does in fact ordinarily pay off because the young people that make up the largest demographic of legal adults notoriously underperforms when it comes to voting.

Utah is gorgeous.

There are definitely parts of Socal that are ugly. Also parts that are sublime.

Try visiting a not ugly state like California.