Alice and Bob. Alice wins. She says that Bob can only blame himself for neglecting his training, but Bob blames Alice and says that if she wouldn’t have ran so fast, he could have won.
This analogy has literally nothing to do with anything. What’s happening is that Bob is saying that if he loses, it’s not because of himself or because of Alice, but rather because of Charlie, who isn’t even involved.
But for the very act of him getting their candidate elected? They should not feel guilty for that. They should feel pride - or at least, as much pride as casting a vote into a ballot can entitle.
Why should they feel guilt or pride? According to your insane “logic,” they bear zero responsibility for getting the candidate they voted for elected. The reason a candidate wins, apparently, has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of votes they receive, but rather, it’s entirely the people who don’t participate in the process who determine the outcome, somehow.
Of course the number of votes matter. Not voting affects the number of votes, because if the non-voter would have vote - the number of votes would be different. The responsibility is shared between all the people who get the right to vote. No one argue that this includes the ones who actually voted - the argument is about whether this includes the non-voters.
If Biden loses to Trump the only people to blame are the ones who didn’t go out to vote. If Trump loses to Biden the only people to blame are the ones who didn’t go out and vote.
So we agree then that that position is ridiculous and that no one should be claiming that.
Not ridiculous - just not sufficiently detailed. The people who didn’t vote are only to be blamed if the candidate they’d vote for if they did vote lost. Basically, if Biden (Trump) wins:
The people who voted for Trump (Biden) should not be blamed, because they already did what they could - they voted for Trump (Biden). It’s not like they could have voted “harder”.
The people who voted for Biden (Trump) should not be blamed either - they got what they wanted, and they were within their civilian right to do so.
The people who did not vote but would have voted for Biden (Trump) should not be blamed because just like the previous group - they got what they wanted. Also, even if they would have voted it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. There is an approach that say this should still be condemned because this was still a risk, but I believe one should not be so quick to condemn a bad practice when it succeeds because if you have to do that that means you were unable to find enough cases where the practice failed (and condemn it there) - which should compel you to consider whether this really is a bad practice.
Also - we are talking about blaming Trump’s (Biden’s) loss on them, but they would have voted for Biden (Trump), which means that by not voting they gave half a vote to Trump (Biden) - so why blame them for not voting?
This leaves us with the people who did not vote but would have voted for Trump (Biden). These people are blamable - they did not get their preferred candidate, and they could have done something to increase the odds that he would have won.
The people who voted for Trump (Biden) should not be blamed, because they already did what they could - they voted for Trump (Biden). It’s not like they could have voted “harder”.
That’s complete nonsense. You literally just said, “No one argues with the fact that this includes the ones who actually voted” and here you are arguing with the fact that the people who actually voted for a candidate are included in those responsible for getting a candidate elected. Which is it?
I make a distinction between “responsibility” and “blame”:
Responsibility is when your choices have contributed to the outcome.
Blame is a responsibility for a bad thing.
If the candidate you supported won, you share in the responsibility for it - but not in the blame because from your point of view there is no blame because it’s not a bad thing.
That’s still nonsense, the point of view doesn’t matter. If I rob a gas station then I’m still the person to blame for the gas station being robbed, regardless of whether it was a good thing or not from my point of view. That’s simply not what the word means.
This analogy has literally nothing to do with anything. What’s happening is that Bob is saying that if he loses, it’s not because of himself or because of Alice, but rather because of Charlie, who isn’t even involved.
Why should they feel guilt or pride? According to your insane “logic,” they bear zero responsibility for getting the candidate they voted for elected. The reason a candidate wins, apparently, has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of votes they receive, but rather, it’s entirely the people who don’t participate in the process who determine the outcome, somehow.
Of course the number of votes matter. Not voting affects the number of votes, because if the non-voter would have vote - the number of votes would be different. The responsibility is shared between all the people who get the right to vote. No one argue that this includes the ones who actually voted - the argument is about whether this includes the non-voters.
Is that a typo? Surely you mean that no one would argue that it doesn’t include the ones who actually voted.
Right. Sorry. Was more along the lines of “no one argues with the fact that …”, which pretty much means the same thing as your correction.
The comment I originally responded to said:
So we agree then that that position is ridiculous and that no one should be claiming that.
Not ridiculous - just not sufficiently detailed. The people who didn’t vote are only to be blamed if the candidate they’d vote for if they did vote lost. Basically, if Biden (Trump) wins:
The people who voted for Trump (Biden) should not be blamed, because they already did what they could - they voted for Trump (Biden). It’s not like they could have voted “harder”.
The people who voted for Biden (Trump) should not be blamed either - they got what they wanted, and they were within their civilian right to do so.
The people who did not vote but would have voted for Biden (Trump) should not be blamed because just like the previous group - they got what they wanted. Also, even if they would have voted it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. There is an approach that say this should still be condemned because this was still a risk, but I believe one should not be so quick to condemn a bad practice when it succeeds because if you have to do that that means you were unable to find enough cases where the practice failed (and condemn it there) - which should compel you to consider whether this really is a bad practice.
Also - we are talking about blaming Trump’s (Biden’s) loss on them, but they would have voted for Biden (Trump), which means that by not voting they gave half a vote to Trump (Biden) - so why blame them for not voting?
This leaves us with the people who did not vote but would have voted for Trump (Biden). These people are blamable - they did not get their preferred candidate, and they could have done something to increase the odds that he would have won.
That’s complete nonsense. You literally just said, “No one argues with the fact that this includes the ones who actually voted” and here you are arguing with the fact that the people who actually voted for a candidate are included in those responsible for getting a candidate elected. Which is it?
I make a distinction between “responsibility” and “blame”:
If the candidate you supported won, you share in the responsibility for it - but not in the blame because from your point of view there is no blame because it’s not a bad thing.
That’s still nonsense, the point of view doesn’t matter. If I rob a gas station then I’m still the person to blame for the gas station being robbed, regardless of whether it was a good thing or not from my point of view. That’s simply not what the word means.