There is a flaw in making a collective choice individualistic. Helping others is a moral thing to do and I was there in 2020 even though peanut butter sucks. Individually, I will get a sandwich, probably with peanut butter.
However, this crate landed on Palestinians. Helping the people under the crate seems important.
I understand needing to eat the sandwich. I also understand making a collective first-past-the-post choice individual is a flawed argument.
However there is an individual component to saying I really can’t eat peanut butter. The decision then becomes stand your ground (no peanut butter), compromise (just a little peanut butter) or protest (full peanut butter; see you in the ER). The claim is the compromise is best.
How do we reach a point where we no longer need to compromise on peanut butter?
Offering a sandwich with more and less peanut butter when I am allergic to peanuts still means I will be sick. I’m hungry and I want a sandwich with no peanut butter. There are third party candidates providing sandwiches with no peanut butter. I am sorry demand decreases for the sandwich with less peanut butter, but I am unable to stomach peanuts.
I referenced a news story in which the parachute on an air dropped aid package failed to deploy crushing people underneath.
Genocide is not ethical. Voting for genocide, but less, does not change the ethics of genocide. Part of the coalition that elected Biden in 2020 will not vote for him again due to his support of genocide.
The options for such voters are:
I understand the two party system created by first-past-the-post. I understand third party candidates are unlikely to win. I understand Democrats are rightfully nervous. If Democrats are nervous enough, they should do something to change the minds of voters that will not vote for genocide.