Thread by @mhbx

@JaRevenge 1/ To your specific question/point.
The syllogism you pose assumes as the one and only point of distinction between the candidates is the number of babies killed. Ie, the premise.
Even as an analogy it does not hold up. It is too broad, to reductive, to pre-determined the answer.

@JaRevenge 2/ What I think is the essential error in the #NeverBidenNeverTrump meme is it finds some systemic issues/problems, of which there are many (which you will see I understand and deplore, deeply, if you read through some of my posts), take this singular issue, like miltitary

@JaRevenge 3/ spending and make it proxy for every other issue. Collapsing EVERYTHING into a single variable, chosen specifically for the purpose of equivalence and thus making the point, as you have it in your logical form: Killing Babies.

If this is a function of simply not knowing any

@JaRevenge 4/ better, or being so overwhelmed by a single issue that no other issue, nor other larger context, or rationale behind the single point is sufficient to dislodge or change ones opinions, then fine.
For ex, one could rationally point to a politicians stand on the Iraq/Afg War as

@JaRevenge 5/ decision making factor.
I suppose that is the thrust of my response to you re yours. That such reductionist, and indistinct logic is dangerous. Because it does not have a sufficient tie to reality...I don't mean that as a put down...What I mean is arguing from analogy that

@JaRevenge 6/ is not tied to a sufficiently equivalent factor upon which the analogy depends. As such, the obvious answer to one such as yours is, Of Course C. Who would vote for killing & eating babies?
But what is the underlying analog you are tieing "killing and eating babies" to?

@JaRevenge 7/ I hope that much makes sense.

In order for your point to have a point more than rhetorical punch, which it does btw, it needs to tie to something where the variable X is applied to each of the classes you define in a way that does not distort the analogy.

@JaRevenge 8/ For example...as writ your analogy is
X = killing and eating babies. Qualified by 3 levels of degree. Forcing the moral conclusion of Cand.C

Now you need to replace X w a real issue that can bear the same level of distinction.

As it is written the one you propose is full

@JaRevenge 9/ of innuendo & assumptions that are not spelled out. (Much as you and the original post by @caitoz does/did)
Of course, it is the nature of twitter to force this level of simplification. It takes time & effort to spell it out like this. And usually, the effort is not rewarded

@JaRevenge 10/ with a response.)
Back to the point:
In another thread someone points to voting on the military budget as proof positive there is no difference between Dems and Trumpian GOP.
A valid opinion. But one that does not take into account the range of issues and complexities

@JaRevenge 11/ involved in that choice. Not the least is the MASSIVE corruption of the process of working through these issues at the level of Congress. And the MASSIVE power held by certain corporations & the corruption involved & implied in that point. Meanwhile there is need for a

@JaRevenge 12/ military to perform its basic functions. If you are arguing there should be no military, or it should have a different function then make that point. But it does not fit the syllogism you propose. It is not a valid value for X.

I could continue this with lots of examples

@JaRevenge 13/ & detail points. There are SO MANY points of distinction between Trump (and far more perniciously Trump-ism) and the Dems, and Biden, that given the stakes it seems to me your syllogism simply fails to hold up. Not that it is wrong. Just wrongly applied.

For example,

@JaRevenge 14/ Just on the point of "Rule of Law". I trust you are aware of the number and magnitude of issues that are addressed in this point. Trump & his team, most notably AG Barr, are systematically dismantling one of the essential foundational pillars of the framework of America.

@JaRevenge 15/ In this point, to your analogy, Trump would be killing and eating 100 babies, there is no Candidate B, and Candidate C is trying to stop the killing.

Who would you vote for then?

@JaRevenge 16/ I hope that is an adequate response to your request to flesh out the position.
What follows is working out the consequences, not in analogy, but in real terms, what is the current structure of power & what can be done? Now. Later. Given that what should I do?

@JaRevenge 17/ The reality is at this point there are two directions on the table. Biden is the only viable opposition to the current monolith that is Trump & Trumpism, in this election period.

The work that needs to be done is what @BernieSanders & others say: The primary objective is

@JaRevenge 18/ get rid of Trump (& hopefully the Trump enablers) out of power. All groups, points of view, people of all stripes, no matter what other differences or core values held, must unite around this.
The fact that Biden is the banner carrier...is not ideal. But it is what is.

@JaRevenge 19/ So we play the game as the pieces are arrayed and with the people and power we have. And, assuming victory, Then take on the work of fixing the system and etc. per ones passions & purposes.

@JaRevenge 20/ To not recognize that any action now that supports Trump's candidacy in any way, is essentially a vote for Trump is to guarantee there will be no next opportunity to do the work of #VoteGreen, for example.

I hope this point lands.

@JaRevenge 21/ To enable Trump because of some actual or perceived deficiencies of Biden/dems (of which there are many) is the point of the old proverb "To cut off your nose to spite your face".

@JaRevenge 22/ To flesh out your analogy
It is Candidate C, killing Candidate B bec he killed one baby, while Candidate A is empowered now to kill not just two, but all the babies, bec there is no longer any constraint on his power.

Think of children in cages.
That should be sufficient.