Context is important, that’s how we continue the conversation.
If Candidate A is a genocidal maniac, and Candidate B is a genocidal maniac. It’s effectively a wash and pointless to say “well Candidate A supports genocide!”
That doesn’t work in this context, if one person murders someone, and another murders 2 people, both are still murderers, one just is a worse murderer(as in more evil, not as in worse at committing murder)
If something affects both sides it’s effectively “a wash” and cancel each other out.
Unless you have weird double standards and only apply them when it’s convenient.
It’s called mental gymnastics to think “two wrongs make a right.”
It’s called a strawman to build an argument that was never made and then attack it.
You didn’t make this absurd claim?:
If you are victimized, you believe you then have the right to also victimize “to cancel it out”?
Context is important, that’s how we continue the conversation.
If Candidate A is a genocidal maniac, and Candidate B is a genocidal maniac. It’s effectively a wash and pointless to say “well Candidate A supports genocide!”
Hope this clarified my meaning.
Apathy has paved a basis for genocide throughout history, your view is not novel nor beneficial.
Grandoise words that mean little and contribute nothing but obviously you love the smell of your own facts so go off.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
That doesn’t work in this context, if one person murders someone, and another murders 2 people, both are still murderers, one just is a worse murderer(as in more evil, not as in worse at committing murder)
Seems like it works just fine.