He did. Like this is empirically an answer to your question. It’s not his revolution if you have to engage in measures he consider distasteful or unethical.
I’d say he didn’t. He gave an “it depends” with a scenario that hasn’t happened resulting in full death of humanity. It’s a way to handwave away the question, to sidestep it, we’re standing where we stood before.
To rephrase it: Had the question been “do you want to put out a house on fire?” And the answer is “well that depends, if the house was hit with a meteor that kills all life, then that would put out the fire” isn’t really an answer to the question. It makes it so big and vague that you’re answering a completely different question
Libs will cry “whataboutism” or bring up 10 fallacies they remembered from high school for hours to avoid addressing the substance of a conversation, then come back with shit like “well what if a meteor killed everyone, huh?” and tell themselves they’re the ones operating in good faith
It actually is. It’s the same as saying “No, not under those circumstances”. If you are comparing something to the destruction of the earth, you are not in favor of that thing.
But the question wasn’t “under these circumstances, would you put out the house on fire?” They invented the circumstances and have yet to answer under what circumstances they would put the fire out. If they had done that, then it would have been an answer
He did. Like this is empirically an answer to your question. It’s not his revolution if you have to engage in measures he consider distasteful or unethical.
I’d say he didn’t. He gave an “it depends” with a scenario that hasn’t happened resulting in full death of humanity. It’s a way to handwave away the question, to sidestep it, we’re standing where we stood before.
To rephrase it: Had the question been “do you want to put out a house on fire?” And the answer is “well that depends, if the house was hit with a meteor that kills all life, then that would put out the fire” isn’t really an answer to the question. It makes it so big and vague that you’re answering a completely different question
Libs will cry “whataboutism” or bring up 10 fallacies they remembered from high school for hours to avoid addressing the substance of a conversation, then come back with shit like “well what if a meteor killed everyone, huh?” and tell themselves they’re the ones operating in good faith
It actually is. It’s the same as saying “No, not under those circumstances”. If you are comparing something to the destruction of the earth, you are not in favor of that thing.
But the question wasn’t “under these circumstances, would you put out the house on fire?” They invented the circumstances and have yet to answer under what circumstances they would put the fire out. If they had done that, then it would have been an answer
Are you actually defending him It was a nonsenseical answer
It’s only a defense if you think that answer is defensible.
Expect he didnt anwser the question he gave a smug gotcha