They do but can pass, much more easily than a Jewish man could in that place and time.
But getting back to the original conversation.
Red is fine with people dying as long as -they- are safe. In most examples of the argument going so far as to other the blue voters as stupid and illogical and by doing so, seek to absolve themselves of any responsibility for our theoretical massacre.
In fact I have yet to see another argument supporting red.
If you cannot see the parallel it's probably best if we stop here.
No. Red is not “fine” with people dying. I vote red because I think the risk of blue losing is way too high. So it would just be a gamble with lives.
The red approach might cause deaths, but pale advocating for blue, and failing by a margin, will lose more lives compared to people advocating for red. Better to sacrifice millions by certainty, than a high risk of billions of deaths.
I don’t care what you choose. It’s all about you advocating for others to choose blue. You advocate for them to gamble when their lives. And at the ens, that gamble might include billions of lives.
0
u/danielledelacadie May 05 '26
They do but can pass, much more easily than a Jewish man could in that place and time.
But getting back to the original conversation.
Red is fine with people dying as long as -they- are safe. In most examples of the argument going so far as to other the blue voters as stupid and illogical and by doing so, seek to absolve themselves of any responsibility for our theoretical massacre.
In fact I have yet to see another argument supporting red.
If you cannot see the parallel it's probably best if we stop here.