Well I Iive in Canada but point taken. I’m still not sure I agree that it’s on the voter to let the worse party win just to support a burgeoning better one. I’d say the responsibility is on that better party to secure their base and show a reasonable chance to win before asking voters to risk the worse party winning.
Voting for any person means you approve of their actions and you are complicit and responsible for them.
I don’t think it means that necessarily. It’s just as valid to vote strategically against an even worse party if they have a chance of winning. It’s not morally contentious to vote for the lesser of two evils.
But are you saying this person was a high IQ, normally functioning member of society? Because he clearly was not if the post above is to be believed.
The only point I’m trying to make is that we likely could have stopped this if we gave him what he needed early on. Give him mental health support, financial means to support himself through hardship, training and therapy geared towards his personality and low IQ.
Of course he’s still guilty for his crime and the responsibility for his problems is entirely on him, but all those supports could have gone a long way towards preventing this.
He is morally innocent though which is the point, even if he’s criminally guilty. The strawman is hearing “we can’t be surprised and we can still feel bad for him” and equating that to saying “he should be let go!”. He can still be guilty for his actions even though it’s almost entirely society’s fault.
Damn another strawman! He didn’t say “ehh let’s forgive him, he had it rough”. It’s just an explanation for why it probably happened.
They don’t all do it, they’re just statistically more likely to. Being born with everything you need to be happy, healthy, educated and wealthy just makes a person less likely to do something like this, but of course there are exceptions to both sides. The overall point is still that funding programs for peope in need would likely reduce some of these events.
Hmm… I’m not sure I agree with this completely despite politicians obviously being problematic. At least at its core, the rationale is that the significant majority of people aren’t aware enough of all the contentious (or even mundane) issues in society, so we elect people we trust to make our decisions for us. I just checked Canada’s recent bills in Parliament, and the voter turnout for something like this would be almost nothing:
Bill C-16 - An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023
Obviously our current system is very easily corruptible and that needs to be addressed, but getting rid of politicians altogether wouldn’t necessarily fix our society, despite how terrible they’re making it right now.
Swap Muslim with Jewish and Israel with Palestine and it’s the same problem… to be clear I think both are true but it’s kinda weird to single one out.
I think the comment above is saying what the government would say… which is honestly fairly realistic.
More like 75 years but who’s counting?