Because if you vote for a person who actually has a chance of winning, you actually make a difference.
But sure. Jill Stein definitely has a chance of winning this time around. Not the last two times, but definitely this time.
what do I care what their chances of winning are if I don't want them to win? why would I have over someone if I don't want them to win?
So neither Trump nor Biden will do a single thing you want to happen or a single thing you want to stop happening that the other will not? Not one?
that isn't my standard. my standard is whether I want someone to win. that's why I vote for people.
Again- what does that achieve if they have no chance of winning?
I vote for the person that I want. that's what it achieves it's an end in itself.
No, that's circular reasoning. That doesn't explain why you do it. Although it sounds like you're saying your vote is symbolic. I'm not sure why you bother voting at all in that case. No one will know you voted.
circular reasoning is internally consistent.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.
Why are you bothering to vote at all beyond mental masturbation?
Because if you vote for a person who actually has a chance of winning, you actually make a difference.
But sure. Jill Stein definitely has a chance of winning this time around. Not the last two times, but definitely this time.
what do I care what their chances of winning are if I don't want them to win? why would I have over someone if I don't want them to win?
So neither Trump nor Biden will do a single thing you want to happen or a single thing you want to stop happening that the other will not? Not one?
that isn't my standard. my standard is whether I want someone to win. that's why I vote for people.
Again- what does that achieve if they have no chance of winning?
I vote for the person that I want. that's what it achieves it's an end in itself.
No, that's circular reasoning. That doesn't explain why you do it. Although it sounds like you're saying your vote is symbolic. I'm not sure why you bother voting at all in that case. No one will know you voted.
circular reasoning is internally consistent.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.
Why are you bothering to vote at all beyond mental masturbation?
circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious.
Yes it is.
Please answer the question.
don't be petulant.
Okay, if you won't answer the question, I guess there's nothing more to say.
But I think we both know why you won't answer the question.
when an action is an end in itself, saying so is not circular reasoning.
as you can see on the page that you just linked, it is not a formal fallacy. circular arguments are internally consistent.
I have a right to vote. I don't need to justify it to anyone. I vote for the person I want to win.
That is irrelevant to my question. Please answer my question.
it's the only answer you're going to get. I'm allowed to vote for anybody I want. I've over people I want to win.
don't be petulant.