i know what a false dichotomy is, and your link supports me
i do know what a tautology is, and your link supports me.
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
Splitting your responses is rhetorically ridiculous.
if you don'twant to talk to me, please don't
Performative ethics without pragmatics is moral masturbation.
deontological ethics are preferred by professional philosophers and are the basis of most ethical systems. most people grew up with an understanding that "the ends justify the means" can be used to justify some pretty horrific shit.
under FPTP systems, voting third party is equivocating support for both primary parties.
no, it's not.
it is a tautology and saying that it's not doesn't change that. it has exactly no ability to predict the future outcome of any election.
Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.
false.
duverger's "law" has no predictive value. it's a tautology as empty as "supply and demand".
“bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept.
it is in ethics
gore won the vote in 2000. this is misinformation
your accusation of gish galloping is baseless. each of my replies has been a succinct response to one of your claims. the fact that you are able to pack so many fallacious claims into one comment suggests that there is a gish gallop happening, though.