No, that is literally the "knee-jerk reaction" I had on reading your initial question which I responded to. I saw what looked like someone boiling the election down to a simple vote for or against genocide, or at least making it sound like it was possible to vote genocide away.
Why else do you think I called you naive for thinking it's so simple?
What, then, do you think I was saying, there, in my initial response to you?
And you're trying to wield a psychiatric diagnosis in this discussion... why?
Well, I guess I'll take that as a "no".
If you know what one is why did you answer it? lol
Damn you are literal-minded. The idea of "it doesn't need an answer" isn't like... a law. It's a poetic description of the fact it makes you think. The discussion isn't supposed to just, like... stop there, is it? After the question has prompted the thought you're supposed to re-engage, enlightened by the knowledge the rhetorical question gave you.
Also... you asked me to..?
I'm just trying to get on the same page man, you're not making it easy
You don't believe me?
Of course I know what one is. That's kinda the problem here. A rhetorical question, among other things, is intended to make a point. The obvious point concluded from answering this question in the morally correct way is that it is always wrong to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates, in a sort of Kantian categorical imperative.
I'm not lying. I'm telling you my honest impression that arises from your insistence on this question, in this context.
When I see you asking if it's okay to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates, I'm not seeing that in a vacuum, am I? Are you asking me to see that question in a vacuum? Because you asked it in a thread about the US election. It seems obvious to conclude that this question is connected to the US election, not some other hypothetical election where it might be possible to successfully vote away genocide.
So, like you begged me to, I ask - are you actually trying to ask that question in a vacuum, disconnected from current events? That's the only way it makes sense to me, but if that's the case it seems a pointless question in my opinion.
I want you to understand what I'm saying.
why did you fight so hard against answering a simple yes or no?
Already told you that in my very first response to you. Because this election isn't as simple as voting for or against genocide.
And then I quite quickly actually answered, but it wasn't in the precise format you expected, so you ignored it (and even admitted ignoring it).
It is in exactly this context that they cannot imagine doing anything other than voting for their team. They already think of themselves as acting against genocide by voting for a genocidal candidate, in fact. Have you not seen this?
It is exactly this attitude I criticise - in you, as well.
There is no voting that will stop this genocide.
O master, that lies in your hands!
Genocide is, of course, wrong. Supporting those that perpetuate it is also wrong.
Not a yes or no, but it still equates to the same thing.
Right?
It's not your credentials I'm calling into question.