Antonio, I recognize that being consistent in your moral philosophy may be foreign to you
It is, because close to no one is actually consistent.
Sam Harris was saying: I don't care at all about Hunter, because he's not the candidate. He made a hyperbolic example to make that clear.
if I found out that Baron Trump (not Eric, as it would appear Hunter basically lived with Joe so I’m making it as 1:1 as possible) had dead children in his room
Hunter is a 50-year-old guy. Is he shooting up crack cocaine and spending a fortune on prostitutes with Joe around in the same home? That seems a bit unlikely.
I would 100000000% cease my support for Trump as it would be impossible for Donald to not know what was happening under his own roof
Like I said, your comparison may not be entirely valid, but I'm almost sure that a lot of other people would disagree. They'll just say: "yeah, that's bad, but Biden is causing inflation and leading us all to World War III". Or "orange man bad, Alvin Bragg told us so and DEMOCRACY".
Besides, people have been voting for candidates who kill kids for decades, from both parties.
Sam Harris was saying: I don't care at all about Hunter, because he's not the candidate. He made a hyperbolic example to make that clear.
Actually he was saying that he didn't care about the laptop being covered up, which changes everything. This isn't a hypothetical world where Biden's presidency hinges on Harris' vote and where Harris' voting motives have to be boiled down to obnoxiously reductive logic. It's a real world, where he knows that the laptop getting full, free press coverage would have harmed Biden's campaign.
In this context he said that had Hunter had dead children in his basement and it had been covered up to protect Biden's campaign, then that still would have been the morally correct thing to do because of the extent of Trump's evil. It's got nothing to do with him not caring about pics of a naked guy doing blow and everything to do with him asserting that infowar is morally correct to protect Biden from Trump, even to the extent of covering up murdered kids.
Actually he was saying that he didn't care about the laptop being covered up, which changes everything.
Correct, he was lying (or extremely ill-informed) and pretending that the laptop was just about Hunter's troubled personal life and not the corruption of, the gods protect him, Joe Biden.
This isn't a hypothetical world where Biden's presidency hinges on Harris' vote and where Harris' voting motives have to be boiled down to obnoxiously reductive logic. It's a real world, where he knows that the laptop getting full, free press coverage would have harmed Biden's campaign.
Correct. He even accidentally told the truth and said that it was a left-wing conspiracy until ratonalization kicked in. But isn't it interesting that by the time he addressed this, Biden's presidency did not hinge on Harris rationalizing all the evils done to get there, and he justified it anyway?
In this context he said that had Hunter had dead children in his basement and it had been covered up to protect Biden's campaign, then that still would have been the morally correct thing to do because of the extent of Trump's evil.
While I don't doubt that he would have believed that in the situation, and perhaps even justify it to himself by persuading himself that this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with Joe Biden, I think that as it happened, he was just saying that he doesn't care.
It is, because close to no one is actually consistent.
Sam Harris was saying: I don't care at all about Hunter, because he's not the candidate. He made a hyperbolic example to make that clear.
Hunter is a 50-year-old guy. Is he shooting up crack cocaine and spending a fortune on prostitutes with Joe around in the same home? That seems a bit unlikely.
Like I said, your comparison may not be entirely valid, but I'm almost sure that a lot of other people would disagree. They'll just say: "yeah, that's bad, but Biden is causing inflation and leading us all to World War III". Or "orange man bad, Alvin Bragg told us so and DEMOCRACY".
Besides, people have been voting for candidates who kill kids for decades, from both parties.
Actually he was saying that he didn't care about the laptop being covered up, which changes everything. This isn't a hypothetical world where Biden's presidency hinges on Harris' vote and where Harris' voting motives have to be boiled down to obnoxiously reductive logic. It's a real world, where he knows that the laptop getting full, free press coverage would have harmed Biden's campaign.
In this context he said that had Hunter had dead children in his basement and it had been covered up to protect Biden's campaign, then that still would have been the morally correct thing to do because of the extent of Trump's evil. It's got nothing to do with him not caring about pics of a naked guy doing blow and everything to do with him asserting that infowar is morally correct to protect Biden from Trump, even to the extent of covering up murdered kids.
Correct, he was lying (or extremely ill-informed) and pretending that the laptop was just about Hunter's troubled personal life and not the corruption of, the gods protect him, Joe Biden.
Correct. He even accidentally told the truth and said that it was a left-wing conspiracy until ratonalization kicked in. But isn't it interesting that by the time he addressed this, Biden's presidency did not hinge on Harris rationalizing all the evils done to get there, and he justified it anyway?
While I don't doubt that he would have believed that in the situation, and perhaps even justify it to himself by persuading himself that this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with Joe Biden, I think that as it happened, he was just saying that he doesn't care.