The analogy kind of falls apart since she is not limited to this guy and Chad. She’s free to choose nothing at all. With Trump vs Biden, there’s no viable third option, and having no president is not one of the options. So the “Trump is worse” argument becomes viable simply because you do have to choose one of them.

Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she’s paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?

You can tactically vote for Biden to avoid Trump and still take actions to dismantle the system.

So the woman in our scenario should decide to choose the “Nice Guy” tactically?

No, I’m saying that your analogy breaks down.

I don’t think it does. A choice fostered upon me at the threat of violence is not a choice at all. I refuse to participate and therefore legitimize such a farce.

Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.

And so I refer you back to my first comment in this thread

I have read it don’t be an ass. Say a point or don’t.

My point to this kind of comment is made in that post. We’re just looping at this point.

If the comment was sufficient we wouldn’t be here. It’s a shit analogy.

Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.

Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she’s paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?

It fits. You say the analogy doesn’t fit because “we don’t have a choice”. I tell you to adjust the analogy so that the woman doesn’t have a choice either.

If you and I choose not to vote for Trump or Biden, who do we wind up with?

If the woman doesn’t choose any, who does she end up with? What should she do about it? You clearly see the absurdity when presented as an analogy, but you cannot see the similarity because the violence of the politicians is many levels removed from you.

And the point is she doesn’t have to have anybody. We do. We have. 2 people and 1 of them will be here whether we like it or not. We can’t opt out.

Again, assume she has the same lack of choice. What should she do? Why does that differ from what we should do?