Objection

Nope, not supporting the worse evil either.

Lesser-evilism freqently produces worse results than more coherent strategies and ethical systems.

There's information about world hunger available on the web, I don't see how choosing not to be informed about it absolves you of responsibility.

You said that I participated in "Bringing that to fruition" not in "letting that happen."

"Participating in letting something happen" is a very odd turn of phrase. The definition of participate (per google) is, "take part in an action or endeavour." If what you're doing is not taking part in an action, then you aren't participating, by definition.

If someone on the other side of the world starves to death, are you a participant in that?

Whether he's responsible is one thing, but claiming that the doctor participated in giving him gangrene would be completely absurd.

I thought you were asking for why one would be accept a greater evil, generally speaking, so I demonstrated why lesser evilism is not automatically the correct position.

You’ve participated in bringing that to fruition.

Nope, that is blatantly false. Not voting for either major candidate, so by definition I haven't participated in getting either of them elected.

Do you think the Democrats are worried that you’re going to vote Republican?

Yes? That's why they're all about Dick Cheney.

Nah, I think escape is possible, but we need to move away from the bigger flames. You’re the one who thinks standing still and letting the fire choose is the way to go – for some reason…

Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what's important. There's a difference between claiming "I can survive longer in these flames which will help me to escape" vs the previous position you were arguing for, "Forget escaping, what matters is these flames are more comfortable than those flames."

It sure does. It’s still moot in this context though.

No it isn't.