No. But to someone who argues otherwise, I'd imagine there would be no dissuading them of that.

Elections aren't thought experiments. The parable humorously expresses what so many third-party evangelists express: that the candidates are basically equivalent to each other, or equally bad. I find that position distastefully incorrect, or at the very least naively spoken from a position of privilege.

Elections aren't thought experiments, the results will have tangible and long-lasting results. I'm not personally willing to sacrifice some of the issues I perceive to be at stake this election on the altar of a third-party candidate who cannot win. If you are, then great! It's your vote, do with it as you please. It's the moral smugness that usually accompanies the position that bothers me, as if voting for a viable candidate is either irrational or barely moral.

You say "no". but spend the rest of your reply contradicting that statement, with the rationale that "elections matter". Unless you really think Clinton or Trump isn't a lesser evil, you can see why the "Wrong Lizard" parable applies directly to this case.

Predictable, and predicted. Read it how you want. The parable isn't a fair comparison because the candidates are not equivalent, much less equivalently "evil." I strongly believe arguing otherwise is only done from a place of privilege.

Further, the "Wrong Lizard" parable is a parable of collective-created system. I'm an individual acting within in a moment where the reality is already defined, as are all other individual voters. It's problematic to apply collective-level critiques to individual behaviors because what is less sensible at the collective-level is fully sensible at the individual-level.

But, again, see what you want to see. If it makes you feel like you've got the high ground or something it's no skin off my back.