Button Poll #2: Only those with normal cognitive capacity are given buttons.

[Emily's Cat]

There is only a Red button. Pushing it allows voters to open fire on non-voters if exceeding 51% of the total population.

How is it that you don't seem to understand the difference between actively harming someone else and failing to save them from external harm?

You persist in viewing this as morally obligatory - as if choosing not to save someone else from the death that they themselves have initiated is obligatory. Your framework means that you failing to have saved the stranger on the other side of the planet who blew their own brains out last night makes you a murderer.

 

[Thermal]

It's fundamentally NOT the same premise.

The same premise would be:

You can push red or Blue. Blue votes are for jumping into a globe-sized blender on high. Red votes are for sitting on your porch enjoying an evening beverage at sunset. Blue is at immense and immediate risk unless they convince half the planet to jump into the blender with them.

You think switching to blenders is any different from strawman trolleys? It's the same thing.

My representation that you quoted is literally restating the premise, unimbelleshed. Your position forces you to make changes with trolleys and blenders, lest you acknowledge the simple reality of the vote effect.

Blue cannot be killed by voting Blue. Blue cannot kill others.

Red cannot be killed by voting Red. Red *can* kill others.

See how I don't need to evoke forks or trolleys or radiation chambers or blenders? I can address the OP posit directly without crackhead misdirection.

This endless victim blaming for deaths you are voting for is getting boring. Every single one of us, save three red voters (by their own admittance) understood that red was failsafe when reading the OP in the first thread. We talked about it directly. It is simply not the major dilemma, in Blue eyes. You keep acting like no one understands it. We do. We simply continue our reasoning beyond it, not stopping there.

 

[Thermal]

How is it that you don't seem to understand the difference between actively harming someone else and failing to save them from external harm?

You have got to be kidding me. Blue is not endangered by their actions. They can only be killed by Reds.

Red, by the terms of your own OP, actively causes the death of others.

From the individual self preservation perspective, it is the safe bet. That's what the question drives at: do you look out for #1 and ◊◊◊◊ everyone else, or are you a team player, a least when you think the odds are in your favor?

You persist in viewing this as morally obligatory

I do not.

- as if choosing not to save someone else from the death that they themselves have initiated is obligatory. Your framework means that you failing to have saved the stranger on the other side of the planet who blew their own brains out last night makes you a murderer.

It does not.

You keep repeating that without considering my replies.

Do you remember when I explained the difference between a one-one-time global button pushing and even knowing about some random kid in a rice patty in Indonesia? No?

 

[Thermal]

"Well it's their own damn fault for dying if they ain't looking out for #1 like I am" is some cold blooded ◊◊◊◊, even for me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The same can be said for Red. Originally there is no problem and no one is under any risk at all in the absence of Red votes.

No - these are not at all the same. If there's no red button, then the situation is even more obvious. If there's no red button in the setup of this scenario, then people who do nothing are literally doing nothing. They're taking no action at all.

At that point it becomes EXACTLY congruent to my earlier reframing of people standing on the platform as a speeding trolley comes toward them. Nobody is downtrack of the trolley, nobody is tied to the rails. The trolley can speed by and nobody at all gets hurt. If people take it into their heads to hop onto the track, they're going to die... UNLESS more than half the people jump onto the track. If more than half the people jump onto the track, their collective mass will stop the trolley without anyone being hurt.

Alternatively... people can just stay on the damned platform and let the trolley zip past and go "oh gee, that was moving fast! Good thing we didn't decide to jump onto the track, yeah?"

The people who declined to jump onto the track aren't guilty of killing the people who launched themselves into the path of a speeding trolley.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In a different scenario I may be able to live with my choice even if people died. I'm not a psuedo-Vulcan that pretends all my decisions are entirely rational, logical, berift of emotional baggage, 100% consistent and right. In the red blue button dilemma I tried to frame my response in a way that would appeal to some red pushers who couldn't understand a blue press i.e. only thinking about myself. I know myself well enough to know I could not live with myself if people died and I had pressed red so in an act of selfish self-preservation I have to press blue.

(And no you can't take that response out of the red blue dilemma and say "that means that", as that response applies only to the red blue dilemma.)

You what really irks me?

Its that at the absolute very worst, reds think that blues are dumb. That's it - that's the absolute worst character attribute being foisted upon blues. I think we all understand the impetus to choose blue, but reds tend to think blues haven't thought it all the way through and are essentially sticking a fork into a socket for no good reason.

On the other hand, blues think - and say repeatedly - that reds are evil selfish killers.

Reds assume naivete on the part of Blues; Blue assume malice on the part of Reds.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Button Poll #3: Assume Red pushers are really nice passive people who happen to not give a ◊◊◊◊ if their actions cause others to die, especially others who are trying to keep everyone safe.

You keep changing this scenario to justify your own contempt.

Reds do not CAUSE anyone to die. Not a single Red has forced you to jump off of that perfectly obvious cliff edge above a thousand foot drop to a boiling lake of lava. You're not a baby. You're not cognitively impaired. You, and all the other blues in Scenario 2, have seen the cliff and the lava below it, and you've decided you're going to hop on over the side anyway - on the assumption that other people are also going to say "gee, look at all that lava, let's go for a swim!" And you all need saving from your own decision to jump over a cliff into a lake of lava.

Then you turn around and say that the people who decided NOT to jump off the cliff are killing you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd still like to know what people would do in the event of the one-button scenario. Here is a button. Ignore it and nothing will happen to you. Press it and you will die unless 51% of the world's population also chooses to press it.

Would we still see the same "someone, somewhere is bound to press it so I must do the same to save them, and anyone who doesn't is an evil murderer" reaction?

I could get behind a lot of people saying "someone somewhere is bound to press it out of ignorance, so I must do the same to save them". I understand that.

It's the "anyone who doesn't is an evil murderer" part that's a problem.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let me offer up a variant for you to confirm your stance.

Only cognitively competent adults (everyone is able to understand the options, and everyone is able to understand that there is no risk to red, and some risk with blue) are involved... and the threshold for all blues living is 95%. Are you still dedicated to blue?

I notice that not a single one of you dedicated blue buttoners who insist that red buttoners are killer has answered this question.

If the threshold for all blues living is 95%, would you still push the blue button?

I notice you guys still are ignoring this scenario. I'm starting to think that a lot of the "Blue No Matter What" crowd maybe have some no matters to what.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You think switching to blenders is any different from strawman trolleys? It's the same thing.

My representation that you quoted is literally restating the premise, unimbelleshed. Your position forces you to make changes with trolleys and blenders, lest you acknowledge the simple reality of the vote effect.

Blue cannot be killed by voting Blue. Blue cannot kill others.

Blue can absolutely be killed by voting blue. If less than half the people vote blue, they kill themselves.

Red cannot be killed by voting Red. Red *can* kill others.

Red never kills anyone. At literally no point does red take any action that directly causes anyone else to die.

See how I don't need to evoke forks or trolleys or radiation chambers or blenders? I can address the OP posit directly without crackhead misdirection.

It's your own crackhead framing that causes the problem, buddy.,

This endless victim blaming for deaths you are voting for is getting boring. Every single one of us, save three red voters (by their own admittance) understood that red was failsafe when reading the OP in the first thread. We talked about it directly. It is simply not the major dilemma, in Blue eyes. You keep acting like no one understands it. We do. We simply continue our reasoning beyond it, not stopping there.

You keep avoiding the actual discussion of this discussion, and choosing to call people killers instead.

At what threshold will you change your vote to red? 60% required? 75%? 95%?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You have got to be kidding me. Blue is not endangered by their actions. They can only be killed by Reds.

Red, by the terms of your own OP, actively causes the death of others.

From the individual self preservation perspective, it is the safe bet. That's what the question drives at: do you look out for #1 and ◊◊◊◊ everyone else, or are you a team player, a least when you think the odds are in your favor?

I do not.

It does not.

You keep repeating that without considering my replies.

Do you remember when I explained the difference between a one-one-time global button pushing and even knowing about some random kid in a rice patty in Indonesia? No?

Dude, you seem incapable of understanding the ramifications of your own moral framework.

In YOUR framework, the people who do not endanger themselves to save people who have intentionally placed themselves in danger are evil. YOUR framework takes the additional step from morally laudable to morally obligatory. By YOUR moral framework, any time you do NOT go out and try to save every person on the planet form the consequences of their own choices, you are a killer. YOU have decided that it is obligatory to save others from their own choices.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Well it's their own damn fault for dying if they ain't looking out for #1 like I am" is some cold blooded ◊◊◊◊, even for me.

"You're a cold blooded killer because you didn't save me from dying when I walked off a cliff all by my own self"

 

[Rolfe]

I could get behind a lot of people saying "someone somewhere is bound to press it out of ignorance, so I must do the same to save them". I understand that.

It's the "anyone who doesn't is an evil murderer" part that's a problem.

I can totally see that. If we had toddlers gleefully pressing the shiny button it could be quite a compelling argument. But as this was always presented to me as competent adults only, I'd be taking an awfully big risk assuming that half the world's population was going to think the same way as me if I chose to press the button out of some sort of saviour complex.

Castigating those who think the number of people mad enough to press the button would be so small that they would be unsaveable, as evil, bloodthirsty murderers, says more about the judgmental than the judged.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It's fundamentally NOT the same premise.

The same premise would be:

You can push red or Blue. Blue votes are for jumping into a globe-sized blender on high. Red votes are for sitting on your porch enjoying an evening beverage at sunset. Blue is at immense and immediate risk unless they convince half the planet to jump into the blender with them.

How about this for the same premise:

You can push red or blue.

The blue button is labeled: "Everyone survives".

The red button is labeled: "Only red voters survive. All blue voters die."

You know, exactly like the outcomes described in the OP.

Now explain how it is that people who press the blue button are voting for people to die, whereas people who push the red button are not.

 

[Thermal]

Blue can absolutely be killed by voting blue. If less than half the people vote blue, they kill themselves.

Red never kills anyone. At literally no point does red take any action that directly causes anyone else to die.

This is the surreal part of your argument. You... really don't see it, do you? You are putting the blame for any and all results, one way or the other, on blue Voters, and are literally trying to talk yourself into thinking that Reds are somehow uninvolved in the vote. It's a little spooky.

You keep avoiding the actual discussion of this discussion, and choosing to call people killers instead.

I've discussed it in great length and detail with multiple posters and scenarios, far more than you have, including how I would vote Red in some circumstances myself.

At what threshold will you change your vote to red? 60% required? 75%? 95%?

Dunno. Fine tuning a number, or even a range, would require more detail. Who is doing this and why? Do I trust them to follow through or think it might be a bluff? How is the rest of humanity reacting to this deadly Button threat? Are we uniting against a common enemy, or is it infighting between human factions? All this kind of stuff and more would effect my oddsmaking beyond the broad 'first past 50% scenario with it's simplistic proportions.

 

[Thermal]

Dude, you seem incapable of understanding the ramifications of your own moral framework.

This is again the surreal part. I've said plainly that it is NOT a moral imperative, it is NOT obligatory to anyone else, babies were NOT a factor in my main arguments, and I NEVER said Reds were evil. This is all coming from some weird script you have in your head, that you keep reading from even though no one else is following said script.

{ETA: there is no moral obligation in my arguments. Hell, I know a lot of people solely motivated by selfishness. They are fine. You just have to remember not to give them much rope, because they will hang you with it in the right circumstances, and blame you for having a weak neck}

As I've said, I think this is a practical choice, factored based on the only two outcomes available. Blue win, everyone lives. Red win, Blues die (and likely global societal collapse). To me, even coarse, base self interest would push everyone to vote Blue, in the purely practical sense of 'what is the result for me?'

 

[junkshop]

I'm not chickening out, I don't think it would be useful.

Bok, bok, bok.

I also don't think it would get enough participation to yield anything even approximating validity. Only 9 people voted in this one - already too few to be of any real use as far as a poll goes.

Maybe because people had already answered the question, and had no inclination to engage with the losing faction trying to reframe it, in order to appear less self-centred?

At this point, I think open discussion is the most reasonable approach.

OK. Red button voters have lost every time this question has been asked (as far as I am aware). Increasingly ridiculous goalpost shifts do nothing to change that, they just look desperate. Discuss.

 

[Thermal]

You what really irks me?

Its that at the absolute very worst, reds think that blues are dumb. That's it - that's the absolute worst character attribute being foisted upon blues. I think we all understand the impetus to choose blue, but reds tend to think blues haven't thought it all the way through and are essentially sticking a fork into a socket for no good reason.

On the other hand, blues think - and say repeatedly - that reds are evil selfish killers.

Reds assume naivete on the part of Blues; Blue assume malice on the part of Reds.

This is that spooky script in your head again. No one is saying anything about 'evil'. I don't think anyone has said that but you.

We think Reds are selfish. That's been a common refrain, from both voting sides, really. Selfish =/= evil.

ETA: I just checked, and stand corrected. The Great Zaganza described 'them' as 'evil' once and only once, post #83, and I'm not even entirely sure who he is talking about.

All other uses of the word 'evil' are you and Rolfe complaining that everyone calls you this, and posters pointing out to you that they did not say that, nor do they think that, and do you hear voices often?

You, complained that others called you evil in 18 separate posts ITT. The only one to do so was TGZ, who you responded to in post #100 without even mentioning it.

The word 'evil' was not even used in the last poll by anyone. Do you hear voices that others don't hear often?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'd still like to know what people would do in the event of the one-button scenario. Here is a button. Ignore it and nothing will happen to you. Press it and you will die unless 51% of the world's population also chooses to press it.

Would we still see the same "someone, somewhere is bound to press it so I must do the same to save them, and anyone who doesn't is an evil murderer" reaction?

If someone tells you that in a weak moment they took a bunch of pills to kill themselves, but now regret it, will you drive them to the hospital if they ask?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I'd still like to know what people would do in the event of the one-button scenario. Here is a button. Ignore it and nothing will happen to you. Press it and you will die unless 51% of the world's population also chooses to press it.

Would we still see the same "someone, somewhere is bound to press it so I must do the same to save them, and anyone who doesn't is an evil murderer" reaction?

I notice the description above omits any mention of risk to other people from pressing or not pressing the button. Do other people stand to die, as well? Potentially up to 49% of the world? Or is it just me?