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

[The Great Zaganza]

It is weird that people refuse to believe in causality when it's their actions negatively impacting others.

Scenario 1:
You press Red, then someone presses Blue

As a result of that second push, are you at risk of getting killed?
No. The second person did not endanger you.

Scenario 2:
Someone presses Blue, then you press Red.

As a result of that second push, is the first person at risk of getting killed?

Yes. You put them on the Death List whilst making sure that you won't get killed.

You can argue that you have an obligation to yourself and no one else, but you can't argue that you are accepting the chance of death to others in return for your safety.

 

[Darat]

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 of course is what is known as a strawman. I have not said there is a right or correct answer, I have not said there is a moral or immoral answer. It would seem to me that you are uncomfortable with some people, again not me, considering you to be immoral or wrong or incorrect.

 

[Darat]

One interesting thing for me from this and the other thread discussions is that it demonstrates vividly why for humans the framing of a problem is equally as relevant as the problem. It's both a blessing and a curse.

 

[Rolfe]

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?

What a ridiculous comparison. The proposition on the table is not that I should drive them to hospital, but that I should also take the same bunch of pills, then wait to see what happens.

 

[Thermal]

"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"

Let me be sure i got this straight: voting for everyone to live is the equivalent of committing suicide, and voting for some to die for no particular reason is... the equivalent of not voting? OK. Really no point in pursuing that logic much further.

Risk aversion is not an 'evil' thing. The question is, is it a real risk here? I don't see the majority of people choosing 'kill the blues' over 'everyone is safe' to be a real risk. Also, every single poll we see everywhere confirms that my risk assessment is accurate. Most people don't vote for others to die. That's the motivation for voting, not the individual 'failsafe' choice.

Eta: and again, addressing your oft repeated 'risk aversion argument': perfectly valid, as far as it goes. I work in one of the highest casualty rate jobs in the world (construction). I am a hairsbreadth from being badly hurt or killed literally almost every day, and it's just another day at the office. That's not for everybody, and I wouldn't call anyone 'evil' for not embracing that kind of risk on the daily.

But the poll goes beyond that simplistic standard, and asks what you think others would do, which affects your odds assessment, and consequently your vote.

You also say you think Blue voters are 'naive', or dumb, despite the fact that we have all shown that we understand the risk involved (and our assessment is shown to be correct). Counterpoint: I think you have to be pretty stunningly dumb to vote for mass graves and global shutdown because you assess others wrongly out of personal timidity.

 

[The_Animus]

What a ridiculous comparison. The proposition on the table is not that I should drive them to hospital, but that I should also take the same bunch of pills, then wait to see what happens.

This. It seems like when blue voters try to rewrite the scenario they have to fundamentally change it to shift responsibility and risk.

I think it needs to be understood that there is a difference between:

Seeing a building on fire and someone shouting "I'm not sure but someone might be trapped inside!" before they run in and you have to choose whether to run in after them.

Seeing someone overdose and choosing whether or not to drive them to the ER.

And choosing whether or not to pull out a gun and go on a killing spree.

 

[Thermal]

This. It seems like when blue voters try to rewrite the scenario they have to fundamentally change it to shift responsibility and risk.

I think it needs to be understood that there is a difference between:

Seeing a building on fire and someone shouting "I'm not sure but someone might be trapped inside!" before they run in and you have to choose whether to run in after them.

Seeing someone overdose and choosing whether or not to drive them to the ER.

And choosing whether or not to pull out a gun and go on a killing spree.

Agreed! In fact, we can just stick to the OP premise and dispense with all the silly alternate universe reframing and squinting and tilting our heads a certain way to catch the angle right:

-Blue votes for everyone to live.
-Red votes for all Blues to die.
-First to break 50% wins.

Eta: when I first read the OP in the first poll, I thought it was weird the way it was phrased- everyone has to vote, but how the vote would result was framed in terms of the results relative to Blue votes, like the Reds weren't a factor. But we are all bright enough to see that if everyone has to vote, Blue getting less than 50% is identical to Red getting more than 50%, so it's solely voting Red that can cause deaths. Blue can't cause a death.

 

[Rolfe]

That's just as silly an alternate universe reframing as any of the others.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

That's just as silly an alternate universe reframing as any of the others.

"Literally exactly what is described in the OP" = "A silly alternate universe reframing"

 

[Thermal]

"Literally exactly what is described in the OP" = "A silly alternate universe reframing"

No no no, don't point it out. I just love it when they think anyone is buying this bull ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Rolfe]

"Literally exactly what is described in the OP" = "A silly alternate universe reframing"

It's not, though, is it?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It's not, though, is it?

It is.

 

[Rolfe]

Go and revisit the OP then. Vote red, you live. Vote blue, you die unless over 50% of the world's population joins you in voting blue.

 

[Thermal]

The difference being.....?

Eta: I mean seriously. You can't tell that 'Blue getting <50% and Red getting >50% are quite literally the same thing? And you are just bogged down pondering that 'only Reds survive' equates to Red voting for Blues to die?

And you are claiming to be too simpleminded to understand the difference between 'Reds live' (your rewording) and 'ONLY Reds survive (the actual wording)?

 

[Rolfe]

It's a significantly different framing. You're so blinkered about this that you can't break free from the framing you've fixed in your head.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Go and revisit the OP then. Vote red, you live. Vote blue, you die unless over 50% of the world's population joins you in voting blue.

The OP says: "If <50% pick blue, only the red survive. If >50% pick blue, everyone survives."

"<50% pick blue" equates to ">50% pick red".

"All blues die" is a necessary condition for: "Only the red survive". (They aren't prefectly equivalent because "All blues die" is also consistent with all reds' dying, as well). But the latter logically implies the former. If only reds survived, then any and all blues must have died.

If I label the blue button: "Everybody survives", and the red button: "only red voters survive", those labels accurately describe what happens if enough voters press the corresponding button. If you press the button, you vote for the designated outcome.

 

[Thermal]

It's a significantly different framing. You're so blinkered about this that you can't break free from the framing you've fixed in your head.

Brilliant clarification, articulately argued. I especially was stumped by the astute "your blinkered" retort. Well done.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Brilliant clarification, articulately argued. I especially was stumped by the astute "your blinkered" retort. Well done.

We're not blinkered. We're blinkeblue.

 

[Thermal]

We're not blinkered. We're blinkeblue.

I soooooo want to generate an AI image of a suicidal blue telletubby....

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is again the surreal part. I've said plainly that it is NOT a moral imperative, it is NOT obligatory to anyone else

Sure, sure, it's not obligatory... but if they don't do it they're killers.