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

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Or maybe I don't think there is a losing faction in the first place? And maybe if you paid attention you would have noticed that I challenged the assumptions that reds made - and they pretty much all acknowledged that babies make a difference to their decision?

Maybe it's not competition, it's not self centered, and it's entirely feasible for more than one approach to be reasonable and valid.

Or... you could just call people names if they don't agree with you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Uh huh. Intentional killers are totally not evil at all. You totally haven't spent pages and pages opining on how red votes are literally picking up a gun and shooting blues. Nope. Not at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

My original intention with this was to go through several different framings, for precisely that reason. The framing as well as the unstated external circumstances that people make assumptions about all play into it.

But at this point, I'm just tired of people insisting that people who don't jump off the blatantly obvious cliff of doom are "killing" the people who hop on over the edge.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

"Not risking your own life is totally the exact same as killing someone else!"

 

[Thermal]

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

Correct.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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)?

Only reds live is not the only option. Note, for example, that in both the original and this scenario, EVERYONE lives.

Why can you not understand that blues are taking a completely avoidable risk? At no point does anyone have to walk off the cliff. Some people are deciding to walk off the cliff all by themselves, in hopes that a bunch of other people will walk off the cliff with them and everyone can cusion everyone else's fatal fall. But it's a gamble that's being voluntarily taken - even if it's being taken for noble reasons.

No red is making you walk off a cliff. No red wants you to walk off a cliff. Reds would absolutely LOVE it if you refrained from jumping off of cliffs.

 

[Thermal]

Uh huh. Intentional killers are totally not evil at all.

Correct. At least, they aren't necessarily evil. Cowards kill too. Functional psychopaths don't care. General ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ think others deserve to die.

You totally haven't spent pages and pages opining on how red votes are literally picking up a gun and shooting blues. Nope. Not at all.

Untrue. That would take some balls. Trust me, I don't think any Red Voters have any balls.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It only accurately describes the outcome if enough pick blue. If not enough pick blue, it's an entirely false framing.

Again, I will ask: do you continue to press blue if the threshold is 95%? If it takes 95% for all of the blues to live, are you going to risk your life and trust that 95% of everyone else will also take that same risk?

That's the entire point here. At 50%, it's probably an achievable threshold as long as it's nothing more than a thought exercise. At higher than 50%, the reality of the gamble becomes clearer and clearer. At lower than 50%, the cost of trusting strangers has a much lower risk.

At what threshold would you switch your vote to red?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Correct.

Are you of the opinion that killers are morally neutral?

 

[Thermal]

Only reds live is not the only option. Note, for example, that in both the original and this scenario, EVERYONE lives.

Thanks to me and those like me. No thanks to you and your kind.

Why can you not understand that blues are taking a completely avoidable risk?

Jesus Christ, I've explained to you REPEATEDLY, using small words, that we DO understand how you are looking at it. We understand how, and more to the point, we understand WHY.

Let's run it down yet again for you, shall we? Both vantage points are legitimate and internally consistent. Yours is incomplete though, and tries to misdirect from the end effect of the vote.

Red votes for ONLY Reds surviving. Blue votes for EVERYONE surviving.

That framework overrides yours, which is trying to take the spotlight off that simple truth of the voting outcome and make voting Red seem more palatable.

We totally, totally get how you see Blue as taking an unnecessary risk. We have considered your argument, and responded. We have spelled out clearly why we think the risk is warranted, considering a less than 100% Red vote. THAT is the risk we are unwilling to take.

Repeating that Blues are jumping off cliffs and into blenders is not helping your case. It's just repetition, nothing new, or anything to indicate that you are even hearing the criticisms.

 

[Thermal]

Are you of the opinion that killers are morally neutral?

Some. Do we really need to explain this? Police, military, self-defense, etc? In this instance, Red Voters vote for others to be killed out of selfishness. That's not evil. It's just weak. I blame no one for being weak, and have no moral judgement about them.

You're floundering badly now, but at least it is becoming clearer what you can't wrap your head around.

And as always, what you take the extra time to snip out and not respond to speaks volumes.

 

[Thermal]

My original intention with this was to go through several different framings, for precisely that reason. The framing as well as the unstated external circumstances that people make assumptions about all play into it.

I don't think 'unstated assumptions' are remotely the problem, here? Seems like stating them is the beef.

But at this point, I'm just tired of people insisting that people who don't jump off the blatantly obvious cliff of doom are "killing" the people who hop on over the edge.

and we are equally tired of you stamping your feet and demanding we all accept your limited perspective. Honest discussion/debate/mortal combat don't work that way.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It only accurately describes the outcome if enough pick blue.

That is exactly what I said: each button's label indicates what happens if enough people pick that button. The label on the other button tells you what happens if people pick differently.

If not enough pick blue, it's an entirely false framing.

No, it's not. The label on each button tells you what happens if enough people press that button; it doesn't make any false claims about what happens if more people pick the other one. That information is on *that* button's label. Together, the labels I proposed provide all the information you need to understand what happens on any result. Where is the false framing?

Again, I will ask: do you continue to press blue if the threshold is 95%? If it takes 95% for all of the blues to live, are you going to risk your life and trust that 95% of everyone else will also take that same risk?

Perhaps not. It's a risk vs. reward calculation, after all, so the answer may vary depending on the specific odds and payoffs. What I still wouldn't do is pretend that I'm not really voting for people to die in that case, because I am.

 

[Thermal]

It's a risk vs. reward calculation, after all, so the answer may vary depending on the specific odds and payoffs.

This is what it's all about. Blues take a risk that... most of the planet wouldn't wish them dead. Pretty small risk that they would, since we can see that half of humanity isn't generally working to kill the other half. The bigger risk is that Reds would win, and we'd be staring down billions of mass graves.

What I still wouldn't do is pretend that I'm not really voting for people to die in that case, because I am.

Tru dat. In some circumstances, it might even be justified, if a horrible weighing. You do have to own it, though. That's what character is all about.

 

[Thermal]

It only accurately describes the outcome if enough pick blue. If not enough pick blue, it's an entirely false framing.

'Not enough pick Blue' is exactly equivalent to 'They picked Red'. The framework didn't change one iota.

 

[The_Animus]

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.

What happens in the original scenario if 1 person votes red? If 10% vote red? If 49% vote red?

Now what happens in your scenario with those same votes? Is the outcome the same?

You all keep showing you literally cannot comprehend the scenario.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

What happens in the original scenario if 1 person votes red?

Everybody lives.

If 10% vote red?

Everybody lives.

If 49% vote red?

Everybody lives.

Now what happens in your scenario with those same votes?

If 1% vote red, everybody lives.
If 10% vote red, everybody lives.
If 49% vote red, everybody lives.

Is the outcome the same?

Yes.

You all keep showing you literally cannot comprehend the scenario.

The results are exactly the same.

Name one result that differs. The only thing I added was labels for the buttons. Those labels each designate what happens if the corresponding button gets the most votes. Which is exactly how choices are typically labeled on winner-takes-all ballots (the buttons are essentially a winner-takes-all ballot).

ETA, edited the last paragraph for clarity and grammar.

 

[Thermal]

Here's a combination of the two perspectives:

-The only way you can guarantee your own survival is to vote to kill off Blues (Red vote).

-The only way you can get killed off is by voting for everyone to survive (Blue vote).

That's a mind ◊◊◊◊ that some people are going to fumble at game time. But ultimately, the risk of mass death can only happen in a Red win. Some evaluate that as the overriding, primary risk and will play the odds that enough will vote Blue (strictly to prevent that win) to score the win. It's not about your personal best odds. It's the collective.

 

[Thermal]

What happens in the original scenario if 1 person votes red? If 10% vote red? If 49% vote red?

Now what happens in your scenario with those same votes? Is the outcome the same?

You all keep showing you literally cannot comprehend the scenario.

Why did you stop talking about everyone living at 49% Red? I wonder...

People vote Blue out of fear of the result of 51-99% Red votes.Thats it.

Eta: if this helps Emily's Cat and others to understand why people who understand the risk but push Blue anyway- There can only be death in a Red win of less than 100%. That has to be voted against.

 

[Lithrael]

(...) 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.

Indeed. So dumb, in fact, that they don't deserve (anyone risking their lives on the outcome of the red/blue vote) to live.