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

[Thermal]

I continue to be appalled at your framing.

That's ok. Sunshine burns sometimes.

You're not going to successfully shame me into thinking that valuing my own life, and not being willing to risk it when it's completely and entirely avoidable is a bad thing, or that I'm selfish for not being willing to gamble my death on even odds.

I'm not shaming you into anything.

And to wit: you're not going to gaslight me into believing a Red vote is anything more than looking out for #1, and if there's casualties, ◊◊◊◊ 'em.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not ascribing malice; it's simply the actual upshot of your position as a red button pusher.

Will you please attempt to remember that I'm only a red button pusher in *this* scenario?

Sure, it's a shame that some people are so mixed up about game theory etc that they'll push blue, but it's not your job to risk your life to save them; they don't deserve (you risking your life on the outcome of the red/blue vote) to live. Simples.

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. There's no value judgement being made, at least not by me, and in this thread not by anyone who has voted red. The only people making value judgements appear to be blues. Not all of them, but certainly the most vocal ones.

If there is a compelling reason for me to risk my life, I'm perfectly willing to do so. But when there isn't a compelling reason, risking my life is foolhardy. It's an entirely avoidable risk - and in the scenario given, there are no "babies". There are no innocents who are unable to read or to understand the choices.

So who are you saving? You're saving people who had the choice of being completely safe, and who have been told that there are no babies at all... and they still voluntarily chose to gamble their lives. And they're making that gamble on the assumption that other people will save their lives for them.

The attribution of negative characteristics to this is really bothersome to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

*You personally* definitely don't die, but you guarantee others will if your color wins.

If "maybe die" wins then nobody dies. That'd the enticing bit for Team Blue.

Why do you see this as a conflict? And why is "maybe die" compelling to you - or to anyone who isn't a baby - in the first place? You have the choice of "definitely don't die" also. Everyone has the choice of "definitely don't die".

In your framework, you essentially have everyone standing on a cliff edge. One person jumps off, and calls everyone who stayed on solid land a killer for not jumping off with them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's no cliff and no danger to anyone unless 51% vote Red. Red voters bright the threat of mass graves.

There is a cliff. Literally, anyone who picks blue is gambling their life, they're taking a chance where they might die unless other people act to save them from the risk of their own making.

There is no danger at all *until* someone picks Blue. Blue creates the risk.

What did you think of my responses the last dozen times I answered that question?

I think you're shifting accountability to other people, while simultaneously ascribing negative character attributes to people who don't gamble their lives in order to try to save other people who gambled their lives, when absolutely nobody needed to gamble in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also, you really, really do not get to call blue 'potential suicide' unless you also call red 'potentially change blue from potential suicide to definite suicide' or whatever gymnastics you like for 'no blues die until and unless more than 50% vote red.'

Blue has ALWAYS been potential suicide. ALWAYS. Red has ALWAYS been "don't risk death".

You're shifting the accountability for your own choice onto other people.

Although if you really prefer it I can be even more descriptive.

Blue is "risk your own life to save people from the consequences of their own choices, knowing that you might die in the process"
Red is "don't risk your own life at all"

 

[Lithrael]

So who are you saving? You're saving people who had the choice of being completely safe, and who have been told that there are no babies at all... and they still voluntarily chose to gamble their lives.

That's a lot of words to say "they don't deserve (you risking your life on the outcome of the red/blue vote) to live."

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's ok. Sunshine burns sometimes.

I'm not shaming you into anything.

And to wit: you're not going to gaslight me into believing a Red vote is anything more than looking out for #1, and if there's casualties, ◊◊◊◊ 'em.

You;'re not going to gaslight me into believing that the casualties were bystanders rather then people who literally chose to walk into a blender.

You're not doing this to save babies. You're risking your life to protect other people from the consequences of their own actions - actions that have easily and blatantly stated risks. You're taking fentanyl in a show of solidarity with fentanyl addicts, because you seem to think that not taking fentanyl is "selfish".

 

[Thermal]

Why do you see this as a conflict? And why is "maybe die" compelling to you - or to anyone who isn't a baby - in the first place?

What did you think of my repeated responses to this earlier? Was there a part you didn't understand?

You have the choice of "definitely don't die" also. Everyone has the choice of "definitely don't die".

Some have higher priorities than covering their own personal asses, when the question is quite literally the fate of humanity.

In your framework, you essentially have everyone standing on a cliff edge. One person jumps off, and calls everyone who stayed on solid land a killer for not jumping off with them.

There's no cliffs. No blenders. No trolleys. There are two buttons:

-Red votes for ONLY Red to survive.
-Blue votes for everyone to survive.

Please knock it off with the cheesy reframings. They are silly. At this point we can talk about the vote impact standalone without the cheap smoke and mirror act.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a lot of words to say "they don't deserve (you risking your life on the outcome of the red/blue vote) to live."

Let's work within your framework. Why do you think that the person who jumps off a cliff deserves for you to jump off the cliff with them?

Do you think the reckless driver deserves for you to drive recklessly with them? Does the drug addict deserve for you to become an addict in a show of solidarity?

Is there some point at which you think people should face the consequences of their own choices? Or do you believe that everyone should always be protected from the foreseeable outcomes of their actions?

 

[Emily's Cat]

What did you think of my repeated responses to this earlier? Was there a part you didn't understand?

Some have higher priorities than covering their own personal asses, when the question is quite literally the fate of humanity.

There's no cliffs. No blenders. No trolleys. There are two buttons:

-Red votes for ONLY Red to survive.
-Blue votes for everyone to survive.

Please knock it off with the cheesy reframings. They are silly. At this point we can talk about the vote impact standalone without the cheap smoke and mirror act.

Your reframing is false, and it is not equivalent to the scenario given.

 

[Lithrael]

Blue is "risk your own life to save people from the consequences of their own choices, knowing that you might die in the process"
Red is "don't risk your own life at all"

Red is indeed 'don't risk your own life at all.' You seem really upset by the idea that that absolutely will not mean that everyone will vote red.

There is no scenario where everyone will vote red. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but that won't change human nature. That means over 50% red WILL result in the deaths of all blue voters.

Blue voters would prefer to avoid those deaths by throwing in with the hope for a result of over 50% blue.

 

[Lithrael]

Why do you think that the person who jumps off a cliff deserves for you to jump off the cliff with them?
Do you think the reckless driver deserves for you to drive recklessly with them? Does the drug addict deserve for you to become an addict in a show of solidarity?

Hmmm. If everybody got a button that said "if more than 50% of people push this blue button, it will save the life of every drug addict and reckless driver; if more than 50% of people push the red button instead then the addicts and reckless drivers will die and so will you" then I'd think the red pushers were WORSE, not better.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here are several scenarios that are functionally identical to the buttons.

REMINDER: THERE ARE NO BABIES

Green Aliens show up with disintegration rays. The rays affect every human they identify simultaneously, with no delays or gaps. At the same time, Purple Aliens send out a broadcast and tell everyone that the rays have to be seen by a human eyeball to be effective. The Purple Aliens tell everyone that if everyone just closes their eyes, they'll be completely unaffected while the Purples arrest and remove the Greens. They also tell you that if more than 50% of the people keep their eyes open, it will overload the disintegration rays, and the people who kept their eyes open will only get a mild eye irritation that will clear up in a couple of hours. Do you keep your eyes open or do you close them?

A large building is slowly falling toward a group of people. The people are told that they have two choices: They can move out of the way of the falling building and completely avoid getting hurt. Alternatively, people can band together and put their hands up to stop the building from crushing people - but that will only be effective if more than half the people work together to hold up the building. Do you try to hold up the building, or do you move out of the way?

Everyone is magically given a copper fork and presented with a lump of clay and an electrical outlet. An announcement is made that each person has a choice of sticking their fork into the clay or into the outlet. The outlet is live, and has a fatal amperage... unless more than half of the people stick their forks in the outlet. If more than half stick their forks in the outlet, it will short the circuit and nobody will be harmed. Do you stick your fork in the outlet or in the clay?

There's a large vat of poison, which will be divided evenly between everyone who chooses to drink some. If more than 50% of the people choose to drink poison, it will make everyone feel icky but nobody will die. If less than 50% choose to drink poison, it will kill everyone who drinks it. Water is available as an alternative. Do you choose to drink water or to drink poison?

 

[Thermal]

Your reframing is false, and it is not equivalent to the scenario given.

IT'S LITERALLY YOUR OWN GODDAMNED OP WORDING.

I mean Jesus Christ, EC.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Red is indeed 'don't risk your own life at all.' You seem really upset by the idea that that absolutely will not mean that everyone will vote red.

I'm not upset that everyone doesn't vote red. People are capable of making their own choices, even when they're risky or even bad for them. What I'm upset by is the persistent refrain that people who vote red are killers who are responsible for the death of blues. That's what bothers me.

There is no scenario where everyone will vote red. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but that won't change human nature. That means over 50% red WILL result in the deaths of all blue voters.

Blue voters would prefer to avoid those deaths by throwing in with the hope for a result of over 50% blue.

And that's a fine and noble impetus.

But I very strongly disagree that the noble impetus of some people makes the other people killers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hmmm. If everybody got a button that said "if more than 50% of people push this blue button, it will save the life of every drug addict and reckless driver; if more than 50% of people push the red button instead then the addicts and reckless drivers will die and so will you" then I'd think the red pushers were WORSE, not better.

That's a fundamental change to the premise though. To be equivalent, the people pushing the blue button would be taking drugs and driving recklessly along with them.

This is a critical aspect of *this* scenario: there are no babies. There are no innocents involved who aren't aware. The people who push blue are actively taking part in the risky behavior, on the hope that enough other people will also engage in the risky behavior to spread the risk out to a less-than-lethal level. But throughout the entire situation, everyone has the option to not engage in risky behavior in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

IT'S LITERALLY YOUR OWN GODDAMNED OP WORDING.

I mean Jesus Christ, EC.

This is not, and has never been, my OP wording:

-Red votes for ONLY Red to survive.
-Blue votes for everyone to survive.

 

[Lithrael]

Sure, whoever set up the buttons are the killers; everyone has the chance to possibly save everyone's lives by voting blue or to save definitely their own life by pressing red. No matter the framing, a red vote is still "blue voters don't deserve (you risking your life on the outcome of the red/blue vote) to live."

 

[Thermal]

Let's compare and try hard not to act like illiterate morons:

First line of the OP: If <50% pick blue, only the red survive. If >50% pick blue, everyone survives.
Thermal's radical reframing: Red votes for ONLY Red to survive, Blue votes for everyone to survive.

Ya you got me there.

 

[Lithrael]

But throughout the entire situation, everyone has the option to not engage in risky behavior in the first place.

Sure. But not everyone will take that option. And all that has to happen if we want to save them is for more than 50% of voters to risk their lives to choose blue.

This 'no, you are choosing to take hard drugs with them in hopes of saving them, can't you see that's ridiculous on its face' stuff is childish. I'm risking weird cosmic death. There's no version of drug addiction that saves people if everyone does it. If you can find a risky behaviour that actually does become safe if everyone does it, then you can use that.

(ETA: I do mean a real one that we might have a genuine non childish reaction to, not a spontaneously invented fiction specifically invented to make THIS invented fiction look like you'd have to be obviously droolingly stupid to try it. The whole POINT of blue voters is that they DO think a significant number of peoples' instincts will be to choose blue.

In your green alien ray one for example, ◊◊◊◊ yes I am keeping my eyes open, and so is everyone else who isn't a coward. We all know a LOT of people are going to look at the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ aliens.)

(And why exactly have you added an element of injury or discomfort to your 'save everyone' success conditions?)