Rolfe
Adult human female
If EVERYONE presses either blue OR red, nobody dies.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Button Poll #2: Only those with normal cognitive capacity are given buttons.
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
If EVERYONE presses either blue OR red, nobody dies.
Thermal
August Member
My bad, misunderstood you.
In that context, I was saying that Blue voters don't give a thought to other people having to "save them". And they don't. It's not a factor in the button push.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Right. The Blue voters will insure you do not prevail.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
At a minimum, you are saying that you are okay with them dying as long as you can blame the victims for their fate, that it is an acceptable outcome for people who choose blue.
And that blame is misplaced. A world in which people die for voting blue only exists because you guys voted for it.
It didn't exist before.
It is not a default state of affairs.
It is not "just the way things work."
It is a world you red voters created through your actions.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
100% Red is not attainable in a global vote. 51% Blue is. That's why Blue is the better choice for the desirable outcome.
Thermal
August Member
Thermal
August Member
Yes, we call that being self centered. Got it.
Not an option in the poll posit. You're just thrown in, no communication, so we have to do oddsmaking based on what we think about other people and how they will choose, and what is the best strategy to get to "everyone survives". We keep thinking about it past the point where you stopped thinking, and come up with Blue as the best collective strategy.
Eta: because we want everyone to survive. You know like the Blue button offers.
Last edited:
Dutchman
Scholar
I don't blame anyone. I said they only have themselves to blame. The outcome is acceptable for the Blue pushers, or they would not have pushed Blue, while fully aware of the risk involved. I do not find that an acceptable outcome for me, which is why I would push Red.
Also, a world in which people die for voting Blue does not actually exist, it's all hypothetical, remember?
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
A distinction without a difference. Also, still an incorrect statement.
By that logic, any outcome is acceptable to any voter. Donald Trump as President is acceptable to people who vote for Kamala Harris, because by voting for her they willingly took the "risk" that the other guy would win, instead.
It doesn't exist *in* the hypothecal, either, unless a majority of people vote Blue.
Nope. I already gave a selfish and self-centred reason why someone may push blue.
Is there anything counterfactual, then, with labelling them both 'if everyone pushes THIS button and not the other one, nobody dies?'
Incidentally, what happens with people who don't choose after x amount of time? Can we defer ANY outcome by never finishing the vote?
Does a null vote count as red or as blue or as both or is it assigned randomly or is it neither? If it's neither, what happens to those that don't vote?
If anyone is assigned blue for not voting, or if the vote isn't forced, then red pushers get a lot more questionable, IMO. If it is forced, how is it forced?
Does a null vote count as red or as blue or as both or is it assigned randomly or is it neither? If it's neither, what happens to those that don't vote?
If anyone is assigned blue for not voting, or if the vote isn't forced, then red pushers get a lot more questionable, IMO. If it is forced, how is it forced?
Dutchman
Scholar
If you say so.
I already stated that the "Blue" outcome would not be acceptable for me. So not any outcome is acceptable to any voter. And that is why I would push Red.
Also, I don't do analogies. Trump and Harris have nothing whatsoever to do with this whole affair.
This is true, it's in the rules of the thing. "Unless" does the heavy lifting here, and I am not entirely sure it would hold the weight. Still pushing Red.
Dutchman
Scholar
Yes, the hypothetical is full of holes. One hardly needs a straw man to fight it, as it basically is one itself
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
The logic you presented would imply that it would be. By voting red, you take the risk that everybody might actually survive (the outcome you find unacceptable for some reason). Is that ridiculous? Yes. And it's exactly what you tried to argue for.
It's a logic puzzle, not a real world scenario. We don't have to explicitly rule out children, those demented or seriously ill or other fringe cases.
Thermal
August Member
If I am understanding them correctly, it has something to do with lasers shot in your eyes when you are ODing on narcotics in a gigantic blender with your dick in an electrical outlet as you fall down a cliff into lava. You know, pretty much what the OP spelled out.
Thermal
August Member
It's a logic puzzle being applied as a real world scenario. That whole "real world scenario" business is what changes the button pushing.
Like, in the original prisoners dilemma, the two criminals were from a gang, and the game theory states that their best odds for either was to betray the other. But applied to real world scenarios, the opposite is true. Gangsters do not forgive snitching, and either that betrayed signed their own death warrant.
That's what makes a question like this kind of fun. You have to go beyond the basic puzzle and plug in your theory to a real life scenario (sort of) to see how it works in real time.
Last edited:
Dutchman
Scholar
If more than 50% push blue, or 100% push red, everybody survives. Yay! I do not find that unacceptable. I find the risk that the blues don't make 50% unacceptable for me. That is why I push red. The blues are obviously willing to take that risk. They are entitled to do that. They should not whine if they don't get the numbers, the risk was laid out clearly before they pushed.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
Another question: What happens if exactly 50% vote blue. That possibility isn't covered in the OP.