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

[Thermal]

No, I said, this is not as simple as it looks, and I doubt the likelihood of a majority choosing blue when they actually think about it. I hope nobody chooses blue when they actually think about it. But I am not volunteering to walk off the cliff.

You don't have to walk off a cliff. You could simply vote for "everyone survives" instead of "kill some of them".

Serious question: you say you doubt the likelihood of a Blue majority, yet we see one in every poll, here and elsewhere. Does that make you reconsider your assumptions about people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

To be fair, in this particular case, the only people whose behaviour I have implied is cowardly are those who would shut their eyes in the face of an alien death ray because someone told them doing that would keep them safe.

Now that I think about it, much like red pushers are not personally killing anyone, I didn't even actually call eye-closers cowards. I said people who were not cowards would keep their eyes open. Why are you accusing me of calling people cowardly? I very literally did not do that.

Because of logic. If ~A then ~B, therefore if B then A.

Let A = cowardliness and B = eyes closed. (corrected from open)

You say here:
If {not cowards} then {eyes not closed}. That directly results in If {eyes closed} then {cowards}.

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.

Your statement here has the same result: Anyone who closes their eyes is a coward. And since the scenarios are all logically equivalent structures... I conclude that you think anyone who declined to take an avoidable risk is a coward.

 

[Thermal]

Oh FFS, you're enamored of the scent of your own flatulence. Seriously, Blues have been called dumb maybe a handful of time. You on the other hand, have repeatedly called Red cowards, killers, and said they want Reds to die. At least have the intestinal fortitude to own your poor behavior.

You know, you just keep making assumptions that imply negative character.

What have I asked of you? Don't call those who voted red in *this* scenario killers. Make a distinction between declining to risk one's own life to save another when safety is not guaranteed and actually killing someone. Consider that avoiding a risk that truly and completely does not need to be taken isn't a bad thing. That's what I've asked of you.

How about a bit of a challenge: steelman the red position. Not well poisoning, not question begging, not insinuating insult within it. Actually steelman the position.

Because I don't think you get it at all, and I don't believe you actually do understand the red position. On the other hand, I'm fairly confident that I do understand the blue position, and I even respect it.

Ok. Worlds easiest challenge.

Of the two choices offered, only one incorporates a risk of harm to the voter, and that is Blue. Red cannot be harmed by their choice, but Blue can. Therefore, each and every voter has the option of bringing no harm to themselves, and should vote that way. Risking death when there is a perfectly safe alternative is contrary to any sane concept of self preservation, which is a primary drive for any member of the species.

How'd I do? That is called "responding to a challenge", which a person of integrity does without hesitation. You have multiple challenges put to you where you have not shown the same level of integrity. Hop to it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just for clarity, I think that voting for other people to die is identical to voting for people to die.

Voting for an outcome explicitly labeled: "Only red voters survive" is necessarily voting for anyone who doesn't vote red to die.

None of the buttons are labeled that. That's not an explicitly labeled outcome. And in half of all possible combinations, both red and blue survive. The situation in which only red survives is a direct result of not enough people choosing blue.

You have had explained to you numerous times what people's reasons are for voting blue, what they perceive the need to be. You need to stop saying that it's "for no reason".

I understand the reason given. If there were babies, I would absolutely be on board with that reason. What I disagree with - repeatedly - is the narrative reframing that seeks to pass moral judgement on reds. I don't have any problem with people choosing blue - I don't agree with the conclusion you've reached in *this* scenario, but I understand it and I respect it. But I do NOT accept the persistent contempt directed at those who chose NOT to take an UNNECESSARY risk to save other people from the easily foreseeable consequences of their own actions.

To answer your other question: yes, all the voters have agency. The red voters are using that agency to vote for people to die.

Again... reds are doing no such thing.

Why do you feel the need to demonize and insult people who chose red in order to justify your choice? Are you incapable of justifying your own selection without forcing someone to be the bad guy?

 

[Emily's Cat]

As I said, the labels describe what happens *if enough people press the corresponding button*. "Enough" in this case means more than 50%.

If enough people (i.e., more than 50%) press the button labeled "Everybody survives", then everybody survives.
If enough people (i.e., more than 50%) press the button labeled "Only red voters survive", then only red voters survive.

The labels are correct.

If that's what you label the buttons, then the buttons are liars.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My assumption is that blue may be chosen by people who wish to commit suicide and have an option which is presumably relatively painless and avoids requiring other people to assist directly at an individual level.

I am as okay with pressing red as I am with voting for right-to-die legislation.

That may be the best analogy so far. And I think it captures the crux of it fairly well.

Generally speaking, I think people should have the right to die if they wish it. I want some safeguards to prevent poorly thought out suicides. I'd like to try to prevent the deaths of children, as well as people on drugs, or people suffering a temporary delusion, or people in the grasp of transient depression. I'd like to ensure that they're of sound mind when they make the decision - but if they are, then I don't think there's an overriding justification for preventing them.

Other people disagree with that view, and I respect the reasons they have for that disagreement.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Agreed. And? You are also entirely content with the mass graves you voted to fill. It's all about you, and ◊◊◊◊ everyone else with a chainsaw. We get it.

And this is why I don't believe you actually understand the red position at all.

 

[Thermal]

If that's what you label the buttons, then the buttons are liars.

As I pointed out already, that is the same wording you used in your own goddamned OP.

 

[Thermal]

And this is why I don't believe you actually understand the red position at all.

Spelled it out for you using small, simple words. Ignoring that post too?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Correct. At a choice of 'ONLY Red survives' versus 'Everyone survives', we choose the latter. That's all.

Except that's not the choice.

The way you've framed this is fundamentally wrong and incorrect. In half of all possible combinations, blue is correct and everyone survives - but in that situation "only red survives" is false. In the other half of combinations, "only red survives" is true, and "everyone survives" is false.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

If that's what you label the buttons, then the buttons are liars.

Nope. In the OP you wrote:

"Everyone on earth has to press a red or blue button. If <50% pick blue, only the red survive. If >50% pick blue, everyone survives."

The only changes I made were to re-word "<50% pick blue" as ">50% pick red", and to propose labelling the corresponding buttons accordingly.

The labels are correct. It is telling that you cannot abide having the options labeled honestly.

 

[Thermal]

Except that's not the choice.

The way you've framed this is fundamentally wrong and incorrect. In half of all possible combinations, blue is correct and everyone survives - but in that situation "only red survives" is false. In the other half of combinations, "only red survives" is true, and "everyone survives" is false.

Yes, we all know how the matrix works.

Very, very clearly: we are stating the outcome of greater than 50% of that color push (what the voter is voting for). We are not making a spreadsheet of the possibilities. We knew them on first reading. With those labels, we are cutting to the chase, saying "if >50% choose this color, this is the result".

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Except that's not the choice.

It is exactly the choice. It's right there in the OP: Everybody survives vs. Only red voters survive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You guys do see the poll results with blue coming in well over 50% every time, right? That would seem to me to indicate that even if people would approach the question differently if it was 'real' there would still be a lot of deaths in an over 50% red world.

I do see that outcome, Lithrael. I also see that the balance in this sample shifted considerably when the babies were removed.

In the first poll, 78.4% chose blue. In the second, only 55.6%. ISF's population is certainly not representative of the world at large.

In other polls the unadjusted scenario (the one that could include babies) tends to run between 55% and 60% blue. I'm inclined to think that's an equilibrium point for the population as a whole, the balance between risk-avoidance and risk-mitigation. Now, if ISF lost more than 20 points by specifying that all the babies are safe... what does that imply about an unbiased population?

 

[Thermal]

I do see that outcome, Lithrael. I also see that the balance in this sample shifted considerably when the babies were removed.

I went back and checked both polls. Did you know that no one but you yammered about babies? Go ahead, search it. I did.

NO ONE RELIED ON BABIES IN THE ARGUMENTS. THE POLL RESULTS WERE FAR LOWER ON THE SECOND POLL BECAUSE IT IS ESSENTIALLY A REPEAT OF THE FIRST AND PEOPLE GET BORED.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's another thought. We are talking about the entire population of the world here. A good few billion people. Is your individual vote going to swing that needle by even a millimetre? No, it isn't. The result will be what it will be, regardless of your personal vote. You are not going to be the one vote that flipped blue over the 50% threshold.

Your actual choice is different. Choose to be among the possibly-dead group, or choose to be among the certainly-alive group. That is where I think this would go in the event that it could be gamed as a real-world scenario. You can't meaningfully tip the balance to a blue victory. You can meaningfully choose life for yourself.

Which is why I think the blue vote would be a lot lower than the virtue-signallers on this thread seem to imagine.

 

[Thermal]

"Your vote doesn't matter". Wasn't expecting that one to come up.

 

[Rolfe]

It matters to you. Rather a lot.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, yes, I can see how people who think others who vote differently deserve to die would find red attractive.

Not a single red button pusher thinks this.

Blue buttons insist on assuming it though. Why is that? Why isn't your choice sufficient on its own merits without you needing to demonize those who think differently?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is kinda wild.... Blue voters are explaining the reasoning of their choice and criticizing the shortcomings and results of voting Red.

Nah, Blues are busy condemning reds and calling them killers who want other people to die.

Reds, on the other hand, are just repeating themselves and talking about crazy reconstructions of the Button choice, without addressing Blue's arguments at all.

Reds are largely trying to get blues to stop trying to bully them into taking completely avoidable risks that literally nobody at all should be taking. If you want to take the risk, that's fine. We would like it very much if you didn't risk death when it's not necessary, but if you do that's you choice. But I think we'd all really like you to stop treating us with contempt for not jumping in the blender with you.