Helen
Implicitly explicit
Or perhaps we value the lives of others as well?
But I can see that you'd prefer an explanation that has anyone who chooses blue doing so because they're just a little stupider than you.
-
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
Or perhaps we value the lives of others as well?
But I can see that you'd prefer an explanation that has anyone who chooses blue doing so because they're just a little stupider than you.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,888
EC has a clear answer to the question: serve in heaven or rule in hell?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
No, not necessarily. Depending on the specific circumstances of the scenario, I think blue is the better option. Just not always.
50% threshold is essentially a coin flip. If there are ‘babies’ involved - people who are mentally non-competent to understand the choice - I’m voting blue to help protect the. When there are no babies, then each person is making a choice of whether to take an entirely avoidable risk.
At some point, I don’t think I should be expected to risk myself to help save others who are 100% capable of saving themselves. You don’t have to set yourself on fire to keep other people warm.
What specific participation threshold each person draws the line at will vary. When there are no babies, mine is probably about 40% or so. I’m not willing to risk myself life when there’s a 40% chance I’ll die for people who have knowingly put themselves at unnecessary risk. If we only need 35%participation, I’d probably take the risk. If we need 45%, I’m not willing to do so. If babies are included, my threshold increases to probably about 70%
For you maybe that threshold without babies is 75%, or 90%. Maybe you’re willing to risk yourself to save people who intentionally walk into obvious danger if it requires 90% participation for you to not die. That’s a decision that’s up to you. I don’t expect you to change your view, but I do want you to understand and respect mine.
On the other hand, I think it’s inexcusable poor behavior to denigrate me and others like me for being less willing to risk ourselves than you are. I find it arrogant, and entirely lacking in the compassion and empathy that is claimed to be the motivation for choosing blue in the first place .
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
For someone who claims to oppose authoritarianism, you seem to have no tolerance for other viewpoints, and can only see those views as evil and bad.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,888
When it comes to Life or Death decision there can't be any tolerance
It's funny that you ask to be met in the middle between killing no one and killing billions.
This is not a matter of opinion - as has been pointed out countless times: this is what is actually happening on a smaller scale all the time all over the world
Last edited:
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Yes, I know what you think, EC, I have read the thread. I do find it funny that you berate me for denigrating you, by calling me arrogant, and lacking in compassion and empathy
Having reread what I wrote, I dohave to ask where I denigrated you? Was it by stating that my choice would be different than yours? I thought that was what this thread was about?
Having reread what I wrote, I dohave to ask where I denigrated you? Was it by stating that my choice would be different than yours? I thought that was what this thread was about?
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I’m not killing anyone. I find it entirely unacceptable to frame my unwillingness to save people from themselves, when those people know full well that they’re taking a completely avoidable risk, as “killing” them.
If you walk out into a sub-zero blizzard, and I refuse to set myself on fire so you can stay warm, I haven’t killed you. You could have stayed in the warm house in the first place.
I’m not responsible for the consequences of your freely-chosen actions.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
You said I don’t value the lives of others, and that I think you’re stupid. Neither of those is true, it’s merely ad hominem.Yes, I know what you think, EC, I have read the thread. I do find it funny that you berate me for denigrating you, by calling me arrogant, and lacking in compassion and empathy
Having reread what I wrote, I dohave to ask where I denigrated you? Was it by stating that my choice would be different than yours? I thought that was what this thread was about?
Furthermore, you’ve consistently jumped in to defend people who call me a killer and evil.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Did I? I said I do, I have not said you don't. And if I have liked posts in this thread, it's because I have appreciated their arguments for pressing blue.
You, on the other hand, have called me arrogant, and lacking in compassion and empathy, based solely on my choice of blue.
You, on the other hand, have called me arrogant, and lacking in compassion and empathy, based solely on my choice of blue.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
It was intended as a “collective you”, but to be fair I didn’t specify.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
So I didn't say that you don't value the lives of others. Thank you.
Now, how about apoligising for baselessly calling me arrogant, and lacking in compassion and empathy?
Thermal
August Member
When it votes specifically to kill others? Pretty easy to envision.
Because we vote for everyone to live, not threaten to have others die. Bit more consequential on the morality scale than *checks notes* condescension.
Again this button scenario does not in any way map onto blues putting themselves into danger from which they can only be rescued by others setting themselves on fire. If you made a thread where that actually was the scenario you would probably not get roasted for not wanting to get roasted.
Your position has from the beginning hinged on the idea that red is the passive default rather than something those polled must choose. That does not actually map onto the red or blue choice presented in the hypothetical we are discussing.
Your position has from the beginning hinged on the idea that red is the passive default rather than something those polled must choose. That does not actually map onto the red or blue choice presented in the hypothetical we are discussing.
Thermal
August Member
This followed my post? Well, I feel stung, if a bit confused.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Because, shorn of the fancy framing, that's what it is.
Thermal
August Member
-Blue button: Everyone Survives.
-Red button: Blues die.
Boy howdy, that's some fancy framing, right there. Just mystifying in its complexity.
-Red button: Blues die.
Boy howdy, that's some fancy framing, right there. Just mystifying in its complexity.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I see the issue itself as having a moral dimension but that does not translate reliably into one side being moral and the other not, nor into one side being more intelligent. It's clear that there is a hopeless impasse in the way people see the whole thing, both as individuals and as a social whole, and since the argument is essentially stalemated and the scenario itself so abstract and featureless that it loses meaning, I'm quite willing to stop being too serious and be accused of riffing.
I still think that, while this is the best way to look at it from outside - that is, as what the whole society should do - it's not really that simple if you're inside, where you must at least consider how other people are going to think and act. And that includes knowing that a possibly significant percentage of them will be thinking like EC, and a possibly significant number of the third-party-oops-we-got-Brexit sort will vote red as a gesture of protest or dissent, assuming enough others will vote blue so that they won't be held responsible. If you feel reasonably sure blue will lose by a margin you can't influence, then there's a "work from within" argument for joining the reds even if you are blue-inclined. If you feel reasonably sure that blue will win by a margin you can't influence, and then vote red just to be contrarian or to hedge your bets...well, ◊◊◊◊ you.
But all that said, yes, as a basic instruction for a society or a world in which such a scenario were to present itself, it is that simple. If you were appointed principal pundit or head oracle, to inform people of what they should do, then it is that simple. That's what they should do. Unfortunately they probably won't. Some of us won't be around to see the mess they make of it.
Thermal
August Member
I hear you, but I really can't wrap.my head around a Red victory, if the voters realized the magnitude and consequence of the Button Push. It goes against everything I think about people, broadly. I know this has a lot to do with me being a dad; parents very quickly drop themselves out of the #1 slot in deference to those we care for, almost intuitively. The compulsion for everyone to be safe and sound overrides the inner seagull squaking "me me me".
Ah, as usual I took too long typing and now there are a whole flotilla of sneaky posts that snuck in after I started, between the post I was replying to and the post I posted. Also as usual I failed to take advantage of any of the forum features meant to avoid that type of confusion. But since you haven't complained about people calling you out for the terrible crime of not wanting to set yourself on fire for no good reason, I assume the confusion wasn't too deep.
Last edited: