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

[Thermal]

While we wait patiently for our courageous Red voters to expound some more on why they would vote to kill their fellow forumites, allow me to treat you to an A Cappella Muzak rendition of The Girl From Ipenema:

Doo-DOO, do do, do-DOO, do, do do do do...

 

[Rolfe]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Thermal]

No. Can't stop doing what you never did in the first place. What tremendously easy riddles you ask!

Do-DOO, do do, do-DOO, do, do do do do...

 

[Rolfe]

Quite.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Emily's Cat, this is why I love you. You're asked me the same question before, multiple tomes, got detailed answers, then you vanish for weeks and return repeating the same goddamned question. You're a living Groundhog Day.

Can you point me to your detailed answer to that question, since I seem to have missed it, and simply reiterating it with basic courtesy is beyond your capacity?

 

[Emily's Cat]

While we wait patiently for our courageous Red voters to expound some more on why they would vote to kill their fellow forumites, allow me to treat you to an A Cappella Muzak rendition of The Girl From Ipenema:

Doo-DOO, do do, do-DOO, do, do do do do...

One of us have voted to kill anyone. You should stop lying.

 

[Thermal]

One of us have voted to kill anyone. You should stop lying.

One of you have voted to kill anyone? Not just the Blues? Man, you really are a bloodthirsty bunch.

 

[Emily's Cat]

One of you have voted to kill anyone? Not just the Blues? Man, you really are a bloodthirsty bunch.

Obvious typos are obvious to those engaging in good faith.

On the other hand, obvious typos get used by some people as a way to tapdance away from actually addressing a point, and pretend that they aren't lying liars who were called out for lying.

 

[Thermal]

Obvious typos are obvious to those engaging in good faith.

Yes, EC, that's called "kidding around" as we are doing in 90% of this inane discussion.

On the other hand, obvious typos get used by some people as a way to tapdance away from actually addressing a point, and pretend that they aren't lying liars who were called out for lying.

Of course they are. Well done. You win.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, EC, that's called "kidding around" as we are doing in 90% of this inane discussion.

I'm disinclined to view you repeatedly saying I voted to kill people to be "kidding around". I'm rather more inclined to view it as an intentional attack on my character.

Of course they are. Well done. You win.

At least you admit it, I suppose.

 

[Thermal]

I'm disinclined to view you repeatedly saying I voted to kill people to be "kidding around".

YOU DIDNT ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ VOTE FOR ANYTHING. ITS ALL A LUDICROUS HYPOTHETICAL. WHAT YOU WOULD OR WOULDN'T REALLY DO HAS NO MEANING BECAUSE NOTHING ABOUT IT IS, OR COULD BE, REAL.

I'm rather more inclined to view it as an intentional attack on my character.

No, it's not. It's playing around with the implications of this impossible scenario. None of us have any way of knowing what we would do in a real button push. I mean, with the fate of humanity literalky at our fingertips, I'm pretty sure none of us could really understand what we would really do, and it would depend heavily on the specifics. Like, I would be desperately trying to figure out how to stop the whole process, not weighing the choice. We can only toy with the abstractions.

At least you admit it, I suppose.

Your sense of humor meter is running way off today.

 

[Thermal]

@Emily's Cat: here's the rundown of how the voting choice works:

1. At first blush, Blue seems the obvious 'right' choice. I mean, Everyone Survives is tough to argue against being the best choice.

2. Then game theory gets applied, and Red is shown to be the best odds for guaranteeing the individual's survival. That's a strong argument in favor of pushing Red. Really, legit sound reasoning. You, Rolfe, and a few others stop thinking any further at this step.

3. The rest of us continue reasoning, weighing the demonstrable, practical outcome of the vote: Everyone Survives, or Only Reds Survive. That can only be seen as pushing Red votes for the death of Blues ( I know you don't like that, but it is inarguably the outcome of voting Red). Some will want no part of that, even if it means putting themselves at risk from the Red Voters.

4. Some of us reason yet further, and picture the global consequences of a win for each color. Red is horrific. Blue is ideal. Kinda seals the deal.

The only thing left that we are really talking about is why you don't reason any further than step 2? Why is the global consequence something you think would be a minor inconvenience? Why do you think that voting for Only Red Survives is not actively voting for Blues to not Survive?

I've asked you this several times, and you change the subject back to reframing step 2 in bizarre ways, blenders and lava and ◊◊◊◊. Then you say we are all stupid and stuck on step one, when we have made it crystal clear that we weighed them all, and continued thinking about the other angles before reaching our conclusion.

 

[junkshop]

Put the stupid ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ buttons in a rocket and shoot it into the sun.

 

[Thermal]

Put the stupid ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ buttons in a rocket and shoot it into the sun.

You know the rocket voted blue, right, you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ psycho?

 

[bruto]

@Emily's Cat: here's the rundown of how the voting choice works:

1. At first blush, Blue seems the obvious 'right' choice. I mean, Everyone Survives is tough to argue against being the best choice.

2. Then game theory gets applied, and Red is shown to be the best odds for guaranteeing the individual's survival. That's a strong argument in favor of pushing Red. Really, legit sound reasoning. You, Rolfe, and a few others stop thinking any further at this step.

3. The rest of us continue reasoning, weighing the demonstrable, practical outcome of the vote: Everyone Survives, or Only Reds Survive. That can only be seen as pushing Red votes for the death of Blues ( I know you don't like that, but it is inarguably the outcome of voting Red). Some will want no part of that, even if it means putting themselves at risk from the Red Voters.

4. Some of us reason yet further, and picture the global consequences of a win for each color. Red is horrific. Blue is ideal. Kinda seals the deal.

The only thing left that we are really talking about is why you don't reason any further than step 2? Why is the global consequence something you think would be a minor inconvenience? Why do you think that voting for Only Red Survives is not actively voting for Blues to not Survive?

I've asked you this several times, and you change the subject back to reframing step 2 in bizarre ways, blenders and lava and ◊◊◊◊. Then you say we are all stupid and stuck on step one, when we have made it crystal clear that we weighed them all, and continued thinking about the other angles before reaching our conclusion.

I like your take here, but think there is one added dimension, which kind of justifies the red choice but not in a very nice way. The EC's of this world may vote red because they assume the majority of people in the world are selfish ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and hypocrites who will vote red. And of course if they're right, then voting blue is suicide. They don't trust us. That's me and you, Thermal. We're what some elements are wont to call virtue signallers. And sure enough, I know myself, but I don't really know you! Deep down, red is the bet-hedging vote of misanthropes. Now as I say, if they're right, then voting blue is indeed suicide. The only problem remaining is that they also guarantee that their world will be owned by people who are at best no better than they are. It's sort of like the survivalist paradox. Yeah, you'll be one of the fortunate few left, owning the smoking ruins, barricaded in your bunker against the other pirates, jacking off and eating canned peaches.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, you'll be one of the fortunate few left, owning the smoking ruins, barricaded in your bunker against the other pirates, jacking off and eating canned peaches.

...well. I do like peaches....

Yeah, your take is sound, and I had said similar early on: this whole dilemma is really asking what we think about people, generally.

It could lead to some counterintuitive choice making, though.Faced with an inevitable Red win, I would probably grit my teeth and vote Red, only to help.with damage control.in the aftermath. I don't think I would have what it takes (whatever it may be) to vote Blue anyway and die on my principles. The desire to still try and help those who could be helped would convince me to do the horrible thing, in the hopes of fighting another day. But man, to live with knowing what that Red button helped to do... it's kind of maddening, in a way. It really might come down to my mood that day- do the right thing right now at all costs, or be resigned that doing the right thing in the long run means to do the wrong thing in the short.

 

[bruto]

...well. I do like peaches....

Yeah, your take is sound, and I had said similar early on: this whole dilemma is really asking what we think about people, generally.

It could lead to some counterintuitive choice making, though.Faced with an inevitable Red win, I would probably grit my teeth and vote Red, only to help.with damage control.in the aftermath. I don't think I would have what it takes (whatever it may be) to vote Blue anyway and die on my principles. The desire to still try and help those who could be helped would convince me to do the horrible thing, in the hopes of fighting another day. But man, to live with knowing what that Red button helped to do... it's kind of maddening, in a way. It really might come down to my mood that day- do the right thing right now at all costs, or be resigned that doing the right thing in the long run means to do the wrong thing in the short.

Yes, the degree of certainty and the reliability of prediction makes a big difference. I would not be inclined to vote blue if a red win were certain - principles are kind of squishy when the chips are down. I am assuming for the purpose of this test that the entire world votes in secret and more or less simultaneously, with no updates and no take-backs.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, the degree of certainty and the reliability of prediction makes a big difference. I would not be inclined to vote blue if a red win were certain - principles are kind of squishy when the chips are down.

Oh, I don't mean that as abandoning principles in self-interest. I mean it as the same principle, to minimize the human toll in the endgame. The collective interests do have a tipping point in there somewhere. But that is a gruesome decision I am quite happy to never have to weigh.

I am assuming for the purpose of this test that the entire world votes in secret and more or less simultaneously, with no updates and no take-backs.

Right, that's the premise, and I would be Blue in any foreseeable scenario. Interestingly, in the same way that others than EC say they would go Red no matter the scenario.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The EC's of this world may vote red because they assume the majority of people in the world are selfish ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and hypocrites who will vote red.

I really wish you would actually read, comprehend, and accept my reasoning rather than just inventing malicious reasons.

When there are no babies, I vote red because easily identifiable and completely avoidable risks should be avoided.

Hey, there's a cliff over there - don't walk off of it.
Hey, that's a busy road - don't walk out in front of a car.
Hey, bleach could kill you - don't drink it.
Hey, pushing that button might make you dead - don't push it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, the degree of certainty and the reliability of prediction makes a big difference. I would not be inclined to vote blue if a red win were certain - principles are kind of squishy when the chips are down. I am assuming for the purpose of this test that the entire world votes in secret and more or less simultaneously, with no updates and no take-backs.

Of course it's in secret and simultaneous.

Also... the "reliability" of safe thought problems doesn't translate well to real life. In thought problems, almost everyone says they'll flip the switch and let the trolley run down one person instead of five... but in functionally similar situations in reality, people freeze and don't flip the switch at all. There's a massive difference between making a noble assumption based on pure logic when you're safely sitting on your couch enjoying a beverage in front of the TV and actually being required to take an action in reality when your life is on the line.

There's no way to prove it, of course. But I believe that if there were a functionally similar real life situation, where there was a choice between completely avoiding an obvious and advertised risk, and placing yourself at risk of death... less than half of the people who say they'd pick blue would actually pick blue.