You get that just the fact that this is even being debated between you and I right now…let alone all the people who disagree with you online…literally proves your assertion wrong…right?
If you and I disagree on this, right now…how do you conclude that all 8 billion people on Earth are somehow going to unanimously press the red button? By all means, explain how that happens.
And you still don’t seem to understand the basic premise behind this scenario…
You keep insisting that the only way “everyone lives” is to unanimously press the red button. But that’s simply not true.
If 51% press the blue button…everyone lives.
As opposed to needing 100% to press the red button to achieve the same outcome.
“Everyone lives” if a simple majority presses blue…versus your prediction that everyone is going to magically press red, despite all the facts and evidence that says they won’t. You are banking on a break from reality to occur in order to “save everyone”.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter how you try to explain that…it simply isn’t rational.
Again im not making any assumptions of who will press red or blue outside of the logical thing to do is press red. If folks press blue it is for two reasons. They are not doing the logical choice. They want to die. Or they are following some misguided quest to save people who don’t need saving because they 100% do not need to put themselves in the possibility of death set (one of the many illogical choices). Heck you whole first paragarph is illogical as it equally applies to both yourself and I yet you act like its an argument for only you. Folks can press either button but choosing the death button is illogical if you want to live.
Lol! Ok. So, you really just don’t understand how this thought experiment works, then. The entire point is to anticipate how the majority will choose, in order to achieve a desired outcome.
If your objective is to only save yourself…then pressing the red button is the only logical choice.
But, if your objective is to save everyone…then pressing blue is the only logical choice.
If you don’t care what other people are pressing…then you’ve just admitted that you’re not actually trying to save everyone. You’re just trying to save yourself…and can’t understand why everyone isn’t making the same choice.
The prompt is clear. You are attributing things to the experiment that are not necessarily a part of it. Blue causes death. Red does not. People who press blue are trying to save people who press blue in misguided attempt to save people who are only at risk because they are trying to save people that don’t need saving. Indeed I am not trying to save everyone because no one needs saving. Absolutely 100% of everyone can save themselves. There is no risk of an innocent dying because they are effectively immune to harm if they choose to be. I can’t think of making it any more clear than the remarking the buttons as life and death thing.
There are only two conditions to the experiment…and you are repeatedly ignoring both of them.
if the majority presses blue…EVERYONE LIVES
if the majority chooses red…everyone who didn’t choose red, dies.
You are the one attributing things to those conditions that don’t exist.
Everyone choosing red is also not the “only way that everyone lives”. That is clearly stated in the first condition. This makes your primary assertion, wrong.
Choosing blue is a risk…but, it is also the only choice where everyone lives. It really is that simple. It is not “choosing death”. That’s just something else you keep saying, that simply isn’t true.
you are missing the key factor. Anyone choosing blue is the only way for someone to die because only those who choose blue will die. Blue is the choice of death. Death only occurs if people choose blue which they should not do. Choosing red causes no deaths. Only choosing blue can cause people to die. Choosing red never causes death it is in the choice of blue that death is allowed to occur. Im not saying choosing red is the only way for everyone to live. Im saying it is in choosing blue that death becomes something that can happen. It makes no sense to choose blue or death.
Choosing red is choosing for you not to die. But, it is also choosing to potentially sacrifice other people in the process. That means choosing red, is choosing to kill others in exchange for guaranteed survival. That is the definition of “causing death”.
The only way choosing red doesn’t directly cause the death of others, is if the majority chooses blue.
If the majority chooses blue, then everyone lives. That means that choosing blue isn’t “choosing death”…it’s choosing to risk death in order to save everyone. Something that choosing red simply can’t achieve.
no one needs to be saved because no one need choose blue. a choice of blue is risking your life in case someone decides to risk their life to save someone in case they risk their life. seriously read the blogs thing on the loaded gun. Look I would completely come onto your view if the rules made it where some innocent was forced to pick blue. but if someone does its because they decided to. make it that the last person to press losses the option and is forced to get blue and the whole thing changes. but this scenario anyone who died basically did it to themselves because no one need die or even risk death.
The fact that you keep circling back to that excuse, either means that you’re delusional, or simply don’t care that your decision is putting other people at risk.
Delusional if you seriously don’t understand that people will vote blue, whether you think they “should” or not. That means they will die if the majority presses red.
If you do know that those people do exist, then still pressing red just means that you don’t care if they die…as long as you personally, survive.
This entire thought experiment is intended to reveal the kind of person you are. Are you the kind of person that would risk your own life to save others…or are you the kind of person that would risk the lives of others, in order to guarantee your own survival.
I know for a fact, I wouldn’t trust someone like you to have my back in a dangerous situation. It’s pretty obvious that if my life was in danger, you’d gladly let me die rather than risk your own safety. What’s worse is, you’d turn around and blame me for “choosing to die”, when in reality you were the one that chose to let me die, instead of doing something to save me.
You get that just the fact that this is even being debated between you and I right now…let alone all the people who disagree with you online…literally proves your assertion wrong…right?
If you and I disagree on this, right now…how do you conclude that all 8 billion people on Earth are somehow going to unanimously press the red button? By all means, explain how that happens.
And you still don’t seem to understand the basic premise behind this scenario…
You keep insisting that the only way “everyone lives” is to unanimously press the red button. But that’s simply not true.
If 51% press the blue button…everyone lives.
As opposed to needing 100% to press the red button to achieve the same outcome.
“Everyone lives” if a simple majority presses blue…versus your prediction that everyone is going to magically press red, despite all the facts and evidence that says they won’t. You are banking on a break from reality to occur in order to “save everyone”.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter how you try to explain that…it simply isn’t rational.
Again im not making any assumptions of who will press red or blue outside of the logical thing to do is press red. If folks press blue it is for two reasons. They are not doing the logical choice. They want to die. Or they are following some misguided quest to save people who don’t need saving because they 100% do not need to put themselves in the possibility of death set (one of the many illogical choices). Heck you whole first paragarph is illogical as it equally applies to both yourself and I yet you act like its an argument for only you. Folks can press either button but choosing the death button is illogical if you want to live.
Lol! Ok. So, you really just don’t understand how this thought experiment works, then. The entire point is to anticipate how the majority will choose, in order to achieve a desired outcome.
If your objective is to only save yourself…then pressing the red button is the only logical choice.
But, if your objective is to save everyone…then pressing blue is the only logical choice.
If you don’t care what other people are pressing…then you’ve just admitted that you’re not actually trying to save everyone. You’re just trying to save yourself…and can’t understand why everyone isn’t making the same choice.
The prompt is clear. You are attributing things to the experiment that are not necessarily a part of it. Blue causes death. Red does not. People who press blue are trying to save people who press blue in misguided attempt to save people who are only at risk because they are trying to save people that don’t need saving. Indeed I am not trying to save everyone because no one needs saving. Absolutely 100% of everyone can save themselves. There is no risk of an innocent dying because they are effectively immune to harm if they choose to be. I can’t think of making it any more clear than the remarking the buttons as life and death thing.
There are only two conditions to the experiment…and you are repeatedly ignoring both of them.
if the majority presses blue…EVERYONE LIVES
if the majority chooses red…everyone who didn’t choose red, dies.
You are the one attributing things to those conditions that don’t exist.
Everyone choosing red is also not the “only way that everyone lives”. That is clearly stated in the first condition. This makes your primary assertion, wrong.
Choosing blue is a risk…but, it is also the only choice where everyone lives. It really is that simple. It is not “choosing death”. That’s just something else you keep saying, that simply isn’t true.
you are missing the key factor. Anyone choosing blue is the only way for someone to die because only those who choose blue will die. Blue is the choice of death. Death only occurs if people choose blue which they should not do. Choosing red causes no deaths. Only choosing blue can cause people to die. Choosing red never causes death it is in the choice of blue that death is allowed to occur. Im not saying choosing red is the only way for everyone to live. Im saying it is in choosing blue that death becomes something that can happen. It makes no sense to choose blue or death.
No.
Choosing red is choosing for you not to die. But, it is also choosing to potentially sacrifice other people in the process. That means choosing red, is choosing to kill others in exchange for guaranteed survival. That is the definition of “causing death”.
The only way choosing red doesn’t directly cause the death of others, is if the majority chooses blue.
If the majority chooses blue, then everyone lives. That means that choosing blue isn’t “choosing death”…it’s choosing to risk death in order to save everyone. Something that choosing red simply can’t achieve.
no one needs to be saved because no one need choose blue. a choice of blue is risking your life in case someone decides to risk their life to save someone in case they risk their life. seriously read the blogs thing on the loaded gun. Look I would completely come onto your view if the rules made it where some innocent was forced to pick blue. but if someone does its because they decided to. make it that the last person to press losses the option and is forced to get blue and the whole thing changes. but this scenario anyone who died basically did it to themselves because no one need die or even risk death.
The fact that you keep circling back to that excuse, either means that you’re delusional, or simply don’t care that your decision is putting other people at risk.
Delusional if you seriously don’t understand that people will vote blue, whether you think they “should” or not. That means they will die if the majority presses red.
If you do know that those people do exist, then still pressing red just means that you don’t care if they die…as long as you personally, survive.
This entire thought experiment is intended to reveal the kind of person you are. Are you the kind of person that would risk your own life to save others…or are you the kind of person that would risk the lives of others, in order to guarantee your own survival.
I know for a fact, I wouldn’t trust someone like you to have my back in a dangerous situation. It’s pretty obvious that if my life was in danger, you’d gladly let me die rather than risk your own safety. What’s worse is, you’d turn around and blame me for “choosing to die”, when in reality you were the one that chose to let me die, instead of doing something to save me.
That’s pretty cold, man.