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.
I as well would not want an irrational person at my back so we are in agreement there. I think that is the closest we will come to agreement but we fundamentally look at this question differently. If the linked blog did not change your perspective and I have not then there is nothing more I can add. I appreciate the interaction however frustrating it may have been for both of us.
Lol! Did you not read that blog? You might agree with the guy who wrote it, but he actually includes the data on which button most people choose to press…and it’s blue far more often than red.
So…knowing that those people exist…you would still push red and risk killing them all, just to ensure you survive? Claiming it “immoral” to save them, is about as bizarre an argument as claiming that it’s even possible for everyone to press red.
You are in a state of denial, my friend. I get it. You need to justify your decision to risk all those people’s lives somehow, right?
As I said we disagree on this. It is a straight forward logic problem and the answer is red. Anyone who presses blue is essentially creating the pool of the possible dead. Without changing the premise every single person who presses blue is looking to possibly die and hoping other people will risk their lives to save them despite the fact it was they who put themselves at risk.
Man, I don’t know if you realize just how ridiculous your argument even is, at this point. Your last message especially, really does sum up just how out-of-touch your worldview is.
You claim that you also wouldn’t trust me to have your back… literally BECAUSE I might risk my own life to save yours? What criteria would you trust, then? Would you rather someone just watch you die for from a safe distance? Would that be the kind of person you want watching your back in a life-or-death situation?
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.
I as well would not want an irrational person at my back so we are in agreement there. I think that is the closest we will come to agreement but we fundamentally look at this question differently. If the linked blog did not change your perspective and I have not then there is nothing more I can add. I appreciate the interaction however frustrating it may have been for both of us.
Lol! Did you not read that blog? You might agree with the guy who wrote it, but he actually includes the data on which button most people choose to press…and it’s blue far more often than red.
So…knowing that those people exist…you would still push red and risk killing them all, just to ensure you survive? Claiming it “immoral” to save them, is about as bizarre an argument as claiming that it’s even possible for everyone to press red.
You are in a state of denial, my friend. I get it. You need to justify your decision to risk all those people’s lives somehow, right?
As I said we disagree on this. It is a straight forward logic problem and the answer is red. Anyone who presses blue is essentially creating the pool of the possible dead. Without changing the premise every single person who presses blue is looking to possibly die and hoping other people will risk their lives to save them despite the fact it was they who put themselves at risk.
Man, I don’t know if you realize just how ridiculous your argument even is, at this point. Your last message especially, really does sum up just how out-of-touch your worldview is.
You claim that you also wouldn’t trust me to have your back… literally BECAUSE I might risk my own life to save yours? What criteria would you trust, then? Would you rather someone just watch you die for from a safe distance? Would that be the kind of person you want watching your back in a life-or-death situation?
Lol!
The critera would rationality.
Lol! I no longer believe you’re serious. Good troll, man. You got me.