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?
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.