Random Thought Thread

Wishfulthinker580 said:
So now the red are “targeting” innocents?

Most people want to survive and want the people they care about to survive. That means they and hopefully the ones they care about pick red.

Blue voters are deluded. I mean blue “button pushers”.. In denial about human nature. Suicidally empathetic
Click to expand...
If you want the people you care about to survive you should choose blue so that they have a higher chance of living if they choose blue. Red is an entirely selfish choice.

I'm simply illustrating that you can frame the question to make it appear as if either choice is dumb and/or evil. How is "Red is a vote to kill all blue" any less valid than "Blue is suicidal"?

Instead of trying to ascribe character flaws, just look at the objective consequences of the choice. If you do, you'll see either choice can be completely rational depending on how you value the lives of others compared to your own and how you think others will vote. So I don't see the point in defending one color regardless of the context and casting insults on those who disagree.
 
Synov said:
If you want the people you care about to survive you should choose blue so that they have a higher chance of living if they choose blue. Red is an entirely selfish choice.

I'm simply illustrating that you can frame the question to make it appear as if either choice is dumb and/or evil. How is "Red is a vote to kill all blue" any less valid than "Blue is suicidal"?

Instead of trying to ascribe character flaws, just look at the objective consequences of the choice. If you do, you'll see either choice can be completely rational depending on how you value the lives of others compared to your own and how you think others will vote. So I don't see the point in defending one color regardless of the context and casting insults on those who disagree.
Click to expand...
Red is a vote for survival not to “kill all blue”.

Rationally you have to (or should) operate under the assumption that the “everyone survives” threshold will not be met. Or not and die.

Also, we all have those we care about and even those that rely on us in one way or another. Assuming the apocalyptic world resulting from the aforementioned threshold not being met it makes sense to guarantee your survival to take care of anyone that might be left.

Red is the only choice that logically makes sense. And the only responsible choice
 
Last edited:
bluemax_1 said:
This choice, on the other hand, I don’t get it. There’s no logic to picking Blue.
Click to expand...
The logic to picking blue is to avoid the unlikely but catastrophic event in which you are the deciding vote and kill half the population by choosing red. Most people won't even consider that possibility when choosing blue or red because unlikely catastrophic events are a human blindspot.
 
Wishfulthinker580 said:
Red is a vote for survival not to “kill all blue”.

Rationally you have to (or should) operate under the assumption that the “everyone survives” threshold will not be met. Or not and die.

Red is the only choice that logically makes sense.
Click to expand...
Blue is a vote for survival too. If the majority votes for blue you get the exact same effect as if everyone voted red. Voting red puts you at risk of being the deciding vote to kill half the population. The constant re-framing of the question does nothing to determine which choice is logical. You have to look at the actual consequences of your choice:

1. The other voters are tied. Voting blue saves the lives of half the population.

2. The other voters prefer red. Voting red saves your own life.

The probability of scenario 1 multiplied by half the population is the expected value of lives saved by choosing blue.

The probability of scenario 2 multiplied by how much more you value your own life over a stranger's is the expected value of lives saved by choosing red.

Choose whichever color has more expected value. Can you find a logical flaw in this argument?
 
Synov said:
Blue is a vote for survival too. If the majority votes for blue you get the exact same effect as if everyone voted red. Voting red puts you at risk of being the deciding vote to kill half the population. The constant re-framing of the question does nothing to determine which choice is logical. You have to look at the actual consequences of your choice:

1. The other voters are tied. Voting blue saves the lives of half the population.

2. The other voters prefer red. Voting red saves your own life.

The probability of scenario 1 multiplied by half the population is the expected value of lives saved by choosing blue.

The probability of scenario 2 multiplied by how much more you value your own life over a stranger's is the expected value of lives saved by choosing red.

Choose whichever color has more expected value. Can you find a logical flaw in this argument?
Click to expand...
Voting blue is a gamble. Pure and simple. A bad one at that.

Talking consequences. I pick red I survive and maybe some of my family and friends do too. I pick blue I likely die and I’m no use to anyone.

To pick blue is to foolishly and unjustifiably place misguided trust in your fellow man to make the selfless choice. IMHO
 
"Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less (sic) than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?"

Altruism vs selfishness

Or

Idealism vs pragmatism

Or

Hope chess vs princpled moves

?????


However, I don't know that I misread it after all. The thought experiment seems to raise the topic of causing harm through inaction, where the call to action is "Press the blue button for a univeral positive outcome", and pressing the red button is not heeding that call, but abdicating communal responsibility in favor of individual survival.
 
David Mary said:
"Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less (sic) than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?"

Altruism vs selfishness

Or

Idealism vs pragmatism

Or

Hope chess vs princpled moves

?????


However, I don't know that I misread it after all. The thought experiment seems to raise the topic of causing harm through inaction, where the call to action is "Press the blue button for a univeral positive outcome", and pressing the red button is not heeding that call, but abdicating communal responsibility in favor of individual survival.
Click to expand...

DAMNIT I just want to know if the buttons light up after you press them!!!!!!
 
Synov said:
Blue is a vote for survival too. If the majority votes for blue you get the exact same effect as if everyone voted red. Voting red puts you at risk of being the deciding vote to kill half the population. The constant re-framing of the question does nothing to determine which choice is logical. You have to look at the actual consequences of your choice:

1. The other voters are tied. Voting blue saves the lives of half the population.

2. The other voters prefer red. Voting red saves your own life.

The probability of scenario 1 multiplied by half the population is the expected value of lives saved by choosing blue.

The probability of scenario 2 multiplied by how much more you value your own life over a stranger's is the expected value of lives saved by choosing red.

Choose whichever color has more expected value. Can you find a logical flaw in this argument?
Click to expand...
This is called ‘moving the goalposts’.

The original question in the tweet(?) you posted, was “Would you pick Blue, or Red? If you pick Blue and most people pick Blue, everyone lives. If you pick Red and most people pick Red, everyone who picked Blue dies”.

Those of us who like logic puzzles go, “Why would anyone be dumb enough to pick Blue?”.

Now you’re moving the goalposts in question 1 to, “Would you choose to kill half the population?”

*** dark humor, or how you get people to laugh at a sociopathic statement

Someone asked me the Thanos question; “If you’d kill half the population at a snap of your fingers, would you do it?”.

I asked, “Is it a random half, or can I choose the dumbest half? Cuz if I could choose, I’d be like a friggin flamenco dancer practicing pitos” 😂

 
SharpBits said:
I’m pretty sure all these thought experiments are designed by humanists.
Click to expand...

If I believe in something beyond the material world, I have to answer accordingly.

Blue may be deluded by humanist standards, but it is mandatory by the standard of my beliefs. Which is interesting because there have been many attempts throughout history to kill as many people with those beliefs as possible. This vote looks like it would do it.
 
Red=survival

Blue=empathy ?

If in a small number situation... if you are the only to survive..... are you really surviving?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top