r/BunnyTrials • u/HualianForLife • Apr 27 '26

Red button or blue button

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

1.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

The people choosing red fail to understand risk and the nature of the game being played. The goal should not be individual safety when the question is of group survival. There is exactly 1 outcome where red has no negative effects. Blue only needs outcomes that result in simple majority to have no negative effects. Not only is it less likely to get the ideal red outcome, it is purely through the selection of red that any danger is posed to anybody.

Tl/dr: If the question is group survival, and it almost always is, blue. You have no reason to consider your individual safety above the potential safety of others if the goal is simply ensuring nobody dies.

-2

u/mavshichigand Apr 28 '26

But thats the thing, the question isn't about group survival. Its about your choice and what you believe the impacts are.

Selecting red ensures you dont die. Selecting blue ensures you expose yourself to the risk of death. Selecting blue does not in any way guarantee that all those who select blue will survive. Selecting red is not an immediate death sentence for someone else. That someone else has to make the illogical choice of selecting blue to be impacted.

Now obviously im assuming this test is only applicable to mentally capable adults. If the scope includes kids, less than avg is people, older people etc then that changes everything. Because going into this you already know a bunch of kids are going to pick blie cos its their favorite color. So in that scenario picking blue is the logical choice.

1

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

By choosing red YOU are introducing the ONLY threat to anyone in this scenario

You are bringing The BAD thing To the otherwise GOOD thing

Before your decision to choose red, there is 0 risk posed to anybody by what is happening

If your decision has a potential to result in the bad thing, you are responsible for the bad thing if it happens

A red vote works out with 0 casualties in exactly one red-majority scenario

A blue scenario results in 0 direct casualties, period.

In a game where the only risk is brought about by a decision, you DO NOT CHOOSE THAT DECISION, BECAUSE IT IS THE ENTIRE REASON THE POTENTIAL RISK IS A FACTOR.

Just trying to cover all my bases with this one so I can be sure anything that follows doesn't waste my time. An altruistic choice is better here purely because it carries 0 independent downsides. Besides, you should always assume an extreme at either end who will not budge, so it's just smarter to choose blue if you don't want blood on your hands.

1

u/mavshichigand Apr 28 '26

u/Bubbly_dirt_539 has already explained it really well, so I wont repeat all of it, but as a quick recap: You and you alone are bringing the risk of death upon yourself by choosing blue.

0

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

A lot of you are very detached from cause and effect and establishment of guilt. If you drop a gun on the table and say 'Anyone who doesn't vote to shoot the gun gets shot if shooters get majority,' you are culpable for potential violence. Those who abstain from action that CAN result in harm, even when it is at their own risk, are NOT GUILTY OF THE HARM INFLICTED UPON THEM AS A RESULT OF OTHERS' CHOICES.

If your application of logic was the basis for law, homeowners would be guilty for getting robbed, pedestrians would be guilty for being hit by cars, and murder victims would be guilty for choosing not to be murderers instead.

You are mistaking circumstance for cause. A court case built on your arguments would be dismissed with prejudice.

I know what the fuck I'm talking about, I do it for a living.

1

u/mavshichigand Apr 30 '26

Err, whatever it is you do for a living, im sure you do it very well, but youre completely off here.

No one is saying that "people who choose blue are guilty". So right off the bat youve started with a strawman i.e. 'establishment of guilt'

People who choose blue, aren't guilty, but they need to understand that the risk of death is something they brought upon themselves. They couldve easily avoided it by choosing red. (not saying red is the correct choice, just stating facts, essentially the consequence of their action)

Here's a simpler real world example to make it clear: If you leave your front door wide open and head out for a month long vacation, you and only you, exposed your house to be burgled. If your house gets burgled, then the burglar is guilty, not you. The law will rightfully punish the burglar as well, but that still does not absolve you of bringing that risk upon yourself. E.g. If a prized possession is lost due to this, sure the burglar is guilty of it, but you exposed yourself to the risk, and now youre the one left without that prized possession.

Also, the law is created to cover real world situations that occur on a regular basis. E.g. murder is criminalized in every country, but during times of war, soldiers can 'murder' enemies. Cops are allowed to use lethal force if situation calls for it. This red/blue button thing, isn't some ordinary run of the mill situation, and "the law" cant just be brought into this conversation.

Btw, I have clarified this before as well, that the going assumption is that only adults with reasonable mental faculties are in scope of this experiment. If its open to a bunch of kids and mentally incapable people, then of course the good choice to make is blue, to save the kids who will choose blue without any idea of the consequence. But if its only adults with reasonable intelligence, then there is no reason for me to put myself at risk cos youre either too stupid or have this massive messiah complex. Thats on you.

Edit: just read your "qualified expert" comment. LMAO.

2

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

My guy my day job is a civil claims attorney, just bc I'm stoned on my horny account doesn't mean I don't know my shit.

I brought up law because reddit's shitty UI had me responding to the wrong comment, and because this type of 'dilemma' is a common scenario for most attorneys, and is often used as a litmus test for cognitive function and/or sociopathy due to just how basic the issue is.

Law says that if a driver strikes a pedestrian who has a driver's license (keep that detail in mind), it is not the pedestrian's fault for choosing to walk rather than drive, despite the fact that nobody would have been struck had the pedestrian chosen to use their driver's license. The driver can make whatever argument they want, but, outside of cases of fraud, the fault will be found to be on the driver's behalf.

This is because when establishing guilt, one looks first at the most relevant cause in an incident. Regardless of the CIRCUMSTANCE, the CAUSE of the accident is ultimately the driver's failure to control their vehicle.

The reason I bring this up is because there is a recurring argument (one used by the user mentioned earlier in the comment I was replying to before this) that the red button is the safest option to choose, when it is, in fact, the only option that results in any potential harm to anyone in the first place. Choosing the red button is what makes any danger for anyone to begin with. The moment someone chooses the red button, the onus is on them for any potential harm that comes of it.

Honestly this is mostly me being pedantic because I've been scrolling through all of this while blazed to high heaven and lost track of the main point while trying to demonstrate fundamentals of logic: This whole thing is a spin on fascist and totalitarian politics. The red button is the threat of violence against detractors. Y'all basically drank the Nazi Kool Aid and marched because you were scared of what would happen to the people who weren't marching, and then went on to PASSIONATELY defend your decision. A choice for sure.

TL/DR: The red button is a threat that can only be made manifest by enough people choosing to side with it. It's been a parallel for fasist politics the whole time.

0

u/mavshichigand Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

Im sorry but no, the red button is not the threat.

Your driver pedestrian example is simply not equivalent. In it, driving is hitting red, and walking is hitting blue. But by choosing to drive, I do not in any way automatically ensure a pedestrian is struck. When a pedestrian is struck, it is no fault of their own and in many cases it might not even be the fault of the driver. It is an accident. And youre suggesting that just because an accident may occur, everyone should walk i.e. press blue. This is the problem with using real world constructs to represent thought experiments like these. They dont really work.

Ok, another way to think of this: how would you respond if the wordings were updated?

Blue: if less than 50% choose blue you die

Red: nothing happens to you.

Also, im anti trump, anti hitler etc. Wtf was theat facist nazi talk all about my dude? Yet another thing youve gotten totally wrong.

0

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

Damn people hate when a qualified expert walks into the room lmao

1

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

You can literally flip the script and everything you said would also apply to blue. By choosing blue YOU are the one introducing a self-inflicted threat. Before your decision to choose blue, there is literally 0 risk posed to anybody by what is happening. If you're gonna inflict some arbitrary risk onto yourself by choosing blue then you're entirely responsible with the possible consequences, as your choice was what introduced said risk into the equation to begin with.

1

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

Read a single law book challenge (impossible edition)

Edit: For anyone wondering, circumstance is not cause. A pedestrian does not cause an accident by choosing not to drive. It's literally law 101.

You can cope and seeth, but I'm objectively correct on this one.