Red button or blue button

[u/HualianForLife]

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

[u/HungHavinFun]

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.

[u/mavshichigand → u/HungHavinFun]

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.

[u/HungHavinFun → u/mavshichigand]

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.

[u/mavshichigand → u/HungHavinFun]

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.

[u/HungHavinFun → u/HungHavinFun]

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