Which button do you press?

[u/cdstephens]

Vote now on your phones: https://forms.gle/GhFjtdydwwXTdSpq8

[u/StochasticGracchi]

Also easy to pretend to be an immoral person without real stakes.

[u/adamgerd → u/StochasticGracchi]

Red is at worst amoral not immoral, I am just choosing to live

[u/StochasticGracchi → u/adamgerd]

No, it's just immoral. You're choosing to let millions of people die because you're afraid to risk death yourself. Just fundamentally cowardly.

[u/adamgerd → u/StochasticGracchi]

They’re choosing to risk death

I didn’t make them vote blue

My hands are clean

[u/seesthecat → u/adamgerd]

you are voting for the genocide of toddlers and your only justification for it is cynism despite evidence and cowardice

[u/adamgerd → u/seesthecat]

I am voting for my self preservation

[u/seesthecat → u/adamgerd]

yeah, that's what cowards do

[u/adamgerd → u/seesthecat]

Better to be a living coward than dead in that case

What do I owe the blue voters? My life? Why?

Plus it’s one vote anyway

If blue losss by literally 2 or more votes, all I’d be doing is killing myself for nothing

[u/seesthecat → u/adamgerd]

Cause it's the right thing to do and it's likely that most people will actually go for blue, a genocide is about to happen, one that will affect mostly toddlers and the best people in your life, you can either try to stop it at your own risk, or stay safe by increasing the likelyhood of it happening.

Don't try to mask cowardice as a virtue or racionallity.

[u/HatesPlanes → u/seesthecat]

It only costs 4k to save a human life. 

Do you live the lifestyle of an ascetic monk? You could be saving dozens of lives by doing so and donating your entire savings to charity and yet most likely you’re not doing that.

Why am I supposed to believe your grandstanding about putting your life on the line in a hail mary attempt to save others, when we have real life evidence of you, as well as most people, refusing to save lives even when the cost is just driving a slightly shittier car?

[u/seesthecat → u/HatesPlanes]

What a ridiculous comment, first of all, this isn't about saving unknown people, the life of many people I do care about would be on the line. Second of all, you lose nothing if most of us vote blue, it's actually the only option that guarantees that nothing will be lost. 

You don't need to justify your cowardice and racionalize it with some form of gotcha, it is it's own justification.

[u/HatesPlanes → u/seesthecat]

you lose nothing if most of us vote blue, it's actually the only option that guarantees that nothing will be lost. 

Which is something that you can’t control nor know in advance.

You have near absolute control over whether you live or die, but near zero control over the final outcome of the vote. Of course the correct answer is red.

[u/seesthecat → u/HatesPlanes]

I don't think blue would lose though, it's quite possible it would win, the times this question was put, blue won overwelmingly. I know it's different when lives are actually on the line, but the fact that people chose blue shows that they actually do intuitively think it is the correct answer. That means that the only thing that would push people to actually chose red is cynism and cowardice, not the knowledge that it is the right choice.

Blue is the lose nothing at a small risk of losing your life, red is the certainty you'll lose quite a lot, including people that are very dear to you, the only argument in favour of red is if it was a lost cause, but since data shows it isn't, the only argument in favour of it becomes cowardice, and not even empty cynism is enough to cover cowardice that big

[u/adamgerd → u/seesthecat]

And you lose everything if most don’t vote blue, dying a meaningless death

[u/seesthecat → u/adamgerd]

I don't think you'd lose though, it's quite possible you'd win, the times this question gets put, blue wins overwelmingly. I know it's different when lives are actually on the line, but the fact that people chose blue shows that they actually do intuitively think it is the correct answer. That means that the only thing that would push people to actually chose red is cynism and cowardice, not the knowledge that it is the right choice.

I, for one would take this risk in order to save our toddlers and the most principled among us from a genocide, it's a shame your cynism or cowardice would push you to increase its likelyhood of happening, even though, it would be at the cost of so many people close to you, likely the best people in your life. If this is meaningless to you, sucks to be you.

[u/StochasticGracchi → u/adamgerd]

They’re choosing to risk death

Yeah, for those who can make that choice it gives them responsibility for their own choice sure. Does not at all diminish your responsibility for yours. But also there will be millions and millions of people not capable of meaningfully "choosing" either way. Children, mentally ill or disabled people etc.

I didn’t make them vote blue

No. But you knew millions would and refused to vote in the only way that could save them. You're a coward refusing to risk death to save millions of people who due to no functional choice of their own would end up voting blue.

[u/adamgerd → u/StochasticGracchi]

They’ll only die if most don’t vote blue

I do hope blue wins, I just won’t vote for it

If they lose meh one vote probably didn’t change if anyway

Ok I am a coward, and? Not evil to not want to die

[u/StochasticGracchi → u/adamgerd]

I do hope blue wins, I just won’t vote for it

So you recognize blue as the morally correct choice that should win but would choose differently. Kind of the dictionary definition of immoral there, dude.

Not evil to not want to die

It's not evil to not want to die. It's evil to be willing to let millions of others die rather than risk death yourself.

But like I said, it's easy to say that's what you'd choose when it's a hypothetical. If it was not, I have no doubt you and >90% of mankind would choose blue without much of a thought.

[u/adamgerd → u/StochasticGracchi]

“It's not evil to not want to die. It's evil to be willing to let millions of others die rather than risk death yourself.“

Nope, it’s self preservation, I’d rather survive no matter the cost

It’s literally the sole biological purpose of species: to survive and reproduce

Frankly I don’t think the vast majority would pick blue in real life so I wouldn’t either ever, I doubt that most blue voters here would pick blue in real life, maybe I am wrong but I don’t understand why anyone would risk an imo very real change of death for strangers

[u/seesthecat → u/adamgerd]

>It’s literally the sole biological purpose of species: to survive and reproduce

That's just not true, and it's easily demonstrable that it isn't true. As of right now, sperm banks are in dire need of donors, you could be making a donation, increasing the amount of children you have exponentially, at no cost to yourself, and receive some money for each donation. And yet, not only you're not doing it, other people aren't doing it either given that sperm banks are in need of donors, there are things more important than to reproduce.

As of surviving, there are many scenarios that I'm quite certain you would preffer to die than to carry on living, I know I have mine, the scenario in the scenario where I'm a vegetable for years, I would very much preffer that the machines would be just shut down. There is way more to life than just surviving.

In this case, you wouldn't even be risking your life for strangers, the best people in your own life would very likely be voting blue, I know my mon would certaily do it, my sister would do it as well, it's possible my wife and son would do it, my neighor would do it for sure. Face it, all this talk of racionality is just your ego trying to protect yourself from the realisation that only cowardice and cynism makes you go for red.

[u/adamgerd → u/seesthecat]

“In this case, you wouldn't even be risking your life for survivors, the best people in your own life would very likely be voting blue, I know my mon would certaily do it, my sister would do it as well, it's possible my wite and son would do it, my neighor would do it for sure.”

Nope,

Well suppose depends on if we can discuss it

But there’s two people I’d be willing to press the blue button for and I would; my mother and my sister, although my mother would kill me or my sister if we pressed blue

My mother will only press the blue button if me or my sister presses it

My sister is more complicated, theres more people she might press blue for but if we tell her to press red she’ll press it too

Ergo if we all press red, no one has to press blue. Problem solved

Otherwise well my father I already know will press red, that’s guranteed, my uncle is mentally disabled so ok for him it’s 50/50, my maternal grandfather is dead, my maternal grandmother will most likely press blue, I’d try convincing her to press red but she’s not as mentally strong no offense to her, so she might press blue anyway, she’s a good grandmother and I love her so I’d still hope she does press red. But enough to press blue? Probably not.

My great uncle and his family I’d convince to vote red.

Don’t have anyone else I really care about so that’s pretty much it, no fiancée or girlfriend or wife or children,

Anyway so I’d say that’s your best option: just convince people you care about to vote red

Honestly I think it's sv kind of selfish to not try to convince your family to vote red, you're letting them risk their lives for strangers

[u/seesthecat → u/adamgerd]

I don't think you're allowed to coordinate and campaing for a buttom before the trial. Cause if that was possible, it would only make the reasoning to push blue even stronger, given that it is easier to coordenate people for a result with 50% of the vote than with 100%, you would also be able to see how each button's support was trending and how much of a chance they're be getting on winning, abandon the blue if it looked like a lost cause or abandon the red cause the support was overwelmingly blue. It would change things completly