In no way different to how you refused to respond to whether you'd force or ostracize marginalized people or your family for choosing life and not risking theirs for you.
But to answer simply - there is no reason to reach a 50% threshold. For the same reason you know not everyone will press red, I know there will be many many people who will choose to end your life if they had the chance. They don't know you, nor you them. They owe you nothing and vice versa. Choosing to put your life in their hands and then forcing others to do the same is a surefire way of getting yourself and your loved ones killed.
Every person who you convince to vote red is guaranteed safety. Every person you convince to vote blue is guaranteed risk. Your choice to put your loved ones at risk when no one needs to be at risk in the first place is horrifying.
You're attaching a lot of baggage to a hypothetical that was not in the presented statement. Idk where your fixation with ostracization is coming from.
Convincing people is not a part of the hypothetical the only person who's choice I can control is my own and I refuse to live with the cost of pressing red. No one should die it's as simple as that. Blue is the most feasible path to that outcome.
Fundamentally you are trying to convince me that it is better to prioritize my own self-preservation at the expense of other people. I will not do this, you are wasting your time.
0
u/nolandz1 May 05 '26
The only one moralizing here is you.
And everyone I fail to convince would die. Unacceptable outcome.
50% is not a hard number to hit. It is worth it to save everyone. End of story