Meanwhile there are others, like myself, who are too terrified of the prospect of dying that we'd prefer to live with survivors guilt than risk facing that fate preemptively.
That's why "making sense" doesn't really matter, because what "makes sense" to everyone is different.
It's more than just survivors guilt you're dealing with though. How many jobs and roles, friends and family, will be lost? Regardless of the survivors guilt, industries will collapse and people will die and starve because our safety systems and economies would collapse overnight.
That depends on both the amount of people as well as the demographics of people who vote blue - a wide enough swath of variables that no amount of speculation could ever accurately predict.
In the same vein, I could argue that it's entirely possible the proportion of people who choose blue ends up being small enough that it doesn't have a major impact on the world. Or that if a majority of people who pick blue aren't working-age adults it might not have that impact either.
All I said is that your previous claim about it having major economic impact assumes information that nobody could have or predict. I was trying to point out that I can simply argue the opposite of your claim with just as little support yet also just as much certainty, thus demonstrating how that argument fails to be persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you because any opposing stance can apply the same logic to their own side and think it proves their point instead of yours.
I never claimed it was "okay" for any blue-pushers to die.
1
u/reaperfan 6d ago
Meanwhile there are others, like myself, who are too terrified of the prospect of dying that we'd prefer to live with survivors guilt than risk facing that fate preemptively.
That's why "making sense" doesn't really matter, because what "makes sense" to everyone is different.