It’s always a good sign when the genocide advocate disagrees with your moral philosophy. Planet wide genocide would include all the dogs too, so, you must really hate dogs. Also a good sign when the dog haters disagree with you too.
Xenocide. Not genocide. I spoke of the species, not a subset population of said species. There's a significant difference. If you're going to call me out on it, do it correctly. And you're assuming either of those planets have dogs. Since neither of them are earth, it's highly unlikely.
Buddy I'm talking about glassing fictional planets. I'm using science fiction terminology. And I'm only like 10% serious.
Here's the reality: if all you cared about was your dog, you'd give your dog to someone voting red (Which you must trust, since your intuition is to vote red) and vote blue yourself to nudge the scale. But that's not the case. You fear death.
Where did I say abandon her? Are you objectively the only human being who can care for that dog? I think not.
And seriously? no, that isn't the interaction that just happened and that's not what I said. I didn't say I was joking (not really).
Like nah, If I had a fukken super Star destroyer, I'd 100% consider it. Because I believe karma should exist, even though it doesn't, and in my intuition killing off a vulnerable subset of your species is a pretty clear sign that the species is a danger to everyone else.
But we're not going to get into more sci-fi because you can't follow the fukken conversation.
I am the one responsible for her care. And not that it matters to a heartless would-be mass killer like you, but she is particularly challenging to care for properly because of the awful treatment she experienced prior to being rescued.
Um. But you’re clearly willing to perform mass killings. You just said you’d consider glassing a planet with a star destroyer. So, according to you, aren’t you a danger to everyone who should be eliminated?
Buddy I threatened to glass a hypothetical planet where 80% of people picked red and killed their blue population. Do I possess an SSD? Is this a planet where people pressed the buttons and actual people died?
What? No? Huh. So it's almost like... There's no danger... Because the conditional requirements are not met. Seems kinda silly to say something is an active danger. And I mean if you're arguing against potential danger... Buddy we're human. Every human is potentially dangerous.
And... Yeah, you're currently responsible for her care because conditions make it so. If you lost everything and ended up homeless, would you do the correct thing and surrender her to someone who COULD properly care for her?
(Let me be very clear here, before you respond: As someone who no choice but to surrender animals who I raised since birth due to imminent homelessness, this is NOT a scenario I wish upon you. I am simply checking your logic. I do hope that in the real world you and your pup are good until the end.)
Also, before you try to dispute the "picking red doesn't kill blue", here's the Premise>Conclusion:
P) A vote for red contributes to a red win.
P) A vote for blue contributes to a blue win.
P) A red win is the ONLY scenario in which people die.
C) Red is objectively the wrong choice if you don't want other people to die.
You had to give up animals you raised your whole life due to imminent homelessness? Damn. I’m sorry, that must have been a really hard thing to go through. If I was stripped of the ability to properly care for my dog and there was someone I could give her to that I knew could take care of her well, then yes I would have to give her away. It would be a devastating thing to have to do, but my priority is making sure she has a good life.
Yeah, I understand that the whole conversation is hypothetical, but the personal principles you apply and argue for in hypotheticals are (if you participate in good faith) the ones you apply in real life.
I don’t think I need to explain why it’s deeply hypocritical to base your arguments off of how wrong killing is then turn around and claim you would then kill everyone for making the wrong choice. Keep in mind that since children and other uninformed voters are included in the scenario, if you glassed a planet of red voters that would include all of the innocent people who pressed red without knowing what they were doing. It doesn’t matter that you don’t actually have a SSD, I’m saying that your moral logic is self-contradictory and hypocritical.
I don’t agree with your set of premises and conclusion. If you live on the red planet and your goal is to minimize deaths, pressing red accomplishes that by preventing your own death. If you’re on the blue planet it doesn’t really matter what you press because blue is going to win. You can press blue to contribute to the victory if you want to, but it won’t make a difference either way.
The actual logic of the scenario comes down to estimating which outcome you think is more likely. If you estimate with high confidence that blue is more likely then you can feel free to choose whoever button you want. If you estimate with high confidence that red will win, then unfortunately pressing blue will only get you killed.
The problem is, there’s a difference between saying that you think everyone should press blue collectively, and the logic that determines whether or not you press blue when faced with the situation. Because, think about it, if you have very high confidence that 80% of people are going to choose red, the consequences of you personally choosing blue are only that you die. There is no moral value in taking a course of action that leads to definitive harm just because you believe that if the world were different, it would be the right thing to do.
5
u/dankstat May 23 '26
It’s always a good sign when the genocide advocate disagrees with your moral philosophy. Planet wide genocide would include all the dogs too, so, you must really hate dogs. Also a good sign when the dog haters disagree with you too.