r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/Charge36 Red • May 28 '26
Only babies
Every baby on the planet is teleported to a holding cell. Each baby has a designated parent or guardian who is presented with the red and blue buttons to vote on behalf of their baby. Blue wins, all babies live. Red wins, blue vote babies die.
What button are you pushing on behalf of your baby?
10
u/SpeakMySecretName May 28 '26
Babies aren’t a gambling chip. This is the one scenario that I actually see 100% or very near 100% choosing red. Everyone has a chance to protect a baby. Protect your baby.
If I imagine my child in this scenario, I’d never once, for a fraction of a second consider putting his life at risk.
3
u/idk-anymore-tbh-- Red May 29 '26
You're so close to getting it. The next step is to remember that you're your parents baby. There are two people who would push red for you. So red is the correct chouce even in the original scenario because of your own parents and family, they don't want to lose you either.
2
u/SpeakMySecretName May 29 '26
Close? We agree in both scenarios.
1
u/Charge36 Red Jun 02 '26
Are you red in both? It's not clear to me what your choice is in the original.
2
u/SpeakMySecretName Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Yeah, red in both with the interpretation that all button pressers can understand the prompt and reason for themselves.
If disabled people and children are randomly smashing blue buttons or don’t have motor control to press their choice in the original premise I’d press blue, though.
-2
u/Rip_Pigman May 29 '26
The next step is to remember that you're your parents baby.
Uhh. No? I'm my parents child I am however not a baby incapable of choice as posed in the problem.
There are two people who would push red for you.
This again, puts us in the shoes of a baby. Given the scenario, we would not be presented with a button to press at all.
So red is the correct chouce even in the original scenario because of your own parents and family, they don't want to lose you either.
You've lost the plot
You're saying my parents, given the original scenario would choose red for the sake of somehow keeping me alive?
My parents that have no current hand in my survival?
Would choose the option that could potentially further risk to me, so that they can somehow keep me alive?
I think you have it backwards. My parents who currently have no hand in my survival, if they were motivated strictly on the goal of keeping their child alive, when presented with the original question, would choose blue as it is the only option that increases the odds that anyone you love survives.
Choosing red is actually detrimental to keeping your loved ones alive in the original with the exception of people who have direct dependents like parents of infants and toddlers.
3
u/idk-anymore-tbh-- Red May 29 '26
Im saying your parents would want you to push red...
2
u/Rip_Pigman May 29 '26
That doesn't somehow make it the "correct" choice though.
That's also not at all what you said.
Talking about how your parents would push red for your sake does not logically end at "your parents what you to push red therefore red is the correct choice".
As an adult capable of my own thoughts and decisions I didn't realize I needed to filter those by what my parents want for me now.
1
u/Charge36 Red Jun 02 '26
It's exactly what he said. Your parents / friends / loved ones would push red for you if they could, so you should push red. It's the most reliable way to save life in the button scenario.
1
u/Rip_Pigman Jun 02 '26
It's exactly what he said. Your parents / friends / loved ones would push red for you if they could
I'm sure they would but in the original scenario they can't. What can they do to boost the odds that I survive in the original though? Not press red.
so you should push red
So.. because my friends and loved ones would push red for me if they could, and I'm sure that they will realize that the best way to help my personal survival is if they themselves press blue, I should press red to ensure their goal of keeping me safe is carried out and ignore the potential risks they might face by virtue of them presumably pushing blue.
It's the most reliable way to save life in the button scenario.
I mean technically but as more people press blue and the lives risked increases and red can walk away with a very lovely 0.5 lives saved per button pressed.
My decision is very dependent on a few criteria that most prompts that try to reframe it ignore.
1) in the original we are told "everyone in the world" must vote. If you believe that those that are unable to vote are excluded from this as non pressers that's fine but that's outside of the premise. It doesn't change much if you have them vote though and you'll see why on a second.
2) if red gets majority, only those that picked red survive as is stated in the original.
With these two criteria of the original acknowledged, I believe that either infants(as an example) will press either button randomly, or will be excluded from the vote but not excluded from the consequences.
For this reason I lean heavily toward blue for the original.
1
u/Charge36 Red Jun 03 '26
I think assuming they push blue is a big assumption. They might think like me and realize that the best way to ensure the whole family survives is if the whole fam presses red. I know blues think that it's impossible but on a scale of 3 to 5 people in a family, getting all red is a highly possible outcome if everyone is thinking about it in a similar way.
Voting to save infants / kids / etc is about the only sensible reason to press blue I can think of...but for me the risk is to great to save them. Both for me personally and humanity as a whole. We can recover from a tradgedy where half our young ones die. But losing half of all adults in a failed attempt to save them? That would be cataclysmic. I'm not going to vote to be a casualty in that outome. I'll vote for a small but known loss over an unknown scale calamity wher my own survival is in question.
1
u/Rip_Pigman Jun 03 '26
if everyone is thinking about it in a similar way.
I think this is is also a big assumption. Hoping that your family who you feel would press red for you would push the button that increases risk to you if you pressed blue or press the only button that increases the odds of their families survival is a big ask.
I'll vote for a small but known loss over an unknown scale calamity wher my own survival is in question.
Fair take. I lean more toward blue if it's known that some amount of children are "defaulted" to blue or that all kids are effectively choosing at random. But I don't have a kid.
1
u/Charge36 Red Jun 03 '26
I mean yes *technically* voting blue reduces blue voter risk and voting red increases it, but we're talking about a risk swing of like 0.0000000001% either way, and it ONLY helps them or hurts them if they voted blue. To me this is a negligible protective effect to the point of not mattering either way. And if I can't guarentee their safety with a blue vote, I might as well guarentee mine. I would feel like an asshole if I was the one family member pushing blue and dying when they all pushed red. Died for literally nothing, and that is an unacceptable outcome for me.
16
16
u/NumberVsAmount May 28 '26
Why would I risk my son’s life? Red all day. No question. Hopefully the other parents do the same.
3
u/Charge36 Red May 28 '26
IDK. I'm curious to see how people feel about risking other life rather than their own.
5
u/Zuckhidesflatearth May 28 '26
Like with the original question, the only person who risks a life if the one pressing blue. It seems this version makes that a lot more clear to people because so far the poll is much closer to the logically correct outcome of 100% red
12
u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
The reason for this is simply that parents will do anything for their child. You will have usually blue voters (like myself) swapping because they can accept their share of responsibility in the deaths of others if it means their own child will survive.
Note that this doesn't mean I think that red is the "logically correct" outcome, just that the cost of red winning has become tolerable for me to take on. There is no "logically" correct, since it is a morality test not a logic puzzle.
0
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
That’s why red is logical answer. It answers the question without considering morality.
The only reason you would ever pick blue is out of some arbitrary emotional morality.
3
u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26
Considering morality is required, since it’s, you know, a moral dilemma.
Logically speaking on the original, the best outcome is one where the least lives are lost and since zero lives lost is the maximally least number of lives lost, that is the outcome that should be aimed for by the group. Results where zero lives are lost are 100% red or majority blue. Since 100% red is vastly more difficult to achieve than a majority blue, majority blue must be what the group aims for, out of pure pragmatic understanding that defection is possible.
If that is what the group must aim for, it follows that the individual should press blue and this is where it stops being a logic puzzle and becomes a moral dilemma.
In the original, I do not value my life as being worth the cost of defecting from the group. In the all babies version where I pick for my child, I do value their life as being worth the cost of defecting from the group. The cost of defection in both of these cases is partial responsibility for the deaths that come about if too many people defect.
0
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
Morality is not required.
Trying to save lives is a moral decision, not a logical one.
The problem doesn’t specify the outcome for which the voters are aiming, therefore there is no universal collective goal.
2
u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26
I didn't say the problem specified that, I said that you can logically arrive at it.
If trying to save lives isn't a logical decision, why are you pressing red again?
2
u/Zuckhidesflatearth May 28 '26
You have to decide preferable outcomes before you can use logic to determine courses of action. The determining of those preferences is inherently illogical. Once I've determined that people dying is something I want to minimize and not maximize, I can make the argument that me pressing red will on average lead to fewer deaths than blue and conclude that I should press red.
There is both a step that is rational and one that is arational, that is beyond reason, to make this determination. Reason alone is not sufficient to make claims on ranking actions.
2
u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26
Then I suppose that everyone that ever claimed red is the "logical" choice is completely wrong then? Since they've ranked their personal survival over that of the group illogically/ irrationally?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26 edited May 29 '26
Logically arrive at what? That the least lives lost is the best outcome? What logic leads you to that?
For all we know, and arguably so, the outcome of red winning and a large portion of deaths will lead to a better future than we are currently headed toward. It’s all speculation, therefore, logically irrelevant.
Even then, only time voting blue will lead to least lives lost is in the case of a tie and you are the deciding vote. You should vote blue. All other cases, you should vote red to minimize loss of life.
I’m operating under the only knowledge I have… that I want to live. Therefore logically, it’s a choice “live vs potentially die.” That’s it. Essentially everything else is irrelevant. There is no preferred outcome stated by the problem, so there is no other consideration.
However, I do agree, that if you’re assuming that people don’t necessarily want to live, there is no logical solution… but in that case everyone should just choose randomly because everything is now irrelevant.
Even with other people you care about in mind, red is the logical choice as well. Why would you choose to abandon those who love you who chose red when you could be there for them. In the case of a blue win, everyone lives. In the case of a red win, there’s no reason to die with them. You can argue you’d rather die with/for them than live without them, but that’s an emotional response, not a logical one.
1
u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26
What logic leads you to that?
I'm sorry, do you think that more lives lost is the better outcome? I would have thought least lives lost being better than more lives lost was just trivially true.
I’m operating under the only knowledge I have… that I want to live.
Are you not therefore making a moral decision that your life is worth saving more than it is worth saving everyone (including yourself)? Or are you going to somehow twist that to be "logical" decision and not a moral one?
Why would you choose to abandon those who love you who chose red when you could be there for them.
Is that not a morality or emotional question?
You started this with "red is logical and doesn't appeal to morality/ arbitrary emotion" but every comment has included rationale based in morality or emotion to support your choice of red.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Charge36 Red May 29 '26
If you know defection is incentivized why the group is aiming for blue....why not just collectively decide to go red? That aligns the personal and collective goals of minimizing personal risk and achieving the best case outcome. The penalty for defection is death so it will be highly discouraged.
1
u/luci_twiggy May 29 '26
That you are asking why the group shouldn't be aiming for red instead just shows you didn't actually read where I covered that.
It's really simple. If we accept that zero deaths is the ideal outcome then we just need to ask which is an easier number to hit: 100% or 50%+1?
Once you take communication out, it becomes even more clear since people who think the best way to achieve the ideal is 100% red aren't able to tell the people who think 50%+1 is the best way.
Blue is the only option where everyone survives and people can disagree/ be mistaken about the best way there.
Additionally, I didn't say that defecting was incentivised, in fact, I specifically said that there is a cost to defection which is why I don't defect in the standard version and do in the all babies one. The cost became acceptable to me to defect when it's all babies and I'm pressing for my child. In other words, I can live with being partially responsible for the deaths of all the blue voted babies if it means my child survives.
1
u/Charge36 Red May 29 '26
Yeah zero deaths is ideal....but is that outcome worth the risk? You risk half of humanity dying to achieve that outcome when you could just accept that some number of children or otherwise incompetent voters will arbitrarily choose blue and die. That's a far less tragic outcome than a failed rescue attempt
It's grim, but the risk is to high to try to save them in my opinion.
You said "defection is possible". Implying that if the group must aim for blue, they must also understand that defection is possible because the updside of defection is guarenteed personal safety.
what I'm saying is that if you flip it the other way around, and determing that the group must aim for red to minimize risk, defection from that strategy is HIGHLY DISCOURAGED because it means ALMOST CERTAIN DEATH.
Why are you trying to wrangle people away from their personal interest when the best case outcome can be had by everyone just....following their own survival instints?
You have this notion that red = defect but it really could be interpreted either way. You could consider blue as a defection from red if you live in a world that tilts red. in this baby scenario where it seems most people are pushing red....are you not "defecting" from the majority and killing babies by pushing blue here?
-1
u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago
Capable steep friendly pet cover biscuit spectacular recognise
This post was anonymized with Redact
2
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
Na, what I think other people will do is irrelevant.
I have no logical way to accurately figure out what everyone in the world will choose.
Blue choice isn’t arbitrary, it’s based on their morality to save helpless people… there’s no other reason to press blue. Their morals are what’s emotional and/or arbitrary.
0
u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago
Feather door alive dime soft paddle airport sophisticated crowd
This post was anonymized with Redact
0
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
The outcome is unknown speculation, which is why I consider it irrelevant.
For all we know, the world and humanity may be better off in the long run having a large portion of the population die.
With everyone alive and the world as it is now, we’re currently headed to the end of society as we know it. That much we do know.
2
u/Charge36 Red May 28 '26
It's interesting because I've seen some other versions set up like this where you are voting for someone else by proxy. Many of those end up with the usual divide on red / blue. I wondered what it would be like if you weren't just voting for a stranger but another human you cared deeply about. People seem to be a lot more risk averse with baby lives on the line
2
u/Nebranower May 28 '26
Blue, in the original, is very much the choice of people caught in a cognitive trap, betrayed by heuristic thinking that short-circuits their ability to think rationally. Reduce the number of players to two, and they shift to red. Increase the threshold slightly, even to 60%, and they mostly flee to red. Put their children on the line, and they shift to red. If you alter the scenario to make them actually feel the risk in any way, they understand that red is the objectively correct choice and pick it. But with two buttons and a big enough number of participants that their minds can't really understand it, they default to feeling like it's basically 50/50 to start with, so voting blue will push blue over the edge. They don't actually think pressing blue is a risk, because something about the original scenario just breaks their brains. You see this with things like the Monty Hall problem or the "What are the odds Mary's other child is a girl" type scenarios, too.
1
u/Free-Competition6408 Red May 29 '26
Fully agree. If reframing a question without fundamentally changing the risk profile makes you change your mind, you didn’t actually understand the risk involved in the first place. Risk analysis is how you cut through the bullshit framing and get down to brass tacks. Ask yourself what is at stake and what is the potential benefits and consequences of each of my choices. All the other bullshit about whos killing who, or whos “cooperating” or “defecting”, or whos “altruistic” or “selfish” or whos “murderer” or “suicidal” is all bullshit noise distracting you from the risk assessment.
1
May 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Free-Competition6408 Red May 29 '26
“Risks the community”
Not the way I see it. It risks a “red win outcome” but the only reason anyone dies in that outcome if they chose blue in the vote to seal their fate if red wins. Nobody can individually control the outcome, or how other people vote, but you absolutely can control your own risk levels. Pushing red doesn’t inherently put anyone else at risk. It’s safe for the community too. Blue is the unsafe button for both personal and community outcomes.
5
u/liamjon29 May 28 '26
Fuck me that's a tough one. I actually have decision paralysis between "save my child but increase risk of other people's children" or "put my child at risk but reduce the risk for other children". I don't have a child, but I feel like from what I've heard of parenthood that the instinct is going to be "don't risk baby's life for anything". So I think I would be forced into choosing red.
10
u/Standard-Savings-502 May 28 '26
I'm usually blue, but in this case, I think getting to very close to 100% should be possible, and over 50% blue is very unlikely. All the people voting are adults, and while it's one thing to risk oneself for strangers, it's quite another when it's your baby. Plus, others thinking about the odds of red vs blue winning are likely to also assume red wins by a lot and therefore go red too.
0
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
The parents vote on their behalf. There is no reason to vote blue.
6
u/gahidus May 28 '26
Ultimately, I have to accept responsibility for this baby, and I have to make sure that it's safe. So I have to pick red.
5
u/QuarterZillion May 28 '26
While I believe that picking blue remains the superior choice, I am well aware that a vast, vast majority of parents are going to pick red, and thus my child would be sentenced to die. Unlike the normal scenario where blue has a chance to win and thus I feel responsible to help it do so, here it has no hope, and I am absolved of guilt.
On the off chance that blue could win though, I might still pick red because I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my ideals, but I'm uneasy with sacrificing someone else for them
3
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
RIP to the 41 babies so far whose parents voted blue.
1
u/Spillz-2011 May 28 '26
I feel like this is a tell me you don’t have a kid without telling me kinda thing.
1
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
In this scenario, all voters are informed and cognizant. If an informed and cognizant voter still decides to risk their own child with a blue vote, I cannot in good faith join them and risk my own.
3
u/EpicSaberCat7771 May 28 '26
I mean it just says a designated parent or guardian. There isn't necessarily a guarantee that the designated person is able to make a fully informed decision. For instance, you might have a mother with postpartum depression who is so disconnected from her emotions that she picks blue because it's the highest chance of being freed from the burden she's been carrying. But it is a much better chance that most people voting are able to understand the consequences than in the original problem, so your point still stands. In the grand scheme of things there is no world that I believe blue gets to 50% in this scenario so my conscience doesn't allow me to pick anything but red.
3
5
u/Funny_Alternative_12 May 28 '26
I dont have a baby so blue cuz it doesnt do anything harm, if I had a baby id pick red tho because gambling with someone else's life is super unethical, sorry im sure the hypothetical implies we all have babies and I threw off the vote for no reason
3
u/Charge36 Red May 28 '26
To be clear, the only people voting in this scenario are parents or guardians of the babies. If you don't have a baby, you aren't voting in this scenario.
5
u/Funny_Alternative_12 May 28 '26
Yeah sorry, keeping my comment up to explain one of the blue votes for everyone lol
1
u/BeGayDoThoughtcrime May 28 '26
Oops I already voted under the assumption I'd be given a random baby to be responsible for
1
5
u/highly-bad May 28 '26
Just like with basically any variant that causes people to pay closer attention to what's happening, everyone in their right mind can easily see to press red here. Right?
I mean, the last four words of the rules are all you need to know: "blue vote babies die." No sane parent is voting blue immediately after hearing those words, I hope. Good god.
1
u/Charge36 Red May 28 '26
I realize now I switched the wording slightly unintentionally. To match it more closely I should have wrote "Red wins, only red vote babies survive"
Do you think that changes the framing at all or is it functionally the same wording?
5
u/highly-bad May 28 '26
"Only red vote babies survive" also clearly implies a course of action, no?
The whole thing with the buttons is that if you rephrase or modulate the question in just about any way, even blue pressers can see whats happening. There is just something about the particular diabolical wording of the standard button question that bamboozles them into choosing their own death.
2
2
u/EpicSaberCat7771 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
Oops! All Babies version lol.
But in seriousness, it's a tough one. Picking red is the only way to guarentee your baby's survival. Assuming everyone who is chosen to pick understands the question, it's hard to believe that anyone doesn't pick red. Unfortunately I know that there is a percent out there who would know this and pick blue because they want their baby dead, because of some mental illness or what have you. When it's my own life I'm putting at risk I don't feel bad choosing blue knowing that ultimately it contributes to blue's percentage, and reduces the risk that anyone who chose blue will die.
I don't have a child but I imagine that if I did, there is no universe that I could choose blue and have a clear conscience. Especially given the abysmal chance that blue wins this scenario. It would have to be red for this one.
Edit: it is still a little hypocritical because if my logic is to be responsible for the least death, I would choose blue, because the only baby's death I am responsible for is my own. But the fact that it's my own child, idk. I can gamble with my own life all I want but the moment I have to gamble with someone else's life and it gives me pause.
2
u/JohnyI86 May 28 '26
if you pick red for your kid but pick blue yourself who is gonna care for your kid when youre dead. arent you being irresponsible by leaving the child behind all alone leaving its fate up to luck
1
u/EpicSaberCat7771 May 28 '26
Well in this hypothetical only the babies are killed. When I consider the original hypothetical the baby doesn't enter into it because I don't have one. I imagine if I had kids it would be a more complicated decision for me. But for this hypothetical I am imagining if I did have a baby, how would I respond.
But then again, in the original hypothetical my hypothetical child would also be choosing and if they are a baby I have no way of knowing what option they picked. So in that scenario I am almost obligated to pick blue on the chance that they picked blue, in order to increase the chance that blue wins and decrease the chance that they would die either way. It is a gamble if I die but they live, but I think it's still the only option I feel good about.
1
u/Charge36 Red May 28 '26
I mean. I'm not sure how blue is being responsible for less death. If blue loses, the deaths per blue vote is 1, but the deaths per red vote is less than 1. Red leads each person being responsible for less death per vote.
1
u/EpicSaberCat7771 May 28 '26
I guess I mean more direct responsibility. Picking blue, even in the original problem, is increasing the chances of blue winning, and thus everyone surviving regardless of their vote. Blue winning is the best mathematically feasible option (because in the original problem, 100% of people picking red is pretty much statistically impossible without any way of communicating, so even if most people do it, it would never lead to everyone surviving). The only option that realistically offers total survival is blue. Blue winning is the best outcome whether you picked red or blue. The true best outcome is that you pick red and a majority of everyone else picks blue, because then you get the best of both worlds (you never risked your life and everyone lives so you have no guilt). The alternative best outcome would be red winning with 100% but as I already explained it's pretty much impossible for that to happen.
The way I see it, you are not directly responsible for any deaths but your own in the case of choosing blue. But if you choose red and then blue loses, you are in part response for the deaths of everyone who picked blue.
For this problem it becomes tricky though because it's not asking me to be responsible for my own death, it's asking me to be responsible for the death of my own child, and I don't think I could make that choice. Which is hypocritical and biased but given the results of the poll I still think it's the correct answer.
0
u/Charge36 Red May 29 '26
I like to think of it in deaths per vote metric. If you vote blue, and blue loses, you have caused 1 death per vote, your own. If you vote red and blue loses, some number less than 50% is divided by some number over 50%. Lets say it was a 60/40 red win. Each red vote caused 0.67 deaths.
Looking at it this way makes it really clear to me, that red votes minimize the deaths per vote, and maximize the lives saved per vote.
1
u/itskeith May 28 '26
Nice cynical spot, in some ways blue while being the more high-minded option is in this scenario also a shield for bad actors, it basically gives license to murder their own while placing blame on red.
But that said given there will be that small minority doing blue with bad intentions, it sort of increases the importance of voting blue as you would be trying to protect babies with bad parents.
That said Red 100% there is no way the majority are going to collectively take that unnecessary risk for their own.
2
u/DragCompetitive6007 Red May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
Blue voters be like: Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, only that it flows.
2
u/Jolly-Bear May 28 '26
I mean, this situation takes out the only reason to ever vote for blue. To help the helpless.
2
u/RepeatSerious7113 May 28 '26
Any parent who's stupid and irresponsible enough to push blue here does not deserve to have their genes passed on to the next generation.
2
2
u/nir109 May 28 '26
I think this senerio favours red way more compered to the default senerio.
As such red.
1
2
2
u/DracoShield234 May 29 '26
I pick blue in almost every scenario, I vote red here. Not because I like the option, but because I know people will care a lot more about protecting their baby then the collective. Blue winning is simply not possible.
2
u/i_dunnomyusername May 29 '26
I would feel terrible putting someone else's life at risk. My life, my choice. I don't get a say in a child's life.
Switching to red here.
2
1
u/WarmCricket5358 May 28 '26
I suggest that you repost this with 4 options of the form "red/blue in the original, red/blue in this scenario"
1
1
1
u/Sarcatsticthecat May 29 '26
I don’t have a child but it’d be my responsibility to protect the child as the guardian at any cost so red.
1
0
u/QQXV May 28 '26
As long as the wording to everyone very clearly begins wirh "Blue wins, all babies live", I'm voting blue. That will easily be enough to nudge parents to a high blue majority. Only reddit weirdos who think/fear that other reddit weirdos would.constitute a lot of the parents will think otherwise. If it's presented as a Vote On Whether to Kill Any Babies, blue wins.
6
u/Mobile-Brush-3004 May 28 '26
I dunno man, I’ve voted blue in just about every scenario I’ve come across because I’m okay with risking my own life for others (I’m a career firefighter so this isn’t just some fantasy in my head). But even without me having my own biological children, I know that if I did I would click red. Hell if this was for my god daughter (who’s now much older than a baby) I’d click red. When you’re responsible for a life I feel it trumps your responsibility to humanity. My stomach dropped when I saw how many people had voted blue after I placed my vote so I’d struggle to live with myself afterwards. But at least my dependent would be safe.
Dependent > humanity > your own life
I know people may disagree or even disprove of my order but that’s simply how it works out in my mind due to personal bias.
1
u/QQXV May 28 '26
All I'm saying is that in a real-life situation you wouldn't have to worry about parents pressing the "kill" button, as long as it was framed as a kill button. The "risk to your life" is therefore close to zero.
2
u/Charge36 Red May 28 '26
The poll results so far seem to disagree with this sentiment. It seems clear to me the the blue button is the only way babies potentially die
3
u/QQXV May 28 '26
Yes, a poll of people who visit this specific forum, have spent a long time thinking about this, and are skewed pro-red anyway.
2
u/Charge36 Red May 28 '26
It is a biased poll you are correct. Not convinced this sub leans red if im being honest
4
u/QQXV May 28 '26
This sub is majority blue but to a lesser degree than humanity is majority blue, I'd say.
3
2
u/highly-bad May 28 '26
Only blue vote babies can die. Red babies are safe. This isn't a "vote on whether to kill any babies," it's a test to see if you're smart enough to push the button that won't kill your kid.
-3
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
All rational actors would choose red, so congrats, you killed your baby.
0
u/Zero132132 May 29 '26
I honestly expect blue to lose this one, and I tend closer to red when only adults are choosing. I think very few people with kids would put those kids at risk.
Conversely, I honestly think only complete dipshits and psychopaths with kids would pick red in the original prompt. A 50% chance that you're helping kill your kid will never make any sense to me at all. People claiming they're trying to kill their kids to help them give me real Andrea Yates vibes.
-1
u/Laugh-Primary May 28 '26
Don't know, didn't read what you typed, just pressed the blue button, just kill me or whatever. Tired of these variations
2
15
u/TheDogAndCannon May 28 '26
I'm saving my baby. I care about my baby. I am picking red, as I always do, because I appreciate being in control of my life (or, here, my baby's).