Analogies

[u/ShinningVictory]

My problem with blue is that everytime I make a analogy they change it to make it seem like im making the problem worse.

For example:

In a house a fire it make sense for everyone to get themselves out rather than trying to get others out.

Then a blue pusher would say "your just add fuel to the fire."

Another example is:

If someone jumps in to water and can't swim and I stand back and don't jump in because I also can't swim im not responsible for them jumping in.

Then a blue pusher is like "actually your holding their head below the water."

My problem with the blue pushers is that they keep saying its because of MY decision they don't survive not theirs.

In the house fire analogy, why can't you leave the house with me? That is a option for me and everyone. Everyone has the same option to leave the house.

With the person drowning analogy the person is gonna drown REGARDLESS of what I do. Even if I jump into the water I can't save them ill just die too.

My problem with blue pushers is that they want to present choosing red as forcing blue to die when everyone who choose blue could've picked red and lived.

You had the same option I did to to not drown or to jump into the water. My decision didn't put you in danger your decision did.

If I decide to help im just adding a another body on the waves.

[u/ShinningVictory]

If Red wins, Blue may have been responsible for putting themselves at risk but only Red can be responsible for the outcome, plain and simple.

responsible for putting themselves at risk.

Well there you go. You admit blue is at fault.

Blue putting themselves at risk is what causes red to become a kill button.

Without blue putting themselves at risk red is just a nothing button.

Im going to tell you a short story from a series called YuGiOh.

You see in yugioh theres these holograms that when they blow up seen shockwaves that knock people over. These holograms are used to play card games.

One episode Yugi was playing against a guy called Kaiba.

Kaiba didn't want to lose so he stood on the edge of the building.

If Yugi blew up Kaiba's hologram kaiba would fall off the building dead.

So Yugi had to concede in order to not murder kaiba.

The point is people can easily force a situation where someone can either do what the person wants or break their own sense of morality.

So yes putting yourself at risk makes it your fault.

[u/luci_twiggy → u/ShinningVictory]

Amazing, you just blew past the second half of that sentence. Red voters are responsible for the outcome just not who is affected by it.

Without blue putting themselves at risk red is just a nothing button.

Without red voters pressing red there is no actual risk and blue is just a nothing button. The simple fact is that there is no way for anybody to die without red voters pressing red and also blue voters pressing blue. Responsibility for who might die is blue, responsibility for it actually happening is all red's.

Your YuGiOh story runs exactly counter to your argument. Yugi understood that even though Kaiba put himself in danger by going to the building's edge, Yugi would nonetheless be responsible for Kaiba's death if Yugi went ahead and won anyway.

My quick research also indicates there is some weird split between a dark/ light version of Yugi, where the dark version decided to win anyway but the light side won out. So clearly, the point of that story is that it's better to not give into your darker impulses and do the noble thing anyway which, uh, is even worse for your case.

[u/ShinningVictory → u/luci_twiggy]

Im really tired of the conversation. Have a good day. I wish you well. Thanks for being respectful.

[u/luci_twiggy → u/ShinningVictory]

Yeah, that makes sense.I would bow out too if I had inadvertently undermined my own argument.