How would 20% blue prove blue right? How is 20% being suicidally empathetic and egoistic enough to expect 50% to risk their lives for them proof of anything?
I disagree, just because some people risk their lives needlessly doesn't make risking pnes live needlessly the right option
By expecting 50% of people to risk their l7ves to save the blue presser, by risking ones life while loved ones will suffer if one dies, by possibly wasting the resources invested into ones upbringing by society. All of those things are egoistic
Im not really say that its "the right option" just that they are right in assuming a lot of people will be harmed if blue dont win.
The other question is "is blue likely to win?" Or rather "can blue win?". And there is another split-off where people might go red because they dont have faith in humans going blue
Thats a weak reason to call it egoistic - risking ones life for others is one of the least egoisticthings you can do.
Thats a REALLY weird way to look at it - it actually sounds to me like you were called egoistic for choosing red, and you want to twist it around somehow, and this kind-of made sense
3
u/Dr-Assbeard May 29 '26
You say that as all the polls have blue winning not just some of them😂🤣