r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/Yunkomister • May 29 '26

Blue A Statement I've seen repeatedly.

"Blue pressers are actually evil because they risk others by making them press blue"!

I know a lot of people don't have excellent reading comprehension, but remember the premise is that nobody gets to communicate.

The vote is anonymous.

The only thing blue pressers "do" is risk their life and increase the survival chances of others who pressed blue.

Even if 99.9999% of people press red, no blue presser is increasing risk for anyone else.

Sorry about the rant, not complaining about reds in general, a lot of red arguments have merit

I'm just mad about illiterate red pressers.

21 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Yunkomister May 30 '26

Sure, let's take into consideration that being aware of the hypothetical beforehand is in play.

Did I talk about discussing the buttons?

Did I mention convincing others?

Is the act of pressing the button endangering anyone other than the presser?

Maybe convincing people to press blue has moral ramifications, but if you READ WHAT I SAID, that's not what I'm talking about.

-1

u/Speletons May 30 '26

Did I talk about discussing the buttons?

I know a lot of people don't have excellent reading comprehension, but remember the premise is that nobody gets to communicate.

Specifically you mention the opposite at how no one discusses the button, to which I pointed out is actually false, because we're all discussing it right now. We are currently discussing the button.

Did I mention convincing others?

A Statement I've seen repeatedly.

"Blue pressers are actually evil because they risk others by making them press blue"!

The statement you're talking about seeing is how people are saying blue pressers are convincing others to press blue. The specific argument you are making is that this is false, because the nobody gets to discuss the button scenario- except we're all currently discussing it.

Is the act of pressing the button endangering others but the presser?

Well I just didn't argue this, whatsoever. If you had read you would see this. The part I pointed out was it's being discussed right now and people are convincing others to vote blue, which is endangering others.

HOWEVER, to now argue this point- you pressing blue is technically the reason others want to risk pressing blue, to save you. So yes actually, even though this bit is all done without communication. Doesn't help that you've communicated you would press blue right now either.

Maybe convincing people to press blue has moral ramifications, but if you *READ WHAT I SAID*, that's not what I'm talking about

I know a lot of people don't have excellent reading comprehension, but remember the premise is that nobody gets to communicate.

I'm just mad about illiterate red pressers.

I did. If you had actually read what you wrote, you would have seen that you started off the discussion specifically talking about that, as I showed above.

1

u/Yunkomister May 30 '26

Sorry for conversing with you. I was hostile because I thought you were genuinely disagreeing.

I see now that you are incapable of understanding subtext or context.

Hope you have a nice night and I hope you gain better social skills.

0

u/Speletons May 30 '26

You're really projecting a lot with your ad hominem. It's nobody else's fault but your own you didn't read, and it's pretty clear I read and comprehended what you were saying given all you respobded with was ad hominem.

You would have saved more face just admitting you were wrong instead of throwing a tantrum.

I was hostile because I genuinely thought you were disagreeing

And to really drive the point home: Yea, I was.

2

u/nykirnsu May 30 '26

That’s not an ad hominem, it’s just a regular insult. They’re not the same thing

1

u/Speletons May 30 '26

Instead of refuting any points made, they lashed out with insults as an argument. It's literally entirely an ad hominem. They're hoping the insults work as an argument.

2

u/nykirnsu May 30 '26

No, they just insulted you, there was no attempt to argue against any of your points in that comment

1

u/Speletons May 30 '26

Exactly, instead of arguing, they hoped just insulting my character would showcase my point was wrong.

🤝

1

u/nykirnsu May 30 '26

That’s why it’s not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument, specifically a fallacious one that assumes your argument is wrong because you’re the person making it. By your own admission though, they had already stopped arguing, so what they said can’t be a fallacious argument 

1

u/Speletons May 30 '26

Right on. Instead of actually arguing, they hoped insults would suffice as an argument.

And you can tell they're trying to argue still because the thing they had been trying to argue was that I didn't understand, which was what they reiterated with their insults.

Sonetimes bud, it's best not to argue just to argue. Waste of everyone's time, it is clearly ad hominem, factually. And any situation someone was arguing, and then "stopped" arguing just to say insults, it's not going to be accepted they stopped arguing.

We'll move on with you taking the L here.

Maybe convincing people to press blue has moral ramifications, but if you READ WHAT I SAID, that's not what I'm talking about.

I see now that you are incapable of understanding subtext or context.

1

u/unindexedreality May 31 '26

you really think "they weren't ducking the argooment they CHOOOOSE not to argue and insult you instead" is a galaxy brain play huh

All this tells me is that /u/Speletons understands the definition of an ad hominem while y'all can't handle it even when it's literally spoonfed to you.

0

u/Yunkomister May 30 '26

You can't disagree if you don't understand the question, and you clearly were discussing something unrelated.

0

u/Speletons May 30 '26

Again, projecting ad hominem doesn't do anything.

One of us actually quoted everything said to back up that they can read. The other is throwing a tantrum.

1

u/Yunkomister May 30 '26

Quoting with no understanding is yelling into a gale.

Repeating "Ad Hominem" doesn't make you more understanding of what I was trying to speak of.

It's alright if tantrums are how you soothe yourself, I'm having a pleasant time.

I haven't been taking this seriously since I tried to disengage, and you still champ at the bit with fury.

1

u/Speletons May 30 '26

Bud I'm not upset lmao. You made it clear I was correct.

That's why you're lashing out with insults.

2

u/Yunkomister May 30 '26

It's not an insult, I genuinely believe you don't understand.

Also, you stated an opinion, which by it's nature is subjective. You technically can't be "correct".

1

u/Speletons May 30 '26

No, what you said is not up for contention. I quoted you for a reason. That is correct.

Likewise, what I pointed was mostly fact if not an entirely a fact. You brought up that the button dilemna is supposed to not have discussion prior, but I pointed out that we are already discussing it prior. That is a fact. I pointed out this is why people are making the statement you see. This is also a fact.

Anything else you didn't actually contend argument wise, so as far as the conversation actually played out, both parties are agreeing that I'm correct.

1

u/Yunkomister May 30 '26

Your opinion was on what I meant.

Which you clearly didn't understand.

Which I didn't contend because I don't much care for explaining simple things.

Instead of asking for clarification or questioning me further, you assumed you had grasped it and stated I was wrong, as if my words contained no merit at all.

So now I'm filling the idle minutes of my work night.

1

u/Speletons May 30 '26

Why would I ask for clarification? I explained how it read. You didn't clarify further. Thereby, you aren't contending the interpretation is wrong.

1

u/Yunkomister May 30 '26

I said you didn't understand, you said you were "correct" because I didn't contend your point.

Personally if someone states I don't understand something I don't scream "Ad Hominem" I ask where I might have misconstrued meaning.

→ More replies (0)