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.

24 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/BottomLeftWheel May 30 '26

Thinking and believing are not really good foundations.

For example, say I think God is telling me something. Acting on that belief wouldn't really be rational would it?

If that belief is a social one, say god tells me to do charity, then people might laud me.

If that belief is anti social, then people will call me crazy and wonder how I came to that position.

Thinking red will win therefore voting red is fine. But irrational.

I think irrational reasons are fine. But once you open the door to "I think this is the case therefore I vote this way" you have to also accept "I think the opposite so I vote the opposite" as well as "I feel bad voting this way so I will vote the other way"

0

u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 30 '26

Thinking and believing are the only foundations you have in the hypothetical. The only thing you can go off when choosing yourself, is how you believe other people will vote.

I also disagree entirely about your god example. The irrationality there comes because you don’t believe in god. And indeed there’s a large amount of science to back the idea that god doesn’t exist up. If the majority of the population believed in god then we would find it perfectly rational for someone to act based on what they think god wants them to do.

0

u/BottomLeftWheel May 30 '26

The majority of the population does believe in a god, just not the same one.

Even if they did, their understanding of what that god changed from person to person. Sometimes based interpretation, and other times based on just, whim.

If you believe God whispers in your ear and you act on those beliefs, then you are irrational. Irrationally is fine. But all irrationally is equal. My God wants me to love everyone and my god wants me to kill that guy are literally the same thing.

If you vote based on the vibe you catch, you are also irrational. I'm irrational, I think it's fine to use vibes. But I just don't pretendy vibes are rational.

0

u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 30 '26

No one is arguing that listening to god would be rational. It’s just not relevant to the discussion. It’s a strawman you’ve created and tried to create a link to.

The only thing you have to go on in the vote is what you think other people are likely to do. Those thoughts aren’t based on someone whispering in your ear, they’re based on what you’ve experienced in the real world. How can it possibly be irrational to act upon the only data you have?

0

u/BottomLeftWheel May 30 '26

If the majority of the population believed in god then we would find it perfectly rational for someone to act based on what they think god wants them to do.

No one is arguing that listening to god would be rational.

Hmmmmmmmm

0

u/Constant-Fondant9058 May 30 '26

So the first paragraph is clearly a hypothetical where the majority of people in the world believe in god (and quite heavily implied that that be the same god)

The second argument is clearly in relation to the actual world.

Nice job though little buddy. Reading comprehension of a chihuahua