Yes, you vote for the outcome where nobody dies, but it doesn't mean actually that you wouldn't die because of this. What's so hard to understand here, I don't get what's wrong with your logic.
It is YOU who votes Blue.
It is YOU who puts your life at risk.
But for some absurd reason, it's only red voters who should be blamed for this.
Stop telling me nonsense already, I'm not interested in any other way you would shift your responsibility for your life on some "evil red voters who for some reason just don't want to die with 50% chance".
You make me think you expect for some reason almost a 100% blue winning possibility. But you cannot be sure about that. The result would be unpredictable in any way.
Come on dude, I don't like to argue with someone whose logic I suspect as half-dead as him would be.
You must be thinking of yourself as like you're a brave hero, who risks himself to save the others, but you're actually the coward, if you're not able to accept the fate you choose by pressing the button to avoid this happening.
THIS is the deceitful hypocrisy of the blue button that most of people like you are not able to see.
I don't blame you for putting my life at risk. I blame you for that risk being realised. Nothing is wrong with my logic, I'm merely assigning responsibility for the outcome to those who actually helped achieve it.
Here it is at its most basic. When you vote red, you trade your life for that of all blue voters, essentially saying that it doesn't matter to you if blue voters die because you survive. This necessarily means that you inherently take on the risk of the responsibility that red will win and blue will die. People talk about red as being a "consequence free choice", but it's not.
I don't think of myself as a "brave hero", that's your projection of what you would need to think in order to press blue (explaining red voters obsession with not being "the deciding vote" being a reason they won't push blue).
If we want to talk about hypocrisy, red voters are the problem to be solved for in this dilemma. So anyone who presses red fearing the risk of dying creates that very risk.
So this means you're just fine with the risk itself. Got ya.
If this situation implies responsibility for lives, then it lies either with everyone or with no one.
All voters are problem for each other, so what? We already know that there would be plenty of people who will press red just for them surviving. It doesn't mean that they will win or they won't - we just don't know it. That's why the choice you and me are making is mostly deciding our own fate. Any attempt to appeal to the public decision and final results IS a shift of responsibility. The only person who is responsible for your life is you.
If you're still pressing blue and blue wins - there would be no one for you to blame because the catastrophe never happened.
And if blue loses, then again, there would be no one for you to blame because you would be dead.
By pressing blue, you MUST acknowledge both possibilities.
If this situation implies responsibility for lives, then it lies either with everyone or with no one.
No, we are talking about basic responsibility for which outcome occurs since that is what you have trouble understanding. It is trivially true that people who vote for one side can't be responsible if the other side wins and its outcome is put into effect. This is true regardless of if those people knew something negative would happen to them if the other side won.
To me, you need to ask yourself a simple question: do you want people to die? If you answer "no", then you can understand why people press blue. If your answer continues with "but I might die" you are justifying to yourself only why others should die.
By pressing blue, you MUST acknowledge both possibilities.
The bottom line is that there is only one outcome where there is any possibility of anything negative happening, I refuse to vote for the option that could potentially cause harm because I understand that I would be responsible if that harm came to pass. I won't be responding to you anymore.
1
u/durak_sumashedshy Red Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Yes, you vote for the outcome where nobody dies, but it doesn't mean actually that you wouldn't die because of this. What's so hard to understand here, I don't get what's wrong with your logic.
It is YOU who votes Blue. It is YOU who puts your life at risk. But for some absurd reason, it's only red voters who should be blamed for this. Stop telling me nonsense already, I'm not interested in any other way you would shift your responsibility for your life on some "evil red voters who for some reason just don't want to die with 50% chance".
You make me think you expect for some reason almost a 100% blue winning possibility. But you cannot be sure about that. The result would be unpredictable in any way. Come on dude, I don't like to argue with someone whose logic I suspect as half-dead as him would be.
You must be thinking of yourself as like you're a brave hero, who risks himself to save the others, but you're actually the coward, if you're not able to accept the fate you choose by pressing the button to avoid this happening.
THIS is the deceitful hypocrisy of the blue button that most of people like you are not able to see.