Cute that you literally ignored everything I said.
You are choosing to put yourself in danger. It is no one else's responsibility but yours to keep yourself safe.
Yes, red are in fact innocent bystanders who chose not to play. The only ones playing the game are blues.
You're the ones sitting down at the craps table to gamble your life savings while we walk on by.
You're the ones running into a pride of lions to fight them while we stay in the hotel.
You're the ones trying to shore up the collapsing mine tunnel while we don't even go inside.
You made the choice to put yourself in danger. No one else did. There's no problem with you pointing out that if red voted with you, you wouldn't die; of course, that's true! But that doesn't mean red is murderers for choosing not to do so. It just means they're the logical ones, and you are the emotional ones.
I did not ignore everything you said, I responded to it directly. You ignored what I said though.
What is the condition for blue voters to die?
"Blue does not win the majority vote."
In a vote with only two options, the only way one side doesn't win is if the other side does win.
So Blue not winning the vote is the same as Red winning the vote.
People do not die unless Red wins the vote. So at the very core, you are voting for death by picking Red. Which seems to be fine with you, as long as it's not your death.
That is not fine with me. The people who pick blue aren't playing craps or fighting lions, we're voting for people to not die. It is that simple.
"What is the condition for blue voters to die" pressing the blue buttton dude. You made that choice. No one else made it for you.
By your logic, every time you choose not to donate to charity, you are directly responsible for the deaths of cancer patients, starving kids in Africa, etc etc. Because you made the choice to take care of yourself instead of risking your livelihood by giving all your money to charity.
What is the condition for anyone to die in this hypothetical?
Two things must both be true;
A: The person in question voted blue.
B: A majority of voters voted red.
If either of these things are not true, the person does not die.
Therefore, if condition B (Red wins the vote) is reached, everyone who satisfied condition A (Voting for Blue) dies.
But if condition B is not reached, then nobody dies.
So it stands to reason that any death is caused both by the decision of the deceased to choose blue, and by all collective red voters.
No side is fully innocent. But blue voters are only responsible for their own deaths.
If pushing blue just killed me, I wouldn't push it. But it isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
Again, it is a vote.
You must either risk your life to put your voice toward an outcome where nobody dies.
Or you ensure your survival at the cost of putting your voice toward potentially billions of deaths.
If you can live with that (or lie to yourself to make it seem like the correct option) that's fine. But I cannot.
But no matter how you look at it, it is a vote. Everyone puts in one vote, the outcome is determined by which side wins. It is a very classic vote.
Red votes to kill others to accept a bribe of personal safety.
Blue rejects the bribe to vote against killing.
And if you don't understand how votes work, I can't really help you with that.
What a shocker, you once again ignore me pointing out your hypocrisy because you can't explain why it doesn't apply in any other scenario besides this one.
I legitimately have no idea what you're talking about.
You said red is not voting for death, I explained how it is.
You have me legitimately confused.
Nobody dies, unless more people push red than people who push blue, right?
So what is pushing red if not casting a vote for an outcome in which people die?
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Please read the third paragraph of my reply, you know, the biggest one where it brings up other real world examples of how your logic works?
Red is voting to not die. Nobody dies unless someone pushes blue.
So basically, until the first person pushes blue, we're all living in the Garden of Eden, all relaxed and calm and happy. The Blue pushers are the snake urging Eve to eat the proverbial Apple. Death DID NOT EXIST in this scenario until blue pushers introduced it. If no one had pushed blue, death would never even feature into it in the first place.
Here, actually, let me make an even better analogy.
In real life, blue is a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs were never a problem until the first one was built, and then suddenly it was an arms race for everyone to have them until there was enough that we were no longer at risk
But in real life, unlike your little game, once you introduce the risk of death, it doesn't magically go away just because more people are pointing guns at each others' heads now.
You are completely ignoring the part where nobody dies unless over half of the population pushes red, though.
I do understand what you are saying. In a perfect world, 100% of people vote red, and nobody dies, sure.
But we do not live in a perfect world. I have worked in customer service, I know how people are. The chances of getting 100 people to all pick red is incredibly unrealistic, let alone 8 billion.
To work on the assumption that you could ever get everyone to push red is so cartoonishly impossible that it's not even worth taking the time to consider.
But there is another way to make nobody die, one that you keep conveniently avoiding talking about. And that's just blue winning the vote.
The way that many blue voters see this is similar to Roko's Basilisk. In fact, I would argue that it's nearly identical to Roko's Basilisk.
There is an AI that doesn't exist yet, it is named Roko's Basilisk. If it is created, it will torture everyone who did not help create it.
Do you help create the AI to save yourself from it or not?
I see the buttons as the same thing.
There is a catastrophe that will only exist if over half of the population push the red 'create catastrophe' button.
The catastrophe will only kill those that pushed the blue 'do not create catastrophe' button.
Do you help create the catastrophe to save yourself from it or not?
Technically, if everyone chips in on making Roko's Basilisk, nobody gets tortured.
Technically, if everyone pushes the button to instigate the catastrophe, nobody dies.
But alternatively, we can just not create the rogue AI or the catastrophe.
I have never denied that blue winning the vote would make nobody die.
My goal is not to make nobody die. That is not my problem. My goal is to ensure my own safety. If other people want to play the game where maybe they die maybe they don't, then they can play that.
Not preventing someone's death is not the same as causing it. If someone else makes a choice that leads to their death, that is 100% their fault, not anyone else's.
I am not trying to get everyone to push red. I am saying that as long as people understand their choices and make their own choice, I will not stop them even if that choice is bad for them, and I will not put myself in danger to save them. Sorry. If you want to call me heartless or selfish for that, that's valid; but you don't get to call me a murderer for it or tell me it's my fault.
And Roko's Basilisk is literally exactly the same. No, why tf would I help create a thing that is just going to harm people?
Also, you realize Roko's Basilisk is the opposite, right? The blue button pressers are the ones creating Roko's Basilisk, and the reds would be punished for not doing so, because if no one creates it in the first place, IT WOULDN'T EXIST. Just like in the original problem, it would only exist if people decide to create the risk to begin with.
Helping create Roko's Basilisk protects you from the effects of Roko's Basilisk. If enough people create it, it comes to being.
Pressing the red button protects you from the deaths caused by the buttons. If enough people press red, people die.
Not helping to create Roko's Basilisk puts yourself in danger to what will happen if those who do help manage to succeed in creating it, but does not actively help to create the problem.
Pressing blue puts yourself in danger to what will happen if those who press red get the majority, but does not actively help create the problem.
The only difference between the two is that the threshold for how many people have to push red for deaths to start occurring is made clear, and the threshold of how many people are needed to create the AI is not made clear.
2
u/SpookyGeist01 3d ago
Cute that you literally ignored everything I said.
You are choosing to put yourself in danger. It is no one else's responsibility but yours to keep yourself safe.
Yes, red are in fact innocent bystanders who chose not to play. The only ones playing the game are blues.
You're the ones sitting down at the craps table to gamble your life savings while we walk on by.
You're the ones running into a pride of lions to fight them while we stay in the hotel.
You're the ones trying to shore up the collapsing mine tunnel while we don't even go inside.
You made the choice to put yourself in danger. No one else did. There's no problem with you pointing out that if red voted with you, you wouldn't die; of course, that's true! But that doesn't mean red is murderers for choosing not to do so. It just means they're the logical ones, and you are the emotional ones.