Support NeoGAF

[thefool]

So if i got this right, this is basically "kill all the people who lack basic reading comprehention and basic logic skills" question?

Pretty much.

 

[Bojji]

I don't know why you are so sure about this. Women are more empathetic yes, they act this way in a safe country where they have no problems but how are you so sure they will continue to be with a gun on their head?

You trust humans more than me. That's why you will press blue. I don't. it's not that i want people to die, it's that i don't believe there's a way to avoid it.

Women would vote to save their children and parents, and they don't know how those people will vote. Blue is the safest option to save all the people you care about.

Red is people that don't care about others.

 

[John Bilbo]

Women would vote to save their children and parents, and they don't know how those people will vote. Blue is the safest option to save all the people you care about.

Red is people that don't care about others.

I really don't see it like that. There is an argument to be made for both sides especially depending on the wording of the premise.

 

[Bojji]

I really don't see it like that. There is an argument to be made for both sides especially depending on the wording of the premise.

If you can't consult with others, voting red means that you are ok with killing all the people that voted blue (and that could include your children, parents, partner etc.).

 

[nkarafo]

So if i got this right, this is basically "kill all the people who lack basic reading comprehention and basic logic skills" question?

Don't risk your life to save =/= kill

Blue is the safest option to save all of the people you care about.

Only if you believe the blue votes will win.

Which i don't, as also demonstrated by the votes (that would be even worse if the scenario was real and not a safe thought experiment). So it's not a safe option at all, it's certain death for everyone involved. But hoping the ones you love vote for red is the only chance you get to see them afterwards. And you need to also be alive to find out.

 

[John Bilbo]

This is really a quirky meta discussion about banning the abortion isn't it.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I just don't see it that way. The person who votes blue is the one gambling with their life. You pressing red doesn't force them in any way to press blue.

I think you do actually. You clearly have thought about the ends. A vote for red is a vote to kill indiscriminately, a vote for blue is a vote to save lives.

It's not about gambling with your life, it's if you're willing to simply end some else's.

I don't think people who vote red are bad or sociopaths or anything like that, I do think they are just willing to put themselves first (so, selfish I guess) at the cost of done else's life.

I suspect lots of red voters would switch to blue if it wasn't private.

I also wonder how many blues are full of crap when it comes down to it.

It's a fun experiment where there is no real "wrong" answer, just different justifications for their actions.

 

[Bojji]

Don't risk your life to save =/= kill



Only if you believe the blue votes will win.

Which i don't, as also demonstrated by the votes (that would be even worse if the scenario was real and not a safe thought experiment). So it's not a safe option at all, it's certain death for everyone involved. But hoping the ones you love vote for red is the only chance you get to see them afterwards. And you need to also be alive to find out.

GAF has almost zero female representation. It consist of old farts from Generations X and Y, many of us hate other people.

Pretty much zero connection to real life vote.

 

[John Bilbo]

I really find it interesting how the people who vote blue guilt trip the ones who vote red.

 

[nkarafo]

I think you do actually. You clearly have thought about the ends. A vote for red is a vote to kill indiscriminately, a vote for blue is a vote to save lives.

It's not about gambling with your life, it's if you're willing to simply end some else's.

Ok let me ask you this then.

There's a guy who willingly jumped in a pool of sharks and is about to get eaten. If you don't jump in to try and save him, does that mean you killed him?

GAF has almost zero female representation. It consist of old farts from Generations X and Y, many of us hate other people.

Pretty much zero connection to real life vote.

If that's the case then we are all safe so i hope you are right. But i highly doubt it.

 

[nkarafo]

I really find it interesting how the people who vote blue guilt trip the ones who vote red.

They are clearly wrong but i can actually get behind this as a method for trying to convince more people to vote for blue, which is the best case scenario if it wins.

But if it loses, it means they actually killed those people because otherwise they would vote red and they would be safe. In this case they are actually responsible for their deaths.

Funny how that works.

 

[Meicyn]

I really find it interesting how the people who vote blue guilt trip the ones who vote red.

I really find it interesting how the people who vote red keep emphasizing that blue voters are stupid.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I really find it interesting how the people who vote blue guilt trip the ones who vote red.

Hey, hey--no politics.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Ok let me ask you this then.

There's a guy in a pool of sharks and is about to get eaten. If you don't jump in to try and save him, does that mean you killed him?



If that's the case then we are all safe so i hope you are right. But i highly doubt it.

I'd find a way to help, yes.

If you just stood there and didn't try to help, I don't know how a person could look themselves in the mirror. Also, it's not a fair comparison as it's public but I get your general argument.

It's like when people hear about men (women too but it's usually men) saving little kids from drowning at the cost of their own life. They are venerated as heroes. Again, not a great comparison but I'm sure you get my point.

I'm always interested at the threshold when people would say it's "enough" for them to make a sacrifice.

 

[John Bilbo]

I really find it interesting how the people who vote red keep emphasizing that blue voters are stupid.

I have not called names.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I really find it interesting how the people who vote red keep emphasizing that blue voters are stupid.

That's not really fair, most are just arguing from a different viewpoint. Some are just trying to justify their actions to themselves. Most are willing to engage in fair discussion.

 

[nkarafo]

I'm always interested at the threshold when people would say it's "enough" for them to make a sacrifice.

There is a line between someone lacking common sense and jumping in the pool of sharks VS a child drowning in a pool.

I would try and save the kid in the pool. I would also try to save it if there were sharks in it, or at least i want to believe i would and not chicken out.

But that other guy? No thanks. So that's my line.

 

[John Bilbo]

They are clearly wrong but i can actually get behind this as a method for trying to convince more people to vote for blue, which is the best case scenario if it wins.

But if it loses, it means they actually killed those people because otherwise they would vote red and they would be safe. In this case they are actually responsible for their deaths.

Funny how that works.

Yes the attempts at manipulation has not gone past me. It's really an interesting social experiment -- in this discussion form. In real life it would be horrific.

 

[Trogdor1123]

There is a line between someone lacking common sense and jumping in the pool of sharks VS a child drowning in a pool.

I would try and save the kid in the pool. I would also try to save it if there were sharks in it, or at least i want to believe i would and not chicken out.

But that other guy? No thanks. So that's my line.

Hey that's fair. It's your call. I see the line differently. I'd agree that they aren't the same and it's also not comparable to the original question as one has you literally seeing the person.

It's funny how we draw lines in the sand sometimes even if we're not sure why.

Good chat.

 

[Wildebeest]

 

[nkarafo]

Hey that's fair. It's your call. I see the line differently. I'd agree that they aren't the same and it's also not comparable to the original question as one has you literally seeing the person.

It's funny how we draw lines in the sand sometimes even if we're not sure why.

Good chat.

Well, i will admit you are a better/braver person than me. Hope it pays off for you and not backfire, i really do.

 

[GreenAlien]

I have played this game. Virtue's Last Reward?

I would not trust "the world" to choose to safe everyone "maybe" over themselves "guaranteed". And anyway, my single vote is statistically unlikely to be the deciding factor and make the difference if enough people choose blue.
Red it is.

 

[Dice]

I find it interesting that people really go the "You are killing them" conclusion when they are the ones who voted blue. They don't seem to understand the difference between causation and negation. Refusing to be an 8 billionth share of negation is not the same as being a causation. The direct causative function is voting blue, the other causative function is whatever impressed this choice on humanity in the first place. Voting red is not causative at all. Voting blue is also not salvific, it is a gamble which may result in salvation. If it fails, you went into the death pit with the willing participants and share your fate together because you chose the gamble together.

 

[Vlodril]

Why would anyone press the red button?

Because we understand how humans work?

 

[Trogdor1123]

Well, i will admit you are a better/braver person than me. Hope it pays off for you and not backfire, i really do.

Who knows, maybe just deluding myself and I'd chicken out too but I've never shied away from sacrifice for others before (obviously different scales though).

I'd bet we're both about the same. Your logic is to save everyone, which would happen if everyone chose red. That's 100% accurate and logical. You want to save folks too. It's a great end goal.

Red isn't a "wrong" choice in my mind either, but it's sure wrong for me.

 

[Wildebeest]

Red guys: Anyone who doesn't push red is mentally simple and blames others for their lack of survival instinct. I'm so clever.

Blue guys: Apes together strong.

 

[GreenAlien]

This "puzzle" needs an additional rule for red.

If more than 65% of people vote red, everyone dies.

Then the choice is between risking your own death vs "guaranteeing" your own survival, but worst case killing everyone.

 

[Boozeroony]

In a world full of reds, be a blue.

 

[falconhoof]

I have enjoyed reading the scenario building around this whole thing. Especially the narrative and beliefs placed on the person who chooses to vote a certain way. It's full of justification, which itself points back to the author.

It's had me playing around with thoughts to try and capture more ways of looking at this.

I wanted to create an alternative to the Red is the killer narrative and the Blue is for saving the family.

I know we don't have rules for prior discussion before voting but for this scenario I figured I'd just run with it.

---

Dad says to family "We're good people and look out for others, we must have faith that humanity thinks the same so we should all vote Blue to help save everyone"

Results come in: Red Wins

"Dad, does that mean we're going to die now?"

"Yes, and it's the Red's fault you are"

"But if we voted Red we'd stay living and you said we should vote Blue"

---

 

[Bojji]

I have enjoyed reading the scenario building around this whole thing. Especially the narrative and beliefs placed on the person who chooses to vote a certain way. It's full of justification, which itself points back to the author.

It's had me playing around with thoughts to try and capture more ways of looking at this.

I wanted to create an alternative to the Red is the killer narrative and the Blue is for saving the family.

I know we don't have rules for prior discussion before voting but for this scenario I figured I'd just run with it.

---

Dad says to family "We're good people and look out for others, we must have faith that humanity thinks the same so we should all vote Blue to help save everyone"

Results come in: Red Wins

"Dad, does that mean we're going to die now?"

"Yes, and it's the Red's fault you are"

"But if we voted Red we'd stay living and you said we should vote Blue"

---

Rules imply no communications between people/family members so some of the people you love will vote differently than you.

Blue is the safest choice to save everyone.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

There is a massive logic flaw in the premise "the reds are killing off the blues". This is simply not true. The blues, on their own free will, without any extra benefit or motivation, decided to take an unnecessary risk, just because.

The dilemma would be different IF going blue meant something like "ending poverty and hunger in the world". But in principle, voting blue means nothing, it's all performative, there's no greater good to be achieved. Why the hell are you choosing blue, then? Legit question.

I prefer the train and the lever dilemma, where the two options have similar moral weight.

 

[nkarafo]

This "puzzle" needs an additional rule for red.

If more than 65% of people vote red, everyone dies.

Then the choice is between risking your own death vs "guaranteeing" your own survival, but worst case killing everyone.

Might as well flip a coin and hope for the best.

 

[Boozeroony]

Even if you could have some communication before choosing, this thread shows that there is no guarantee that you and your family/friends would come to an unanimous decision.

 

[Denton]

Interesting.

Instinctively I voted blue, because I want to hope that most people would see it as obvious pick since it guarantees everyone living. Then again, if everyone presses red, they also all live - but in real life, that would never happen so unless at least 51% vote blue, blues will die. If I vote blue and die because red wins, that sucks. But if I vote red and as a result of my choice literally billions die, that would probably actually suck even harder.

In real life politics however, I abhore suicidal empathy and all it entails and causes. Mass immigration, judges releasing Decarlos Browns upon the public... I would jail all the traitors and deport all illegals with zero suicidal empathy.

The blues, on their own free will, without any extra benefit or motivation, decided to take an unnecessary risk, just because.

This is an experiment testing idealism/empathy. There are lot of people who would vote blue because it guarantees survival of everyone (if 51% is achieved) and they are idealists. Voting red means some people WILL inevitably die. Possibly billions. And red voters would be co-responsible.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

A bit of a psychopathic response, even as a joke, no ? Even if you ignored the rest of that post and would somehow avoid societal collapse. Just saying ...

This isn't something I'm taking seriously. Sorry if I upset you.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

This is an experiment testing idealism/empathy. There are lot of people who would vote blue because it guarantees survival of everyone (if 51% is achieved). Voting red means some people WILL inevitably die. And red voters would be co-responsible.

The problem is that these two premises are not well balanced. Voting red also guarantees survival, both individually and collectively. There's no objective reason to vote blue. As said in my post, the dilemma needs to add an extra motivator or another condition like "if there are no blues, the 1% percent of the population will be forced blue at random".

 

[Meicyn]

I have not called names.

And I haven't guilt tripped anyone.

 

[BloodFree]

This isn't something I'm taking seriously. Sorry if I upset you.

You didn't, again, just saying, wishing or insinuating joy in the death of 40% of the global population is very much a cause for some raised eyebrows and if it's a joke, it's in poor taste. But you do you brah.

 

[John Bilbo]

And I haven't guilt tripped anyone.

Good for you.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Speaking strictly as a thought exercise, and ignoring all societal, moral, ethical, etc. considerations (and ignoring my own previous posts on this thread):

If you want to survive at a 100% rate, you choose Red

If you want to leave your survival up to the other 7+ billion people on Earth who might hypothetically vote, you choose Blue

By any rational thought process, you have to choose Red. Because "Everyone will not just" choose Red or Blue. Some percentage of humanity will choose Red, others will choose Blue. You will simply not know what percentage will choose Red vs. Blue. In this situation, you have to choose to survive. Right?

 

[Denton]

The problem is that these two premises are not well balanced. Voting red also guarantees survival, both individually and collectively. There's no objective reason to vote blue. As said in my post, the dilemma needs to add an extra motivator or another condition like "if there are no blues, the 1% percent of the population will be forced blue at random".

Red guarantees survival only for reds. Because everyone - incl. every red - knows that some people will vote blue, and those will die if reds win.
Blue guarantees survival for everyone as long as blues are majority. Selfishness/Selflessness.

 

[Dice]

This is an experiment testing idealism/empathy. There are lot of people who would vote blue because it guarantees survival of everyone (if 51% is achieved) and they are idealists. Voting red means some people WILL inevitably die. Possibly billions. And red voters would be co-responsible.

No. They would bear zero responsibility. There is zero causative function on part of those voting red. No one can make you responsible due to what they throw on you. If those voting blue die, it was the forced proposition of voting responsible for making it a possibility and then those voting blue who made it a reality. That is where the responsibility lies. Those voting red simply did not take a risk to possibly diminish the threat enough to clear it.

 

[poppabk]

Assuming there's some time to prep, you really think families won't urge each other to press red?

If you are a parent, would ypu tell your children to press red or blue? Be honest.

That's why I think the hypothetical has to be that everyone is instantly and without warning teleported to their own pocket dimension voting booth.
Assuming time to prep the world population would quickly coalesce around one option - almost definitely 'red' provided the toddler problem is solvable. You would have worldwide polls showing red at 55% - which would quickly switch to 99.9%. Then it's literally a no brainer.

 

[Bojji]

No. They would bear zero responsibility. There is zero causative function on part of those voting red. No one can make you responsible due to what they throw on you. If those voting blue die, it was the forced proposition of voting responsible for making it a possibility and then those voting blue who made it a reality. That is where the responsibility lies. Those voting red simply did not take a risk to possibly diminish the threat enough to clear it.

People voting red are decreasing chance for blue to win = everyone survives scenario.

So yeah, they ARE responsible.

 

[Denton]

No. They would bear zero responsibility.

You can tell yourself that. But if that scenario actually happened, and half your family died because they voted blue while you would see them die and continue living having voted red, you might feel differently.

Note: the question says "private vote" which to me assumes that you cannot discuss it with anyone, you just have to vote.

 

[TheUnicornGuy]

I think for the main scenario:

No foreknowledge or ability to discuss strategy with other people. Everyone chooses at the same time. Children also must choose. Babies are given the Lone Wolf and Cub treatment and can signal by crawling to a prop visually representing each respective choice, something appropriate for their development. Abstaining will result in the person's death.

We can discuss alternate scenarios too though like one where the choice happens one month after announcement.

My grandson is 7 weeks old, he ain't crawling towards shit. Dude can't even focus on anything that's not a titty.

 

[BloodFree]

My grandson is 7 weeks old, he ain't crawling towards shit. Dude can't even focus on anything that's not a titty.

You can assume that with toddlers and babies the result will probably be something close to 50/50. They probably wouldn't know what they're doing so results will be random. It's probably only after ages 7-8 that you might get some actual thought or conscious choice put into this.

 

[poppabk]

Now I'm imagining a scenario where the hyper-dimensional beings set this up with a months prep time.
Then parents of toddlers spending weeks giving their kids electric shocks when they press a blue button and candy when they press a red button - then on the day the hyper-dimensional beings switch the colors.
Or they add an extra poll - a poll only for kids under 3 - if more than 50% press the red button all the adults die.

 

[John Bilbo]

Now I'm imagining a scenario where the hyper-dimensional beings set this up with a months prep time.
Then parents of toddlers spending weeks giving their kids electric shocks when they press a blue button and candy when they press a red button - then on the day the hyper-dimensional beings switch the colors.
Or they add an extra poll - a poll only for kids under 3 - if more than 50% press the red button to all the adults die.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Why would anyone press the red button?

Doesn't it guarantee your survival?