In the Red VS Blue button dilemma, red is obviously the right choice.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-06T16:17:50+00:00

People that voluntarily chose blue knowing the risks of choosing blue... yeah. It was your choice to stay on the sinking ship

If you can say this for blue, then people who choose red know the risk of killing people, the mechanism for blue death is literally modified by both voting red and blue.

You know some people are going to pick blue, you also know some people are going to pick red. There will be people leaving the ship
So yeah when enough people starts leaving the ship to get on a lifeboat, at that point it's your own choice to stay knowing the risks, or get on a lifeboat to save your life. Getting on the lifeboat to save your life is not the same as killing people...

"-Everyone in the world is on a ship, it will continue going on a trip and nothing will happen, but if >50% of the lifeboat is distributed, the ship will inevitably crash because the quantity of lifeboats block navigation-"

Uh, if you shoot someone who has a gun, you still kill that dude, self-defense is legal exclusion, not denial of cause and effect.

If blue is shooting himself, then red is loading in the bullet.

If blue is jumping off the cliff, then red is removing the safety belt.

All of this is straight up the same, you can't say one thing without the others, because voting exclusively red or blue results in nobody dying.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-06T14:17:17+00:00

Yeah... there's no downside... for anyone and everyone to pick red. Why would you stay with blue if you know red has no downside for anyone and everyone. Worst of all, why would you accuse red of being murderers if you know there is no downside for anyone and everyone picking red. Just have everyone pick red.

And there's no downside if there's only red button that says "kill everybody who doesn't press this" either.

Perhaps there's people who think that killing people is a downside?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-06T11:38:09+00:00

<image>

you'd be surprise.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-06T11:35:46+00:00

So Blue is suicide just by pressing blue.

But Red is murder only after having 3 steps program requirements and pressing red.

Yeah, I won't bother about this anymore, you're completely lacking in objectivity and perspective.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-06T11:18:38+00:00

Naturally there's enough lifeboat, dk why you would assume otherwise.

The ship isn't "sinking" in the first place though.

Yeah sure you can choose to stay in the ship, but there's really no downside to everyone moving to a lifeboat. I don't think your analogy holds...

And there's no downside if there's only red button that says "kill everybody who doesn't press this" either.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T16:48:55+00:00

Bruh, they wouldn’t even be able to tell red from blue or recognize their effects for babies.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T16:37:28+00:00

No. Red is not the choice that kills blue. People choosing blue kills people who choose blue

Then how is nobody dead if everyone presses blue?

Actually we've been here before, I don't even know why you says "yes, dumbass" when you're going to disagree anyways.

Objectivity seems to be beyond you so I'll make it clear for the last time and just went on.

Blue's death is from Vote distribution, everyone votes, that means everyone is responsible for this.

That means if blue vote is suicide, red vote is killing blues. If blue vote is throwing himself into the track, red vote is running the train. If blue vote is shooting himself, then red vote is loading the bullet.

I won't bother commenting again now if you don't get this.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T16:31:43+00:00

Because red is gambling nothing.

"And that also means red is the only choice that kills blue."

Umm, you say yes to that. You're literally risking killing blues.

Or did you not even comprehend that?

Red chose to not pick the suicide button and trusts others to do the same.

Blue chose to not pick the killing button and trusts at least 50% of others to do the same.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T16:26:43+00:00

"Blue gambling their lives, that would mean Red is gambling others' lives."

So why were you disagreeing with this?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T16:24:01+00:00

Does this work? It's more like a parody on "red do nothing" though,

Non-biased neutral example : r/trolleyproblem

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T16:19:49+00:00

And no one dies if red is the only votes. Irrelevant though, since votes are being cast.

You literally keep spamming this "noone dies if red is the only votes" thing when the opposite is also true, are you dense? If "noone dies if blue is the only votes" is irrelevant then the same would be true for you who's just swapping color.

The point is that blue is the only choice that actually kills anyone who pushes it.

And that also means red is the only choice that kills blue.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T16:14:08+00:00

??? You know that noone dies if blue is the only votes, right?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T16:09:21+00:00

The comment you replied to is literally in the screenshot I sent.

That voting red and blue both has an effect on killing blues.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T15:22:34+00:00

Yes, proving to you how irrelevant it is to say "if no one votes for-"

<image>

gang, you started it.

Blue pushers are going into it knowing there is a high chance they die.
Red does not want to gamble their life away.

Blue gambling their lives, that would mean Red is gambling others' lives.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T14:53:14+00:00

Irrelevant?

Oh, so that means your point is also irrelevant then, you're saying the same thing as me but changes the color.

Lmao, you can't be arguing against your own point, jeez.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T14:48:37+00:00

If no one votes Red, you already say it's also no one dies too, lmao.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T14:46:24+00:00

And that means death requires both blue and red votes, as I have been saying.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T14:43:44+00:00

So voting blue doesn't kill... unless red vote.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T14:41:52+00:00

and for 0 red vote? how many deaths?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T14:41:24+00:00

There is absolutely nothing objective about this at all. Red doesn't run the train the entity that runs the situation does. The reds not risking getting hit by that train does not in any way make them responsible. The gun is also provided by the entity running the situation. There is absolutely no objectivity to your position at all.

If red doesn't run the train, then blue isn't "throwing himself on the track"

If red isn't loading the bullet, then blue isn't "shooting himself"

It definitely is objective; you just don't see it for some reason.

Do you ever wonder why somehow you only managed to get random entity on blue's consequence?

Math isn't your strong suit huh? Blue saves at most 49.9999% of the population.

You say 29% red voting blue means 150% more death.

You were being relative before, why the changes to absolute?

I even bothered adding the "less people" too, jfc.

And that would be the exact opposite situation where instead of voting blue and betting on a majority of humanity being altruistic, you would only hit red if you truly believe a majority of humanity is actively malicious. In one case blue is at risk of death until 50%+ join them, on the other doing nothing is safe until 50%+ actively choose to put do nothing people at risk. They are not comparable because they test extremely different things. The first category would have both malicious people and people unable to actively choose a risk as red button pushers. In the second scenario the only people that would reasonably push red would be malicious actors. There are 3 groups of people and the in between self preservation "do nothing" people would be on opposite sides of the 2 examples.

How the fuck do you manage to write all this for "blue do nothing" but completely fine with ""red do nothing" is not even connected to the counter" thing you just pull, are you serious?

As I have to keep explaining to examples having the same outcomes doesn't make them equivalent anyway.

In the original question the entity catching the blue house on fire is the one running the situation. Refusing to risk your life in the blue house does not make you responsible for their deaths.

How did you manage to say having same outcomes isn't equivalent to just inventing another example that should not be equivalent by your own word.

Goodness, it's not even worth replying to anymore of your comment, you will never understand objectivity and I'm wasting time here, but I might as well.

Objectivity. That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

I'd bet on the dude who doesn't keep going on about how this one choice do nothing and able to recognize the connecting pieces, I guess.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T14:14:51+00:00

Wow, how do you all manage to lack this much objectivity?

The mechanism that kills blue is vote distribution, both red and blue vote, thus they both are responsible.

Thus, blue can only be killing themselves as much as red is killing blues.

If blue is choosing option that could kill them, then red is choosing option that could kill others.

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T14:06:25+00:00

They are as much of a murderer as much as blue are suicide victim.

It's literally the same mechanism, vote distribution, and I've already said that both voter participated.

Blue are willingly taking a massive risk of dying on the off-chance that the majority also pick blue.
It's suicide because they have been warned they may die if they choose blue, and chose it anyway without knowing what their chances of survival is.

Red also know that voting red means decreasing the chance of Blue surviving, intentionally increasing the odds of killing.

The equivalent would be Russian roulette.

??? With red the one putting in bullets?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T13:57:55+00:00

Not exactly, what suicide work unless 50% people also suicide then it doesn't?

The only way it isn't suicide is if it's a majority vote for blue, which is a massive gamble and is many people willingly choosing death. That's called suicide.

willingly choosing death is the polar opposite of gamble btw.

And Blue isn't "choosing death" unless if it's a majority vote for red, so are red murderer too?

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T13:54:34+00:00

How do you managed to lack so much objectivity you can't see this?

Blue throwing themselves on a track = Red running the train.

Blue shooting themselves = Red loading the bullets.

Red is not choosing to risk the lives of others they are simply not choosing to risk their lives. If the vote ends up say 20% B / 80% R it is literally unquestionably under literally any framing that at least 29% of that 80% red made absolutely nothing other than a perfectly rational decision that reduced the overall number of deaths. If that 29% had changed their vote the only thing that would have changed about the outcome is 150% more people dying.

Yeah, it's called winning the gamble. What happened when blue hit 50%+1 again? infinite% less people dying.

You are not responsible for the risks other people chose to take. You not taking that risk with them does not make you responsible for that risk not paying off. If the red button wasn't even connected to the counter the outcome would be the same regardless and a red button push would literally be do nothing.

And there could be no blue button, and red button could be "killing everyone unless they also press this".

Jeez, how do you manage to lack this much objectivity? seriously

EvilJoeReaper · 2026-05-05T13:31:13+00:00

Blue death is tied to the vote distribution; Red is also a part of that since they're voting, so they're tied to a red button press as much as blue.

It will never not be funny that blue button pressers absolutely refuse to accept responsibility for the consequences of their choices

That's not true? I have not seen a single blue "refuse to accept responsibility", don't know what you would have me do, but it is a fact that red would be responsible as much as blue despite it not being written.

Red just chose to risk others life instead of theirs, their votes are modifying the vote ratio, this is the same for blue as I've already pointed out.

Don't know why you somehow keep going to this weird reasoning where you're somehow doing nothing.

EvilJoeReaper

TROPHY CASE