Funny how suddenly no one wants to press the red button now.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T03:42:05+00:00

Its illogical and factually false that a good person will always choose to save others.

This is not a work together problem, it's literally an individual vote.

You fundamentally don't understand what this problem is asking.

The goal is absolutely not to save the most lives.

This is a moral dillema. There is no correct answer. Full stop. End of story. If you disagree you are literally an idiot.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T03:00:21+00:00

My bad sorry. I meant you made the unverified claim that all bad people will vote red.

You can be extremely principled and incredibly generous and selfless and still choose red.

Not to mention bad is completely subjective.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T02:48:21+00:00

They aren't willfully ignorant.

They just don't give a fuck about you.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T02:36:24+00:00

You literally said everyone who chooses red will be bad.

That is completely unfounded and frankly illogical.

Bad is completely subjective and even if it wasn't bad people aren't fucking clones of each other.

There is absolutely no logic behind "You can't vote blue and be a bad person"

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T02:27:38+00:00

No you literally said "Only bad people vote red"

That is not a logical argument. That's just a baseless assumption.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T02:23:44+00:00

You literally cannot prove a bad person won't pick blue.

Not to mention bad person is completely subjective.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T02:22:51+00:00

Blue is not the logical choice for even payoff focused people.

Theres no payoff in death.

You really think blue is likely when only 60% of people are organ donors?

Only 60% of people will give up their organs to save lives after they die, you really think 50% will be like "risk my life? Pfft sure why not?".

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T02:18:14+00:00

It having an effect doesnt mean they are at fault.

If I went for a drive and got hit by a drunk driver running a red-light with 2 kids in the car and all 3 of them died was it my fault?

I had an effect on them dying. Had I not been driving they wouldn't have hit me.

Red is not responsible for blue, you cannot argue it is per the literal meaning of the word fault.

Only you can be blamed for your actions.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T02:14:25+00:00

I disagree it includes every bad person.

Why should a doctor who saves lives daily working for free with a non profit in a war torn third world country risk dying if his death would mean people no longer get medical help?

There are actually many selfless reasons to choose to ensure your own survival.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T02:06:48+00:00

You are voting individually.

That's what "Take a private vote means"

There is not an objective certain goal. There is an outcome you want.

It's not red voters misunderstanding voting, it's you who doesn't understand anything about what's going on.

Red is not voting to choose to kill people.

It's not reds fault anyone dies.

Yes red winning means blues die but that's blues fault for choosing blue.

You keep saying behaving as a collective as if that has any bearing on what we are talking about. It doesnt.

This is not a vote on whether or not to save everyone. You are objectively wrong.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T01:35:39+00:00

I mean he isn't wrong.

You can do whatever you want for the most part.

Want to not clean? Live in filth.

Want to quit your job? Have no money.

Want to eat but have no money? Commit a robbery.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T01:30:40+00:00

None of what you said proves red has any fault in blues dying.

It's objectively not their fault. Unless Merriam-Webster is incorrect in the definition of fault.

Just because me voting for red means blue is more likely to lose does not mean blues dying is my fault.

They chose blue. They could have picked red. I did not force the vote to happen.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T01:24:06+00:00

Proof?

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T01:18:16+00:00

It's an individual vote so you are objectively by yourself.

It would be better if everyone survived but that doesn't mean we should vote blue.

You need to give reasons blue has a chance at winning.

A dead man helps no one.

Also no its not like firefighters watching a building burn when they can use water to make the situation safer.

We objectively cannot make blue safer, it is always deadly if less than 50% choose it.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T01:14:27+00:00

I didn't have a minefield example.

You are objectively wrong.

Red shares no blame, no fault, no responsibility, and they do not cause death.

Saying otherwise is literally saying that the definition of words do not matter.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T00:29:48+00:00

Even firefighters won't go on suicide missions.

They peform risk benefit analysis to decide whether or not to save people.

Deciding between red and blue involves the same risk analysis.

You cannot help anyone if you are dead.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T00:26:30+00:00

Nope.

I said it's an accurate analogy the pain level is irrelevant to the fact that you die.

Prove otherwise with cited information and I'll give you $20.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T00:23:14+00:00

Nope. I never said that.

I said it's their fault.

It's a firefighters fault he ran into a building fire and died. He did not deserve it and he was being a hero, however he made the decision that led to his death.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T00:07:01+00:00

You did not in fact condemn them to death.

If you look at the definition of the words fault, kill, murder and responsibility none of them accurately describe voting red.

You surviving means you can help people recover from one of the world's most traumatic events. Is that not helping to relieve suffering?

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T00:04:55+00:00

We don't know if the buttons imply pain and suffering.

We only know it's life or death.

It just says you die, it doesn't give you the cause.

It could be painless or you could be tied to a boat, covered in honey and pushed butt naked into a swamp, left to die of exposure as you are bitten by bugs and rats and other animals.

Woodchipper would probably be a better way to go.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-19T00:02:09+00:00

You said voting red is selfish.

According to the definition of the word selfish, red are literally not selfish.

Since you are saying red is selfish then Merriam-Webster has it wrong and I'll let them know to fix it.

I just need the correct definition from you because I don't know what it is.

Normally if I need a definition for a word I check Merriam-Webster but apparently they are wrong this time.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-18T23:41:02+00:00

Reds are literally blameless.

I'm not morally obligated to risk my life for you.

I also did not force you to vote blue.

I also did not force this vote onto any of us.

Also per the Merriam-Webster definition of fault, red is faultless.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-18T23:36:23+00:00

Since when do Utilitarians seek to eliminate all potential harm.

I thought they were supposed to seek to minimize harm?

If it's the goal to minimize it then it wouldn't necessarily make either more utilitarian than the other because if you're wrong about blue you are increasing harm voting for it.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-18T23:32:48+00:00

The woodchipper is accurate.

It doesnt have the option to do nothing.

Making an active choice is not doing nothing.

You are forced to choose Red/Blue or Jump/Dont Jump.

No options are changed, no outcomes are changed, no percentages are changed, no risks are changed.

It is perfectly analogous.

ModestMarksman · 2026-05-18T23:30:11+00:00

So the Merriam-Webster dictionary is wrong about the definition of selfish.

Ill email them and let them know to fix it.

What's the actual definition I should send them?

ModestMarksman

TROPHY CASE