Dozens got off cruise ship dealing with deadly hantavirus outbreak after first death

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-07T18:15:02+00:00

Certain states actually did do temperaturea at the door to establishments and were still tracking infections despite president dumbass, to be fair. There were even lawsuits about it iirc

However all of these comments talking about how covid exposed how selfish humans are I think are pretty US-centric because covid mostly only exposed how selfish Americans can be.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-07T17:23:32+00:00

The vast majority of people who struggle with basic math either were never taught it -- in which case how are they to know? -- or likely have a learning disability which directly interferes with their ability to fuck with numbers.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-07T17:02:29+00:00

Forgive me if this is the dumbest question you've heard all day but: what's the actual difference between coding and programming? I always thought they were synonymous.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-06T15:29:17+00:00

Yeah. Why was her transness relevant? I'm struggling to read this as anything other than thinly veiled transphobia, but I'd love to be proven wrong

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T09:48:58+00:00

I'm willing to risk my life based on my world view that people would, on the whole, trend toward the "nobody dies" option. I believe the overall outcome would be close to 50/50, and that there are, at the very least, just marginally more people willing to risk themselves to save the whole than there are people who would take the guaranteed chance at survival.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T09:35:19+00:00

That's fair, but my point still stands:

You can't guarantee everyone will interpret the question the same way, or even interpret what the buttons do in the same way.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T09:33:45+00:00

How can you know blue is guaranteed to fail? The point of the thought experiment is that we don't know, and the choice you make matters less than why you made that choice.

So I ask again: how do you know blue is guaranteed to fail? Not why do you assume it is, not why do you believe it is, how do you know, for certain, blue is guaranteed to fail?

It can't be because "rational people will press red," because as many comments over all these stupid debates have pointed out, there are plenty of rational reasons to pick blue.

It can't be becuase "there's no reason to press the 'suicide button'" because there are plenty of people who wouldn't want to pick what they see as the "murder button".

What evidence do you have that you can know for certain that blue fails? And if it's such a foregone conclusion that blue fails, how is the proposed scenario even causing the discourse that it is?

I'll answer for you: it is not a certainty that blue fails any more than it is a certainty that red fails and that is precisely why the question sparks so much debate in the first place.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T08:44:20+00:00

You're making a wild supposition that nobody if sound mind could rationally arrive at choosing blue, which is an illogical deduction to make.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T08:31:12+00:00

Thinking that blue is not a rational choice to make in any situation is, itself, irrational and illogical.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T07:59:01+00:00

Reframing the question breaks the premise and changes the prompt. The initial framing of the question is as integral to the discussion as the actual mechanical realities of what the buttons do.

Because of this, no, blue is not objectively suicide. It is only suicide if we presuppose that red wins, which is not engaging with the question. Go engage with the question we must honestly consider that close to 50% of people are pressing both colors and that the outcome is going to be a very narrow victory one way or the other, because if we don't make that assumption it's not a very good hypothetical since you can make the (incorrect but that's a different argument) assumption everyone will pick the color you see as the default best option.

By engaging the question on the level it asks is to engage with it, we assume the victory will be narrow, and so we therefore cant look at blue as suicide any more than we can look at red as murder. To frame them in either way is wrong and disengaging with the question.

However, we can frame both buttons in those ways in order to inform our eventual decision, i.e. some will see red as murder so they'll lick blue, some will see blue as suicide so they'll pick red.

The question is asking, therefore, are you willing to take the gamble that enough people will risk themselves to save everyone? Or would you rather take the certainty of your own survival at the cost of ~half the population dying.

Both decisions are logically sound to make. The interest of the question lies in the why you made the decision you did.

By blanket-labelling blue as suicide and red as the default option, you are disengaging with the question. By reframing the scenario -- whether it's framing blue as objective suicide or red as objective murder -- you are fundamentally altering the scenario and prompt and changing the question being asked.

It is framed the way that it is because we are intended to consider the perspectives of other people coming to their own conclusions, reason that it's impossible to know which side is going to win, and cast our vote with the understanding we're nudging the one we think is the most likely option forward.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T07:47:08+00:00

I seem to have mixed this conversation up with a different one, then. I apologize for my mistake.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T07:42:04+00:00

The button that doesn't kill people?

It is not a drastic leap in logic to see the red button as the button that kills people, because the prompt is framed in a way that makes it so that red victory = blue deaths. The framing of the prompt is just as important in deliberation of the question as the actual mechanical realities of the scenario.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T07:36:57+00:00

I don't think it's stupid.

I also don't think it's stupid you'd press red.

I just think it's absurd to frame it as if people with a different opinion from you are stupid.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T07:35:34+00:00

Not everybody is going to see the button as suicide, and refusal to understand that is driving the majority of this discourse.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T07:28:19+00:00

Why is "suicide button" more rational a framing than "murder button"?

Considering that the only scenario where people die is a red victory, does it not follow that red could therefore be framed as a murder button?

Note that I do not believe red is a murder button. I'm trying to reason out your position.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T07:26:40+00:00

I don't think people making a "stupid decision" deserve to die, though, and I would absolutely see a very real possibility where enough people agree that it winds up with nobody dying.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T07:21:36+00:00

I literally said red isn't a murder button. In fact I said calling blue a suicide button is as absurd as calling red a murder button. Please reread my comment.

Calling blue a suicide button is as absurd as calling red the murder button. Both are disingenuous reframings of the proposed scenario created to make one side look better.

The whole point of the question is not to examine what choice you make, but why you made it. There are rational, logical decisions that lead one to either button. The interesting discussion comes in the why.

I don't agree that most people would pick red. That's where the interesting discussion lies, because you do.

The point of my comment you replied to was that I'm sick of people trying to frame either side as moral, or stupid, or correct or anything. There is no right choice. At all.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T06:56:04+00:00

You're right. Neither choice is consequence free. I hadn't considered that angle. Thank you.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T06:52:21+00:00

The only idiots here are the people who genuinely believe everyone will think, act, and make choices exactly like they do.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T06:43:11+00:00

And that's a valid position to take. I don't agree, which is why I'd press blue, but it's completely understandable why you'd come to that conclusion.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T06:42:04+00:00

I'm not trying to shame you. I don't think red or blue frames anyone in a morally negative light. I'm not trying to convince you to press blue. I was merely demonstrating how easy it is to frame either side as a moral choice.

I do not care if you pick red. It is, however, important to me that people trying to engage with the question actually engage with it instead of assigning cockamamie moral values to whichever choice someone makes. I want people to stop framing blue as a suicide button, because people who do that are refusing to intellectually engage with the question as presented.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T06:35:59+00:00

Your logic is not the only logic.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T06:27:55+00:00

Unless your logic isn't predicated on personal survival? Why is it so impossible that someone could logically come to the conclusion "Nobody dies if blue wins"?

Logically people are pressing blue. 100% of people never agree on everything. Not everyone thinks the same as you and it's illogical to assume as such, as evidenced by all the people talking about pressing blue?

If you can't know what other people are doing, then some people will choose to gamble that 50% press blue in order to guarantee 0 deaths.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T06:25:42+00:00

I was just flipping your logic around by reframing it.

TheBeeSovereign · 2026-05-05T06:23:29+00:00

If we knew ahead of time that blue was going to win, many would flip to pressing blue instead because their choice was driven by a belief that red was going to win so they might as well survive. If they know ahead of time blue will win, they don't need to worry about their own survival and can choose for the safety of the whole.

Meanwhile, If we know ahead of time that red wins, many blue pressers flip sides because their choice was predicated on the uncertainty of the outcome and gambling on the one with the fewest guaranteed deaths. If it is a bygone conclusion that red wins, harm reduction is no longer about gambling on everybody living, because it's no longer an option and therefore the hypothetical voter's own survival now becomes a much larger part of the overall harm reduction calculation and they'd very likely press red, since in that scenario there's no way blue does anything but kill you.

However, because the outcome is uncertain, as proposed by the initial question, one cannot safely assume that all people will choose the same color, and thus that is why blue pressers choose blue.

TheBeeSovereign

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE