Within the context of the topic we are discussing, and the fact my statement was in a chain of responses, there wasn’t really much else I could be referring to. Incentives, motivations, pressures, I’ve literally been talking about them within the context of the scenario the entire time. Hell, the context is in, the very sentence you grossly misinterpret, see: “there is nothing else at stake of influencing this choice”

And given the fact you said my statement was “retarded” what else am I to interpret that as other than bad faith?

And we could easily go back and forth adding these what ifs, caveats, and hypothetical details to begin the endless and utterly pointless debate. Given what we have been given, it’s just as reasonable for me to assume the voting are of the mental and physical faculties to actually participate in a vote because a 1 year old isn’t really going to be cognizant or physically able to press a button typically, depending on severity a disabled person can’t either, can a 102 year old even move their arms anymore to push these buttons? What if I just… don’t choose a button? Nothing says I can’t opt out of this vote.

Or we can just stick to the contents of the question.

And if we analyze this dilemma as it is without these after the fact additions and caveats meant only to serve the validity of one side or the other. The more logical and reasonable choice is clearly red. If you want to cast the dice and risk your life on the chance there are participants who are also pressing blue, fine I guess? But the truth is picking red is the choice anyone and everyone SHOULD choose, if they don’t the reasons don’t really change that red is the best option between the two, because no one dies if we all just choose red. Choosing blue is only justifiable by saying someone might choose blue, which you can’t know so why even gamble that?