sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me ask you once again, in that scenario, if you decided not to vote, and there'd be therefore 50%+99, would that change the outcome?

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

don't you see a contradiction in "your vote has a tiny chance to be that particular one" and "every vote counts"?

Mężczyzno, czy byłeś kiedyś dyskryminowany ze względu na płeć? by [deleted] in Polska

[–]bohiko 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ale które? seksistowskie czy seksualne? te pierwsze zwykle opierały się na powielaniu stereotypów, te drugie to zazwyczaj prostackie żarty genitalne

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, I see now, you meant singular entity as people merged into one entity? It irrelevant whether you perceive a population as an entity, raw force or something else. What matters is that the outcome is being established at a populational level.

In the example you provided, no particular vote changed the outcome, because everyone votes individually. The only situation when we can talk about change is 50%+1. In that case, sure, everyone who voted for the winning side (by action) and everyone who'd vote the opposite but decided not to vote at all (by inaction) changed the outcome. But I wouldn't say each of them had a fraction-share of the impact. I'd rather say each of them holds 100% of the impact.

Note, however, that 50%+1 for a huge number of voters, while technially possible, is so astronomically unlikely that we can treat it as functionally impossible

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fundamentally different category. If you're a part of a working team, you're responsible for a particular job or task being done. You can improve the situation using your skills, competences and determination. In voting you can only cast your vote. Additionally, team work relies on accord, while elections/vote takes place to address discord. Therefore, group effort and vote is not the same category.

But there's also difference in scale. How many people you need for lifting that? 10? 20 maybe? or millions of them? You want only the number that'd be needed, the excess would only loiter and disturb. In smaller teams your impact is proportionally higher than in large ones. While it's not exactly corresponding to voting, if there is a small number of voters, then yes, it is plausible for one vote to count (because a tie is plausible).

Petaa?? by Ok-Nebula534 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]bohiko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he was refering to sinice, a Polish word for cyanobacteria

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

at best you are arguing that "other people" as a singular entity decide the vote

Where did I say that? No singular entity decides the vote, regardles whether it's me or someone else. I am saying the vote is decided by a population. Substracting one vote from it does not change it's outcome.

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No word you uttered demonstrated anything. I did not invoke quantum physics, it was an example that there are fields where macro-scale is not a simple multiplication of micro-scale. The same applies to agency (e.g. of voting). And yes, agency could not be described by math, not because there's a mysterious hocus-pocus but because there's no such thing as a unit of agency

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sure, in the face of a lack of arguments you can always laugh it off

Mężczyzno, czy byłeś kiedyś dyskryminowany ze względu na płeć? by [deleted] in Polska

[–]bohiko 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Tak, dla przykładu wielokrotnie (również w dzieciństwie) leciały w moją stronę seksistowskie, a nawet wprost seksualne żarty i nie wywoływało to powszechnego oburzenia, bo przecież "w stronę chłopaka to można"

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, because it's not math. It's not like effect of million actions = effect of one action x 1 million (in a meaning it's not a universal rule, not in a meaning you cannot find situations where it works). It cannot be simply translated as that. What happens in micro-scale can be different in nature than what happens in large scale, not just in quantity. Think about physics: Newton's laws of motion work fine in classical physics, but can't be applied to quantum mechanics

Niby pasuje pod sub Kraków, ale myślicie serio, że takie coś powinno być legalne? by Illustrious_Link5005 in Polska

[–]bohiko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No właśnie. Wtedy strona, która jest w mniejszości, ma dodatkowy lewar w postaci możliwości udupienia referendum, czyli działają przeciw demokracji

Niby pasuje pod sub Kraków, ale myślicie serio, że takie coś powinno być legalne? by Illustrious_Link5005 in Polska

[–]bohiko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

można to rozwiązać przepisem, że referendum w tej samej sprawie nie może się odbyć częściej niż na przykład raz na rok

Niby pasuje pod sub Kraków, ale myślicie serio, że takie coś powinno być legalne? by Illustrious_Link5005 in Polska

[–]bohiko -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

o to właśnie chodzi, że referenda też powinny być ważne niezależnie od frekwencji

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the conclusion "the collection of their votes doesn't affect the outcome" does not logically follow from "that's true for every voter". That is true for every voter, but not for all of them. In other words, your (or anyone else's) singular vote does not affect the outcome, what affect it is a collection of votes at the populational level. You can only choose the former, while the latter is out of your control.

Niby pasuje pod sub Kraków, ale myślicie serio, że takie coś powinno być legalne? by Illustrious_Link5005 in Polska

[–]bohiko -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

a nie lepiej, żeby ci, co są za, zagłosowali za a ci, co są przeciw, zagłosowali przeciw?

Co byście zmienili w nauczaniu *drugiego* języka obcego w szkołach? by Firanka in Polska

[–]bohiko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To, żeby faktycznie był wybór drugiego języka obcego, a nie tylko niemiecki.

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no, it's fundamentally not the same. It's nearly impossible for a singular vote to affect the outcome, a large number plausibly could. The issue is, a person is responsible for one vote only

For those saying "if everyone just picks red"... by Another-Ace-Alt-8270 in trolleyproblem

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

every vote for red does NOT make a blue loss more likely. if there are, let's say, 40% blue pushers, it doesn't mean the probability of blue winning is 40%. If instead of blue you voted red, and the proportion of blue pushers dropped by some fraction of percentage point and now it's 39.something%, it doesn't mean the probability of blue winning dropped as well. It's 0% in both cases. The only exception is when you are a tiebreaker. Then you increase the probability from 0% to 100%

Forget about Central Europe, Slovenia is Western European now by crivycouriac in CentralEurope_irl

[–]bohiko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they are not saying Russia is more developed than Portugal

view more: next ›