Rendern5000

2.3K posts

Rendern5000

Rendern5000

@rendern5000

Inscrit le Ağustos 2018
67 Abonnements20 Abonnés
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx No, but you can most certainly help some. And if you even spend a little of time arguing with strangers over the internet instead of helping people, you are hypocritical and by your own worldview a murderer. Funny how that works out
English
0
0
0
0
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Ah yes because I, one person, can cut back enough to feed the starving masses by my lonesome. Am I a secret billionaire? I volunteer and donate where I can. If the people in charge did the same, I would not need to at all. The government would be blue in this, easier results.
English
1
0
0
21
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx If you read the actual law, you would find that it does not apply here, since you are never required to risk your own life… reading…
English
0
0
0
2
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Its funny how you say that, yet criminal law still charges failure to act (Guilty by omission can still end up with consequences). Because it is actively hurting. But you clearly just don't want to admit you'd be the bad guy, morally, and lawfully in this case.
English
1
0
0
16
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx No? Like.. words have meanings. If you just make shit up what words are supposed to mean, then one cannot hold a meaningful conversation with you. "Actively hurting" is not the same as inaction.
English
0
0
0
5
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Bystander syndrome - Same way so many people don't act when they see something terrible happen. This is a self admission to calling yourself a malicious coward btw.
English
1
0
0
24
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx You absolutely have the power, if you decided to cut back on your own non essential wants, to save a multitude of people. It is the same as with the button, but actually even easier, since you aren't even risking your own life.
English
0
0
0
2
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx In this case, we the people do not have as much power, as with the button. But if we did - Yes, absolutely, choosing not to provide for people, is killing them. If youre stranded on an island and hog the food you dont need, from others, letting them starve. YOU'RE the bad guy lol
English
1
0
0
16
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx Delusional. You can make the argument that society is not providing for everyone, without saying 'everyone, me included, is a murderer'. If you really think so though, do try to sue yourself for murder in a court of law, by arguing this.
English
1
0
0
8
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Yes, the answer is yes. Us as a society not dedicating resources is quietly literally textbook greed and hurting them actively lmfao.
English
1
0
0
27
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Both are actively hurting the chances of survival. You dont 'do nothing' by pressing red. You choose 'dont help my fellow man' which is actively hurting. Both analogies work fine lmao. Guilty by omission is still guilty bucko.
English
1
0
0
27
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx Just to really showcase the difference: Are you actively killing people in africa, by not choosing to do away with your own non-basic needs, and using that time and money to help them instead?
English
1
0
0
10
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx Not really, no. Setting fire = actively hurting. Not helping push the boat = not actively helping. There is a big difference. Again, sabotaging is something you do actively; choosing not to pick the same side is not the same as sabotaging.
English
2
0
0
14
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@J_D_Palma @esjesjesj Please educate yourself on game theory and statistics. I am saying I want to minimize the number of deaths. As in, keep the expected number of deaths as low as possible. That does not mean choosing an overall worse option because it has the potential to save more in a niche sit.
English
0
0
0
12
David Palma
David Palma@J_D_Palma·
@rendern5000 @esjesjesj Bro, there's just no realm of existence where 100% of people pick either side. So in order to prevent ANY deaths, the "safer" pick is blue. Especially when the "work" it takes to prevent death, is as easy as pressing a button. I think most people would press blue.
English
1
0
0
41
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@J_D_Palma @esjesjesj Game theory; We have N participants. M vote blue, so N-M vote red. The red votes each save themselves, saving 1 life per vote. The blue votes save M people under the condition that M>N/2. Which means 1 blue vote saves either 1 life or 0, depending on if the condition is met.
English
1
0
0
16
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@GTXTrainPower @currydtx No, the red boat may not potentially set them on fire; the fact that there are not enough people to push the boat off the island would be the way to phrase that <50% means death for the blue boat. Like.. where do you even get the "red sets fire to them" from?
English
1
0
0
35
BritannianSpirit
BritannianSpirit@GTXTrainPower·
@rendern5000 @currydtx Is this your actual take? The real question would be more akin to, the blue boat being automatic, but needs 51% of the island to help push it off. But, the red boat may potentially set them on fire, and needs 100% of the island in complete unity to achieve the same result.
English
1
0
0
48
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@Traffy23 @esjesjesj I am not arguing against working together. I am simply arguing that currently (not going to the capitalism debate) I do not think it is realistic that a blue victory is likely enough to change from red to blue.
English
0
0
0
6
Suprebno
Suprebno@Traffy23·
@rendern5000 @esjesjesj We as a society have succeeded because of collectivism. It's only in the modern era that capitalism has pushed us to be more individualistic and desensitising to others.
English
1
0
0
9
Suprebno
Suprebno@Traffy23·
@rendern5000 @esjesjesj In America oh hell nah. The amount of religious zealots I've seen on here with loving Christian choosing red when Jesus would choose blue. But the world isn't America.
English
1
0
0
12
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@Traffy23 @esjesjesj You still have not at all understood what I tried to get across to you beforehand. Maybe let's try it like this; do you really think, with all the Trump supporters in the US, you would be able to more than likely secure a majority?
English
1
0
0
8
Suprebno
Suprebno@Traffy23·
@rendern5000 @esjesjesj Yes 50% is easier than 100%. 50% is half. 100% is all. For an entire country that can be millions to a billion hitting the same button. Vs just over half hitting the other.
English
1
0
0
18
Rendern5000
Rendern5000@rendern5000·
@reachcole1999 @DavidDazeX @EckhartAurelius @esjesjesj Sure, then let's keep in mind that those are primarily from low education backgrounds and jobs, which means they are more often than not the handymen, riggers etc. which keep the economy running… Or I could just insist on "can't know, unless I have actual data".
English
1
0
0
9

Découvrir

@GTXTrainPower @currydtx @J_D_Palma @esjesjesj @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano