
Greg Benage
7.6K posts

Greg Benage
@GregBenage
Combat Systems Analyst CTR NAVSEA. Opinions on sports, games, politics and other things I really don't know anything about.


Alright, one last post about this after having given it a lot of thought and seeing people's reasonings. I'll give my final choice at the end. Firstly, I don't think you're necessarily stupid to pick blue or necessarily immoral to pick red. I think a lot of it just comes down to what your first instinct is, "we have to save everyone" or "why would anyone pick the option where you can die?" I think most people are sticking with their first instinct and finding ways to justify it. People are wired differently. It's good that society has a mix of these instincts as both compassion and self-preservation serve a purpose in our survival as a species. There are bad people and good people on both sides, and there are dumb people and smart people on both sides. I also think framing matters a lot, particularly when it's reframed as action vs inaction. The scenarios of taking a poison pill or jumping into a blender/woodchipper make it easy to choose red because blue is more clearly taking a suicidal action. The scenario of the red party killing everyone who voted for the blue party if they win makes it easy to choose blue because red is more clearly taking a homicidal action. The rules are still effectively the same in all three scenarios, but the framing matters. The button example is so controversial because the framing is as neutral as it can be, which lets both the blue side frame red side as homicidal and the red side frame the blue side as suicidal. The best argument I've seen for blue is that the only scenario where no one dies is if more than half of people press blue because we can safely assume that a non-zero number of people will press the blue button. On top of that, if a slim majority picks red, that's basically a Thanos snap situation, and it would be far worse than what the writers of Avengers: Endgame were able to fathom, with the added bonus of a selection bias that eliminates all the people with compassion instinct and leaves us only with the people with the self-preservation instinct. For those reasons, I would hope that the majority press blue. That being said, I still ultimately come down on pressing the red button. There are some 8 billion people in the world. The chances that my choice is the deciding button press is effectively zero. If I press blue, I'm just leaving my fate up to the results. My button press is meaningless. The only way I have agency in this situation is to press the red button. Also, I know my wife is pressing blue, but I don't know what my kids will do. If one or both of my kids press blue while the majority picks red, I can't save them by pressing blue. But, if one or both of my kids press red while the majority picks red, I can guarantee that they aren't orphaned if I press red. But hey, maybe I'm just finding a way to justify my initial instinct, just like everyone else. x.com/waitbutwhy/sta…



academics when they tell me Freud is outdated & irrelevant & I ask them what they’ve read by him.















Meet the lunatic leftist who tried to assassinate the President. Cole Allen


Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?


I say again... *grotesque*. The Trumpist enshittification of America continues. This is what a formerly beautiful D.C. landmark will soon look like:


@Danish_SMF I have a question what if your wrong



@Danish_SMF If you live in the west your morality is mostly grounded in Christian values it is the basis of the magna Carta and the bill of rights


Is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals? Among Very Liberal: 🟢 25% Among Liberals: 🟢 17% Among Moderates: 🟢 9% Among Conservatives: 🟢 6% Among Very Conservative: 🟢 3% (YouGov Poll)


Category error. The "one god further" argument (henceforth, OGF) treats [the] God as though He were a species within the genus "gods", being one instance among others differing only in number or degree. This is not the conception of God, at least classically, by the [Christian]…



