@bart_gostynski @5stringTex @CoolCuteJin but the difference is that there's no penalty for choosing red. everyone can just choose not to die and nobody dies
English
James
687 posts
@5stringTex @CoolCuteJin Well... Yes, only your attitude shows that instead of
"I don't want anybody to die and I am willing to risk my life for it"
you are just picking
"I am ok with actively diminishing others chances of survival, if only I stay alive" 🤷
English
I made a table for this.
If you pick red, you will always survive.
If you pick blue, you might die.
You should always pick red.
MrBeast@MrBeast
Everyone on earth takes 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? BE HONEST.
English
@KrillJuicyMusic @depression2019 @Cryptopathic ??? but why would billions of people choose to put their lives in danger for no reason? either you stay and maybe die or you just don't die. no argument here
English
@notpostingguy @depression2019 @Cryptopathic And when they see a few billion people have voted blue, who’s going to vote to kill a few billion people?
English
@err0r_732 @KrillJuicyMusic @depression2019 @Cryptopathic the original comment said 'why couldn't we just coordinate everyone to pick red?'
English
@notpostingguy @KrillJuicyMusic @depression2019 @Cryptopathic In the hypothetical its anonymous. You dont know how many people pressed each button
English
@agwirick1 @FabianLiberty @MrBeast i think you would just need everyone to have basic survival skills. i doubt babies and children are included.
everyone is on train tracks and you can either get off or stay and maybe die. there's no incentive to stay, and if you do, then you die. simple
English
@FabianLiberty @MrBeast You would need every single person in the world, including children and babies, to vote red for no one to die. You only need 50% of the word to vote blue for no one to die. Look at the bigger picture. The logical, moral, societal answer is blue. The world is bigger than just you.
English
Its insane that @MrBeast created a moral dilemma that any rational person immediately realizes isn't a dilemma at all, but socialists with suicidal empathy outnumber us and kill half the planet. It's actually genius. Anyone who presses the Blue button is a threat to society.
notsoErudite@notsoErudite
Since everyone was very curious my answer, my answer is obviously blue. Gotta save the naive, the kids, the blue lovers, and the principally hope-pilled people. You red button pickers need therapy.
English
@RJflashbombaa69 @HazelAppleyard you can either pick to risk your life for nothing, or just walk away. if people pick the former option, it's not the rest of the world's duty to risk their own lives to save them
English
@HazelAppleyard It’s a moral problem. Some people will press blue. So if others choose red while some pick blue, you’re basically allowing deaths. Choosing blue makes sympathetic sense.
English
@KrillJuicyMusic @depression2019 @Cryptopathic but who is going to see everyone voting red, and decide to vote blue anyway?
natural selection
English
We need a new Adolf Hitler immediately
Basil the Great@BasilTheGreat
An advert in Germany promoting contraception teaches young white couples to have THREESOMES with MIGRANTS No I'm not making this up The ad has now gone VIRAL for all the wrong reasons with many saying it promotes outright degeneracy
English
@Swifts2299 @consciousphilos the us + uk + the ussr.
he also took weimar germany and saved it, economically and militarily, conquering most of mainland europe, something which basically nobody else could do
not to say his economy was perfect, however.
English
@consciousphilos But he lost. How can he be a great leader if he lost in such a dramatic way
English
@droidfromSW @LifeNewsHQ @MJ040510 nothing means the absence of something. but even to you, and your, potentially retarded, brain, you may be aware that that's simply not possible. if you said that it's simply 'cells', at least that would have meaning, but your argument is just 'say meaningless things'.
English
English
95.9% of abortions are just killing babies as birth control.
Just .4% are for cases of rape.
English
English
English
@LifeNewsHQ @MJ040510 Babies are born alive.
Abortions remove unwanted cells
English
@reddit_lies The "/s" is very important in a conversation like this.
English
🚨NEW: A village pub in southern England has won a local planning battle to keep a large St. George’s Cross painted across its façade
English
@Mimihake @SirJBritain @RupertLowe10 not true. generally it's accurate, but like anything, not perfect
English
@SirJBritain @RupertLowe10 I don’t wanna be that guy but the company conducting this survey is notorious for being inaccurate
English
Huge news - Restore Britain has just hit a record 9% in a national poll.
9%. That is massive.
Restore Britain is the fastest growing political party in British political history.
I am more and more confident that we will win the next general election.
English
@boulderdoomertw @Laird_Ernst @ManMilk2 yeah, we literally just bury the nuclear waste and leave it. problem solved
English
@Laird_Ernst @ManMilk2 Nuclear waste? It's just sitting there
Radiation? Lead exists
Genetic mutation? What, you mean cancer? Did I already said lead?
English
@Gavin7633060633 @the_amnes1ac @Deplorable94 i looked it up, and apparently its something like an average of a bunch of other statistics? so not sure how accurate it is.
not to say it's wrong, however...
English
@the_amnes1ac @Deplorable94 i can’t find it, i can find similar pages but they aren’t the exact same numbers
English
@KurohimeFox @DelusionPosting in comparison, the £1 million:
say you spend the same ≈£40k annually. if you invest the remainder at 5% a year, that's end of year balance = (start balance × 1.05) - 40,000. in 10 years you'd have £1,125,800. you were spending £40k a year and still had more than you started with
English
@KurohimeFox @DelusionPosting the joseph rowntree foundation says the minimum for a person to survive is ~£30,500/year. but that's a minimum, and you'd spend more than that, so the £1k a week is barely scraping it.
therefore, you wouldn't have anything to invest.
English
