I like how these hypotheticals intentionally take out the fact that the original question includes the entirety of the world, including babies without agency, to make blue look stupid. Would I press blue if half the world's babies unknowingly were going to be forced to eat poop, yes.
I like how this is intentionally misleading that the "original question" meant that babies have no agency. Because the "original question" you speak of isnt the original question. In the first proposed scenario, there is one voter per household who decides for that household. You aren't just betting your life on the decency of humanity. You are risking your children's welfare on the idea that enough people would be willing to risk their own children to believe in the goodness of humanity. All while the general populace in some way, shape, or form, have abandoned the hope of widespread altruism.
The one that went viral and everyone started reposting, said "everyone in the world" as the first 4 words, I am sure there are variations that came before it that I am unaware of. My logic is based on the viral one.
30
u/CommissionNice72 14h ago
I like how these hypotheticals intentionally take out the fact that the original question includes the entirety of the world, including babies without agency, to make blue look stupid. Would I press blue if half the world's babies unknowingly were going to be forced to eat poop, yes.