Sociopath Community

Due to Dragonback's hesitation, the choo choo train moves on, and Dragonback loses their chance to pull the lever.... 

In tears, Dragoonack watches as 1024 people are now tied to the track.

Luna is next: https://pickerwheel.com/result/?id=jfNKR5

Luna, do you want to pull the lever or not?

It's literally just the next day. No I wouldn't pull the lever so I guess the result is the same anyways.

It could be argued that the psychological harm imprinted in the minds of those cursed to pull the lever outweigh the outsourcing of killing to other participants. But putting the same burden on everyone? Also who are those tied to the tracks? There is an inherent human incentive to help those one deems close vs people one deems strangers or even enemies. How fast is the train moving? Would it be a slow or swift death? If one person pulls the lever does the game start over? How many levers are there? How many people are there to pull the lever anyway?

If the death toll is n^2 as n approaches infinity with infinite respawing levers, the most physical and psychological harm results from any one of the actors making the decision to pull the levers at any point, and also refraining to pull results in the exact same amount of harm. To have a lever is to kill and die but if there are infinite levers the death continues at the same rate regardless.

Pull it or don't. It doesn't matter.

However if the population increases at a rate faster than the rate the levers respawn, the logical choice is to pull the lever when it comes your turn to reduce suffering, because there is a chance some may never be subjected to the callous games of wretched annihilation.

Cessation of procreation means no more hands cursed to grasp these forsaken levers and no more mangled bodies lying on the tracks.

If the rate the population decreases through antinatalist measures surpasses the rate people die to trains in games, ultimately a trade-off for less suffering results.

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you're fine with x2-ing the death count? 

 Of course not. I'm literally the only one here trying to save every last person. 

By doubling the death count for once someone, like myself, inevitably chooses to save lives by purging the current total. 

You are so busy only thinking of yourself that you aren't even imagining how those after you would choose, instead content with judging humanity over the choice you knowingly amplified. 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you're fine with x2-ing the death count? 

 Of course not. I'm literally the only one here trying to save every last person. 

By doubling the death count for once someone, like myself, inevitably chooses to save lives by purging the current total. 

You are so busy only thinking of yourself that you aren't even imagining how those after you would choose, instead content with judging humanity over the choice you knowingly amplified. 

On the contrary, I think of myself, too.  

In the grand scheme there are many like you. Out of 33 people you're very rare. Most people wouldn't pull the lever. And of course rules would have to be in place to better determine that. 

My model for the hundredth time is based on the game ending at 33 people and rules for winning are clear.  

"If I've told you once, I've told you thirty-tree times: DO NOT EXAGGERATE!"

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

 Of course not. I'm literally the only one here trying to save every last person. 

By doubling the death count for once someone, like myself, inevitably chooses to save lives by purging the current total. 

You are so busy only thinking of yourself that you aren't even imagining how those after you would choose, instead content with judging humanity over the choice you knowingly amplified. 

On the contrary, I think of myself, too.  

In the grand scheme there are many like you. Out of 33 people you're very rare. Most people wouldn't pull the lever. And of course rules would have to be in place to better determine that. 

Lets assume your premise for a minute... that's actually worse. 

If more people'd pull the lever, there'd be less lives on the line overall for once one of them (like myself) inevitably does. 

My model for the hundredth time is based on the game ending at 33 people and rules for winning are clear.  

Your model isn't the OP, it's faith-driven presumption where once it's not the case you'd give up anyway. 

I think the true metric of your choice is that you don't want the responsibility of having done it. 

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

By doubling the death count for once someone, like myself, inevitably chooses to save lives by purging the current total. 

You are so busy only thinking of yourself that you aren't even imagining how those after you would choose, instead content with judging humanity over the choice you knowingly amplified. 

On the contrary, I think of myself, too.  

In the grand scheme there are many like you. Out of 33 people you're very rare. Most people wouldn't pull the lever. And of course rules would have to be in place to better determine that. 

Lets assume your premise for a minute... that's actually worse. 

Where there's a way so everyone survives ? Not in my opinion.

If more people'd pull the lever, there'd be less lives on the line overall for once one of them (like myself) inevitably does. 

They would pull the lever without any incentive. My model, which we are assuming for a change incentivises people to pass and reach a goal of 100% survivability and piece of mind. 

My model for the hundredth time is based on the game ending at 33 people and rules for winning are clear.  

Your model isn't the OP, it's faith-driven presumption where once it's not the case you'd give up anyway. 

I think the true metric of your choice is that you don't want the responsibility of having done it. 

 So is yours to be honest. You already assumed the game wouldn't end when it's broken. Plus we're presuming my model at the moment.  

I do have faith in God. I kinda do for humanity too. Most human beings are good people. If they see a way to end something like this without incident, a vast majority would pass.

I also know death isn't the end and I don't fear it. Only pain.  

What we think and say and do becomes us when we're no longer here as we are in this life. Going forward in fear and insecurity is a bad idea in that regard. It's an unproductive and limited state of being

I also think most worlds would kill the first person, unless the species is more properly developed and benevolent in ways that the universe opens up to them. While other worlds make their kills, the one who scores a perfect stands out as being greater. 

So you really think in your perfect world that nobody would choose to purge the total count? 

This place needs more people who are able to pay attention and digest information correctly.

Question after question, and moving backward and circling, just to get a shot. Such practices are why some people don't have a life.