There is a button.
If you press it, a random person retroactively blinks out of existence.
Do you press it?
>>767988009
No why the fuck would I do that?
>>767988061
Why wouldn't you?
>>767988009
i would build a machine to repeatedly press it until all humans in the world were dead. Yeah, I'd randomly die as well some time in the process, but fuck humanity
>>767988009
Nope.
>>767988211
They wouldn't be dead. They'd never have existed.
>>767988153
Well what if I died because some random asshole just pushed a button that could kill people? I wouldn't enjoy that and I bet the guy (or gal) I'm killing won't like it either
>>767988318
How would you know you died?
>>767988211
Good luck finding a button that lasts even a hundred million presses.
>>767988383
I wouldn't but just the thought of this happening to someone would be enough to make me not want to push the button
>>767988537
>>767988318
You can't harm someone who never existed.
>>767988009
If I can choose the person and that person is me, yes.
*spams button*
>>767988624
Is this a metaphor for abortion?
>>767988009
Oh look a button with a negative impact yet no positive one. Better hit it.
>>767988863
More like antinatalism
I wish most of them wouldn't be such sad shits and try to convert people
>>767988951
Pressing it results in a net decrease in suffering. How is that bad?
>>767988951
It's more of a neutral outcome. Is existence objectively good? No, how could it be.
>>767989006
>>767989036
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know what retroactively means? It means in the past. So you hit the button and someone from the past dies. Well so does all their future generations. So if I hit the button and your mom dies, you die. What the fuck ever Thanos keep your population control to yourself.
>>767989481
Are you saying you were dead for 13.772 billion years before you were fertilized?
>>767988009
I would give it to a retarded kid and tell him it makes kittens
>>767989481
And so because Hitlers mother ceases to exist therefore could not give birth to Hitler is a bad thing because all things that exist are good?
What if one press of the button removed someone who would have pressed the button a thousand times?
But I digress, this world would be better off without us. The best thing we could do for it would be to have never existed to begin with.
>>767989756
Put the crack pipe down. I'm saying if your ancestors die after the button gets hit, it could disrupt the chain of events that get you born so you end up never existing.
>>767990191
They don't die. They are never conceived.
>>767990159
It's random who the button kills so there is still no inherent benefit to hittin the button. Don't be a tree hugger this world is meant for us to inhabit.
>>767990262
Semantics. All I'm sayng is the button only has negative consequences because it erases a bunch of people from existence. What the fuck are you arguing with me about?
>>767988009
No. Because maybe karma
Yep definitely, I never let go a chance to kill a nigger
>>767990359
There's no benefit and no consequence. It's a completely neutral outcome as I was saying before. Existence had no inherent nature. It can be good or bad. The person who ceases to exist could be good or bad, but that doesn't really matter anyway. The world is not meant for anything. But we're killing it that's for damn sure. Okay, maybe not killing it, but ourselves. because it will continue on even after we're long gone.
>>767990473
Wouldn't it be better for your karma to spare someone the suffering that is life?
>>767988009
What the fuck do I gain?
>>767988009
If I get nothing out of it, then no
It wouldn't even be funny considering I wouldn't see the guy disappear
>>767990457
So in my question here...
>>767990159
If the person randomly chosen to cease to exist were to be someone on the level of say, Hitler. Objectively bad, right? If he were to never exist, that would be a negative outcome for you? What the fuck are YOU arguing about?
>>767990757
Are you usually this selfish?
>>767990674
If I hit the button and my mom retroactively gets erased then I just erased myself. That's a fuckin consequence. Good or bad has nothing to do with it quit trying to make it deeper than it is.
>>767990841
Yes
>>767990810
It could be argued that Hitler's existence is a net positive in the long term, especially considering his incompetence.
>>767990841
Well, he's got a point. What would be the point in pressing it other than the joy of pressing a big red button?
>>767990841
So it's not selfish to push it and potentially kill someone?
>>767990862
For billions of years you hadn't suffered the slightest inconvenience from not existing. Why would it be different now?
>>767988009
>guys, i found... a bugged online store! $0
>>767990896
Right. So, because of a possible net gain, the millions that died are necessary sacrifices, even when he could have simply not existed?
>>767990697
What if it kills someone who finally found happiness?
My life isn't that bad either
>>767990919
It's the most satisfying button ever. You'd go out of your way to press it if it did nothing because it's so good.
>>767988009
If it wasn't retroactive, than yes
LIVE AND DIE WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR CHOICES UNDERAGE b& FAGGOT
ISHYGDDT
>>767991010
Life is shit but your cognitive biases prevent you from seeing it. Without those survival mechanisms, you wouldn't exist.
>>767990862
In merely saying it's neutral because you don't matter. How is that deep? You're the one trying to bring forced morality upon the situation. I understand how once you exist you would prefer to not stop existing, but in reality whether you exist or not doesn't matter.
>>767990810
The odds of killing someone at the level of Hitler would be astronomical. It's a gamble that doesn't even make sense to take. Odds are you're gonna kill a decent person. Also, by killing the random bad guy you also kill their whole bloodline. The chain reaction from that could kill many making you the Hitler instead.
>>767991010
How can you find happiness if you never existed? Most people never find happiness anyway because they wouldn't know it if it bit them on the ass.
>>767988009
Is there any incentive to pushing the button?
>>767991150
There is no killing, nerfherder.
>>767990841
I mean I’d press it if I had to but I’d leave it. something in return would be cool
>>767991150
What is a decent person?
Odds are you prevent someone from hurting people, because most of us have done some bad stuff, intentional or not.
>>767991287
Your mere existence deprives others of finite non-renewable resources :^)
>>767991014
So, it emits pheromones to draw you in, and has microscopic spines on the button that release morphine on contact to make you addicted once you've pressed it?
>>767991145
It matters to me and that's enough. You keep saying it has no consequence. Yet you just said it has a consequence to me because I would prefer to exist. So why do you keep fucking arguing with me? You are wrong. I could give a shit whether or not the universe sheds a tear at my passing. Yet the fact remains there was a negative consequence no matter how small.
>>767991445
You would prefer to exist only because you exist. Without that existence you would have no feeling towards the matter. That is the neutrality of the situation.
>>767991209
Again, semantics. Killing/Erased from existence. Doesn't change my point.
>>767991442
No, it's just a very well built button that wouldn't be economical to mass produce.
>>767991445
>Yet the fact remains there was a negative consequence no matter how small.
The benefits would be in equal proportion. Unless of course, you've never broken a heart or a law in your entire life.
>>767991570
How would that bring me joy from pressing? I don't naturally find satisfaction from pressing buttons, be they well made or not.
Can it effect me? If it can, yes I would press it
>>767991684
Then it's not for you. Some of us really enjoy a good button.
>>767988009
So, does this count for all people who ever existed, or just the ones currently alive? You could potentially extinct the entire human race if it randomly chooses one of our ancient common ancestors.
>>767991770
Does it at least make a noise when it's pressed?
>>767991507
I guess where we're going around in circles is how we imagine this hypothetical story. You seem to see it as when the button is hit, people are erased and all of the future timeline is adjusted and corrected to accomodate that change with a cherry on top. I see it as I may dissapear and my wife is like "Where the fuck did he go?" Imagine that on a global scale with multple button pushes. Total mayhem.
>>767991611
I still see little benefit. A broken heart is a part of every day mundane life. I simply don't believe that a bloodline getting erased is proportional.
>>767991894
Yes, whatever kind of noise you want from a button, be it a *click*, *thunk*, or *weewooweewooweewoo*
>>767991894
I would press it a LOT more times if it made a satisfying "clunk-click".
>>767991975
Retroactive means no could possibly miss you.
>>767988009
Sounds like a plan
Would spam it and laugh while I am at it. Better if I die at the end.
>>767992077
I really should solenoid mod my keyboard.
>>767992080
Doesn't negate my argument. It will only have negative consequences whether it be for me or someone else. So still no benefit to hitting the button.
>>767988009
Would it be someone local at least? I'd like to make traffic A LOT lighter here.
>>767991975
>going around in circles
And I suspect in op's mind, one of us understands the premis behind the thread and the other doesn't. This is a hypothetical, and op said retroactive, as in you never existed to begin with. So yes there's a silly cherry on top. I don't believe he was proposing a Thanos style removal. Have you read stories of rapture? Your thought is basically what happens. But is that good or bad? Of course they're not erased from existence because Christian beliefs and all that, but for those on earth would be left to suffer while some portion of the population gets to go to paradise? My point is, it's not black and white, instead it's all varying shades of gray. What is good for one may not be good for others.
>>767990159
>But I digress, this world would be better off without us.
This world was created FOR us.
>>767992419
(You)
>>767992419
This world was not created for anything, much less one species that will likely end it's own existence.
>>767992514
Wrong
>>767988009
Rolling for trump or hillary
>>767992554
Prove it
Rolling for me.
>>767992672
Shit.
>>767992419
You wouldn't be able to exist if the environment wasn't accommodating to human needs. The environment wasn't created so you could come into existence, you could come into existence because the environment was accommodating enough.
>>767992419
>*telports to random place on Earth*
>*dies*
>>767992418
The word retroactive doesn't prove your version of the hypothetical is correct. All it means is someone in the past gets erased. You're choosing to tack on the stipulation that the universe accomodates that change. I'm reading it for what it is and how it would effect people in the immediate present where the button is being pushed. I actually believe in the Christian rapture. So maybe that's why I'm more inclined to imagine this in a similar nature. But again our minute impact in the universe is irrelevant. If it happens it has an effect on people. And in this hypothetical I see waaaay more bad possible consequences than good. We're never gonna agree because you are choosing to add to the OPs hypothetical.
>>767992860
What's the point in saying "retroactively" if they didn't mean that the universe is now as if they had never existed? OP could have just left off that part and said "blinks out of existence"
>>767992103
Anime has that effect on folks.
>>767992860
Okay. If it were your way, I would still consider it a neutral outcome, because no one is all good or all bad and what is considered good or bad change from person to person, place to place, time to time, etc. And what may be good for one person can (and almost always is) equally bad for another person. With that in mind, removing any random person from existence you might think that to mean all varying levels of good and bad being removed along with it. But it all cancels out in the end. You could be killed tomorrow for any number of reasons, but the people you know will move on and possibly grow stronger (or maybe just more callused) from it. And that would be no different than pressing the button. It may hurt the people close to you at first, but like I said, life moves on. Maybe your wife finds a better partner and is ultimately better off from your demise. Would that be a benefit our consequence?
>>767993103
What retroactively implies is that it could be someone in the distant past that gets erased. It's not restricted to currently living people. If he just meant hey hit the button a random person gets erased they would have said that. Retroactive means you have to go backward and that includes potentially erasing people from the past which would then effect the present.
>>767988009
We all saw the end of The Dark Knight, be careful with that edge...
>>767993449
It implies they would have never been born to begin with. Which, though it would effect the present, no one would know, because technically they've been living in that universe the whole time.
Imagine you lived in that universe, and someone made a button that did the opposite of op's button. Someone just poofs into existence(presumably the person who would have been removed with the other button), retroactively placed there as if they've existed all along
Would you press it? Since it's the opposite, does that mean the benefit/consequence is the opposite too?
>>767993432
I said there would be negative consequences. You said no it's neutral. My family mourning my loss is not neutral. Your universe balancing itself out doesn't change the fact that negative consequences were had. If I lost $20 but then walked down the street and found another $20 bill that isn't the universe balancing it out. Because if I never lost the first $20 I would now have $40. I still had a loss of $20. Despite any attempts by the universe to balance it.
>>767992771
Can a random place include the interior of the core?
>>767993877
Ö̭̘͓͔͒̈P͉̮̈́͐̊ ̡̾̂ͩ̑̽͊h̵̜ͣḛ̥̫̻ͤ͝r̫͙̹e͔͙̻̥̠ͧ͗̓̈́ͪ͗ͅ,̱̮͇̱̎͒ͮͣͫ
̭̻ͯ̄͌̐̔́̑ͅt͍͚͖̘̎̚h̫̩̻̫̤̥͙̃ͨ̃ͫ͜e̶̟͋̌̑r̪͇̬̐̈́ͧ̎ͩe͈̘ͨ̎ͦ̍͋̕ ̭̻̤̯͒́̽̀i̭͔͎̥͍͙̫͋̈̄̊̉̓ͪ͟ṣ͚̱̥̞̖ ͙̞̋̋̎̒ͣn̗͈̭̱̭̳ͩͪͣ͛̇ͅo͆̏͒̒ͣ̎̿ ̤͔̥̙̝̮́̋̓m̵̰̈̓ͪͫo̾̿u͜r̦̜̜̮̞̘n̟͙̜ͮ́i̯͈͓̣̤n͙̣̥ͦ͑͐̓̃̉̒g̖̿̄̾ͦ̋ͩ.͈̳͎͖̣̙ͨ
̺͕͔̱͚͉ͧͫ̉͡Y̪̤̻͌̄̆͊̚o̫͒̓ͨ͗̓u͇͈̫̮̭͟ ̱̤̙̠̯̍͗͠w̡̹̦͙̼̑͆ͧē̱͕͉̩̓̋̚͘r̹̞̭̮̈́̍̉́e̞͉̪̟̫̖̍̀̚ ̨̓̏̀͌͂ͣ̋n̆ͩ̉e̘̞͇̞ͧ̄͐ͭͤv̺̗̣̪̈́͠e̠͎̾͗̄ͬr̵ ͍̺̙͕̟͖̍͐ͪ̈́̋̌ͅf̴̝̫ͫ̋͋ͭ͑̄e͈̝̦͍͖ͨ̾ͩ̒͜r̤͙̥̓͞tͮ͗ͪͮ͌i͓̮̙͚ͧ̈̆̀̚l̐̃͗̉̄i̝̪͈̣̮̒ͣ̉͘z̩e̩̙̊̊̏̏d̟̥͎̯̖͂̎͒͆͝.̂̈̿̀̚
>>767993877
But you lost $20, meaning someone else could find it. And you know that other $20 you hypothetically found? Someone else had to lose it. But who gives a shit about them, you got $40. When you gain something, someone else loses. This is how the universe works.
>>767993742
Again you're adding rules to the OP that aren't there. If we can't agree on the hypothetical then we're going nowhere and there's no point to this discussion. Regarding your button in reverse thing if it's a long running bloodline then potentially thousands of people would suddenly appear on earth. That will certainly have an effect. But we can't discuss it because we can agree on the hypothetical. You think the universe would autocorrect and the people being there wouldn't be noticed. I would think BAM people are here that weren't before and it's a big fuckin deal.
>>767994131
We can't agree on the hypothetical because you think you're right and I'm wrong. I've already played devil's advocate and given my point of view if I agreed with your interpretation of the hypothetical.
I don't keep adding rules. It's been the same since the beginning.
>>767994013
>But who gives a shit about them, you got $40.
No I didn't because I still lost $20. So my wallet was impacted. I received no universal balance from the other $20 I found. I still had a loss. I still only have $20 when I could have had a potential $40. Just like my family moving on from my death doesn't mean the universe balanced. They still suffered my loss.
>>767990359
Exactly- its a stupid question without a potential benefit. It’s essentially asking- are you psychotic but dont want to be caught.
>>767988009
>>767994267
Suffering is what makes us stronger. You sidestepped a question I asked earlier though. If the people you knew ultimately had better lives (I know hard to imagine), because of your disappearance/death, is that still a negative consequence?
>>767994423
In reality, this button could already exist, and it could be any or every button for all anyone knows. The way the button would process the outcome, none of us would even know if it did anything because the person would have never existed to begin with.
>>767994561
Yes because even if something good resulted later down the line, it doesn't change the fact that something bad happened to begin with. While one led to the other they are isolated instances. One is something bad, one is something good.
Until either I or Donald Trump was dead.
>>767994787
So, no matter what happens, all negative outcomes trump anything positive gained, even if that gain is ultimately better than what was previously had. How can you justify life at all, when a majority of it is hardship and suffering? Why live at all when our past sufferings are the only thing to be focused on?
This is the stupidest thread in a longtime. OP tried to ask a clever, philosophical question but fucked it up, because there is no quandary. Would you do a bad thing? The nature of the negative is irrelevant without any pay off.
>>767994959
I didn't fuck it up. It's not an inherently bad thing.
>>767994959
As some other anon said, the gain is merely pressing this euphoric button.
>>767994959
Is preventing a mass murderer from existing a bad thing?
>>767994885
I never said it trumped anything. I simply said there are negative consequences and you chose to argue that. You're making the argument more than what it was. There are negative consequences, period. If you want to get into what good can come from bad situations that's your perogative. But when it comes to hitting the button most people aren't gonna take the chance of wiping out loved ones for the potential good it may or may not have down the line haha.
>>767995093
You say that no matter who is removed from existence, the consequence is negative? even if that person was about to kill a room full of people (I'm using your interpretation of the hypothetical now so you don't throw a fit)? Even if fat person was Hitler, commonly agreed to be one of the worst people in recent history. That would still be a negative because their possible families might miss them?
>>767995081
The probability of getting a truly evil person is essentially zero
>>767995039
OP didnt say it came with any special euphoria. But i can get onboard with anyone touch in cheer suggesting clicking buttons is amazing
>>767995030
Removing people from existence is inherently bad. Suggesting otherwise is retarded sophistry.
>>767995250
It doesn't just effect Hitler it effects all of his bloodline which who knows how far it went. You could erase good people too. Now you're Hitler. Well let's go to the other argument, if there's a mass shooting are you gonna tell families of the victims THINK OF ALL THE STRENGTH AND GOOD YOU'RE GONNA GET, TOTALLY WORTH THE DEAD KID RIGHT?
>>767995349
>The probability of getting a truly evil person is essentially zero
The probability for the opposite is the same. But that wasn't my question.
>>767995349
You did not come to my store and buy something yesterday. You harmed me :^)
>>767995459
Haha no it isn't. There's way more normal people than there is Hitlers.
>>767995427
You're just removing Hitler. Wait....
Wait. I think I understand where the issue is. You think because op said retroactively, that would remove EVERYONE of Hitler's ancestors? I'm 99% sure this is not what op meant. But also if you're worried about his descendents, you're retarded.
is there a reward or are you just killing people?
>>767995530
And normal people are perfectly and completely good? Are you naive or dense?
>>767988211
dont cut yourself on all that edge
>>767995459
Your question (assuming your OP) was- would you push abutton and remove someone. Thats a stupid question and thats my answer. If you want to ask a smarter question, you should have lead with a smarter question.
But to answer your second question, yes removing a mass murder is a good thing. But so far they aren’t connected questions.
>>767995619
The reward is possibly ceasing to exist at the end of it all.
>>767988009
Only about 10 billion times.
>>767995568
Wow. I said a thousand times that erasing someone would have a ripple effect. If someone retroactively erased your mom, you would then not exist either. Retroactively implies that someone in the past could be erased which would impact the present. I've been saying these things since the beginning how are you just now getting what I'm saying haha. Learn to read retard.
>>767995619
Not killing. Just keeping one of dad's sperm out of mum's egg. Maybe they never meet. The reward is pressing the button. It's a reeeeaallly niiice button.
>>767995672
My question was is removing a mass murderer (or even a regular murderer) from existence a bad thing? I'm not op.
>>767995631
Normal people are better than Hitler. I don't think I'm getting too extreme here haha.
>>767995521
What? This conversation is trying to be thoughtful. Maybe the Andy Sixx thread is more your speed.
Cheap shots aside, explain?
Can I buff it to remove half the universe?
>>767995817
You can remove all of it :-)
>>767995728
Yes ordinarily. But by the terms of this situation, the victim is random. So youd likely remove millions of people (them and their offspring) for each mass murder. So no.
>>767988009
>wtf happend here??!!??
>>767995707
Okay, so you're worried about his descendents and not his ancestors.
I can read just fine, you should be more concise. Again, if you're worried about his descendents, you're retarded. If you're worried about someone's future descendents (who, I shouldn't need to mention, DON'T EXIST YET).
And if we were to remove them from existence after they had already existed (because we're in your hypothetical still, where you lived a long life then someone pressed the button and sad wife, blah blah blah), how would THAT remove your descendents? You're just worried about removing people from the past so that their descendents wouldn't exist? That's when we get into op's intention for the thread. THOSE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH. What is there to be sad about? Oh right because your added rule that they existed before you pressed the button, even though IT RETROACTIVELY removes them. Your interpretation of the hypothetical makes no sense.
It's truly incredible how poorly worded OP made this question.
>>767995737
I agree. But normal people aren't Mother fucking Theresa either.
>>767988009
i would keep pressing it until i disappear
>>767995951
You're more likely to remove a rapist or a wife beater than someone who hasn't hurt a soul in their entire life.
Press press press press press
>>767988399
True engineer. Didn't even think of that.
>>767995841
Nah, I want to bring balance to the universe. :)
>>767988009
press it? re-solder that fucker and have it on an infinite loop
>>767996016
No you added the rule that the universe would compensate for whoever was erased as if it wouldn't effect anyone in the present where the button was hit. For the 10 millionth time retroactively in that sentence means that a random person THAT COULD INCLUDE SOMEONE FROM THE PAST HENCE THE WORD RETROACTIVE would cease to exist which would then have a ripple effect. Learn the meaning of the word retroactive. It simply means taking effect from some point in the past. You can't just ignore the present where the button was hit like it doesn't matter. Look all that's been proven tonight is that OP is retarded and cant word a question correctly because he doesn't understand words and thinks he's smarter than he actually is. With that I'm going to bed.
>>767996037
If you agree then you're admitting your original argument was wrong. Regular people are better than Hitler so the odds of erasing someone at the level of Hitler are slim to none. You keep trying to make additional points fucking up your original points haha.
There's so many people that say the OP question is poorly thought out. If everyone in the thread keeps saying you're a horse maybe it's time to start shopping for a saddle.
>>767996110
Only if you believe all men are rapists and/or wife beaters. If so, a tits or gtfo is in order.
>>767996942
I feel your pain. Finally something other that white boi/andy sixx/shouldnt share etc...,but its this.
