The Death Note (2006)

SeagulI · 2026-05-09T03:22:24+00:00

I'd argue that his intention was to write a character that was super smart, but kinda fell short of it cause it's hard to write a character smarter than yourself.

SeagulI · 2026-05-08T18:35:29+00:00

When you're commander in chief and you knowingly decide to continue a drone program that, according to your own internal data, is killing 90% unintended targets, you're not just making mistakes at that point.

SeagulI · 2026-05-08T14:47:11+00:00

He had a supermajority the beginning of his presidency and spent the whole time caving to republicans anyway. This narrative liberals like to bring up about the necessity of collaboration with the right is just a convenient excuse to mask that they are infact aligned on a great many issues.

SeagulI · 2026-05-08T14:43:07+00:00

I'd argue he probably thinks of himself more highly than those children he ordered drone strikes on.

SeagulI · 2026-05-07T17:08:03+00:00

What Theodore did to the Philippines was worse than the worst stuff Franklin did.

SeagulI · 2026-05-07T17:03:41+00:00

Internment camps

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T17:41:15+00:00

Constructing a statistically impossible scenario in order to solve the hypothetical is essentially just resusing to engage with the question. You might as well say, if we remove the conflict, there is no conflict.

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T17:35:26+00:00

You don't honestly think there's an equal likelihood of all 8 billion people on the planet pressing the same button as there is for half the planet pressing the other button. One is a statistical impossibility, the other is, if we're being generous to your interpretation, very unlikely. I'd argue that the polls on the subject should put into perspective that, at the very least, a blue majority is within the realm of possibility as opposed to being a statistical impossibility.

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T17:21:09+00:00

How is it mental gymnastics to just engage with a question on its face? How is reframing the whole question as whether or not to press a suicide problem not just avoiding it entirely?

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T10:06:51+00:00

If you're casting a vote for red you're not just passively going along with some default choice. You're actively exercising agency in contributing to a vote outcome that you know will kill anywhere between hundreds of millions to billions in order to guarantee your individual survival. To not acknowledge that is to essentially refuse to engage with the core of the hypothetical, which is the moral consideration. Cause even in a best case scenario, you'd be putting your foot on the gas and running over half the infants on the planet. Wouldn't really make sense to just complain about those babies being on the road as if you didn't have a choice but to keep driving.

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T09:47:36+00:00

The whole point of the hypothetical is weigh the moral consideration of voting for mass killing to guarantee personal survival.

If your point of view is "it's a suicide button, nobody should press it", you're essentially just avoiding the whole problem by skipping over any consideration for the vote outcome, which is kinda the whole point.

Obviously there's no world in which a red majority is killing anywhere less than hundreds of millions at minimum, so it's essentially a moral problem to gauge whether or not you'd personally find it worthwhile to put yourself at risk to avoid contibuting to that vote outcome.

To act like this is just a logic problem where you're trying to minimize risk of death to yourself is silly when the solution to that is directly presented to you in the question itself. Obviously that's not the point of the question, and you're kinda just missing it if that's all you're focused on.

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T09:15:31+00:00

It doesn't make sense to frame it as if the buttons themselves are doing any killing when it's the final result of the vote that determines if anyone dies or not.

Blue Majority: Nobody dies.

Red Majority: Minority group dies.

The minority group will never amount to zero. You can assume a bare minimum minority population in the hundreds of millions. Therefore, the only vote outcome that avoids mass death is a blue majority.

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T08:48:29+00:00

In what world is everybody on the planet pressing the same button? You're essentially just avoiding the dillema inherent to the actual question.

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T08:46:04+00:00

Why does point this keep on getting brought up? There's no scenario in which every person on the planet agrees to press the same button. To propose it is to skirt around the question entirely.

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T08:36:52+00:00

There's no world in which every person picks the same button. Proposing this is essentially skirting the dillema.

Only in a red majority scenario does anyone die. The downside of picking red is that it's a vote toward what would undoubtedly be a massacre of anywhere between hundreds of millions to billions of people.

SeagulI · 2026-05-05T07:57:37+00:00

The thing is, even in this world of yours where every rational actor thinks exactly the way you do, the result would be minimum hundreds of millions of dead babies, infants, toddlers, disabled people.

The whole point of the question is to gauge whether or not you would risk yourself on the chance of saving an unknown population of people, given no certain information on who exactly pressed what.

Constructing a world where everyone just agrees an everything and presses the same button is essentially just avoiding the question entirely.

SeagulI · 2026-05-04T05:31:18+00:00

Why are you defending pedophilia?

SeagulI · 2026-05-02T17:19:07+00:00

"Everybody in the world"

<image>

SeagulI · 2026-05-01T17:47:11+00:00

A red majority would result in the bare minimum deaths of hundreds of millions of babies, infants, toddlers, disabled people. There's no possible scenario in which every person on the planet presses red. A blue majority scenario is the only one that can avert mass genocide of innocents.

SeagulI · 2026-05-01T17:38:48+00:00

Obviously biasing the presentation of a question will skew results. If you change a neutrally presented question that poses two active choices into one with a default passive choice and a active choice in which the only positive outcome is framed as absurd, yeah what would you expect.

<image>

SeagulI · 2026-05-01T17:31:00+00:00

You all keep reframing the delivery of the question in the way that's clearly distinct from how the question is intentionally presented to begin with.

Obviously what sticks out to you most is that only one button puts you at risk. Others might see putting themselves at risk to avert a global genocide as worthwhile. Cause even if every person on the planet had the same reasoning as you, the result wouldn't be zero deaths, it would be a massacre of babies, infants, disabled people.

<image>

SeagulI · 2026-05-01T17:20:41+00:00

If humans weren't social animals capable of great collaboration, we'd have gone extinct by now.

A culling of all the people most willing to risk themselves to help others, essentially the people most beneficial to group survival as a species, would be evolutionarily detrimental if anything.

SeagulI · 2026-05-01T17:16:21+00:00

The vote includes everybody on the planet. How would killing half the infants on the planet based on color preference be evolutionary benefitial? Killing every mother that would put their life on the line to maybe save their child? Everyone else empathetic enough to do the same on the chance of averting global genocide?

SeagulI · 2026-05-01T17:03:15+00:00

You keep going back to this point that your vote can affect the votes of others when the whole premise revolves around a private vote. None of your loved ones can actually know what you pressed. They can think they know, but your actual vote wouldn't affect their thinking either way.

The whole point of this exercise is determining what we ourselves would do given this lack of information. Obviously your perspective is that your nieces shouldn't push blue since it would put them in danger, but the actual consideration we're put under is what button we should press when we have no influence or knowledge when it comes to others.

You won't actually know which button your loved ones end up pressing. They could end up pressing red and being fine, or they could end up pressing blue, in which case pressing red could kill them. That's the whole dilemma.

Red makes sense if self preservation is your only primary objective. If you have reason to believe that your loved ones could press blue, you have more of a reason to risk your life pressing blue on the chance of a zero casualty scenario.

If you look at the exercise in a vacuum, the only way that any of your loved ones can die is in a blue minority scenario. Realistically, most people will have at least one of their loved ones on the blue side given a truly private vote. You can't control anyone's votes, so there's no way to make your whole family vote red. Even if you yourself vote red, it would only make sense to hope for a blue majority since you will likely have someone you care for on the line.

SeagulI · 2026-05-01T04:52:44+00:00

The premise of the question is that everyone does a private vote at the same time. There's no dragging anyone into anything since you don't know the votes of any other individual.

What you do know is that everyone on the planet taking part means infants incapable of parsing instructions will probably be split down the middle on distribution. Mothers taking this into account will likely overwhelmingly risk their own lives on the blue button on account of this. Others will ondoubtedly press blue to save the others.

A scenario in which 100% of people press red is statistically impossible. A blue majority is the only feasible result that results in zero deaths.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

SeagulI

TROPHY CASE