Dude, cancer is a series of cascading genetic & molecular receptor glitches, each with unique symptoms & causes, that makes each version its own disease. To cure it, you may as well say; let's cure virus, or " let's cure bacteria". Heck, you can even just say " let's cure coughing". Now, in order to " cure" such a thing, there are only 2 paths; 1. An adjustable modified bacteria, with, a destructible reproductive genome, that ends far more quickly, then other forms of mutation. Or 2. Programmable nanobots, which, work on capacitance variety in cancer cells, depending on the ambient fluid serum conditions, of the organ they are in. I could have a team of backyard geneticists with crysper kits reverse engineering his research in a week if it's the former. Or I could pretty much commission Markiplier & a handful of microchip enthusiasts for the later, only requiring the equipment he used to processing the micro scale robots, in order to make more, both of the equipment, and, of the cure. Only needing to read the Wikipedia articles on cancer , is enough to understand how ludicrous this argument is. Granted; if you want to put him on the registry and in one of those house arrest millionaire mansions for his sentence, go right ahead. But, pretending it's completely impossible to reverse engineer the cure, goes countermand to the idea there even IS a cure, as, peer review is an essential part, of the scientific process. .... : /
jo jones no, dramatic improv is an acting practice that provides either an ethical/moral dilemma to play out scene by scene, with the “main” actor being the one who makes the decision in the end. Many doctors, policemen, and other occupations have their students go through dramatic improv situations (staged hostage situations, ethical dilemmas that they may encounter, etc.) This topic seemed like something one would see in a dramatic improv situation: let kids die of cancer, or cure cancer and let some kids suffer horrible trauma. There is no correct choice, but as the scene goes on, new info is revealed (the presenters son having cancer, the pedophile being the only one with the cure, etc) that may sway the “main” actors choice. It’s a fascinating thing to watch and participate in.
@@torlakkarstad4251 @@torlakkarstad4251 I'm not referring to general research, but when the methods they used to get that research were inhumane. For instance they did a lot of work on how to properly warm up a hypothermia, by throwing jews naked into the freezing snow, waiting for hypothermia to set in, and then subject them to often fatal testing. Or using jews as test dummies for weapons. Or just all the atrocities Joseph Mengele commited So while it is a bit different than this bc in this sketch the dr is the only one who understands the research and those acts have nothing to directly do with the research, it's still the same argument of do we ignore the horrors that took place to get this research, or give it up as an act of moral integrity?
@@Crazelord91 The origins of that research is very cruel and inhumane, but if the research can be used for the good of humankind, why not use it? Not using it will not change history and reverse the harm done to these people. And using it doesn't mean we endorse the methods by which this research came to be, a statement that the researchers do not endorse the hateful crimes against humanity committed to acquire that knowledge should be put though, just out of respect.
@@MohamedElGoharyy That's one side of the argument and I'm pretty sure was the accepted action at the time. But you also have to keep in mind it can encourage others that their research will be used and remembered even if they resort to inhumane means.
Just because lesser men in the past made grave mistakes, that shouldn't mean we should use those mistakes to justify paedophilia. If anything, mentioning those mistakes is an argument for locking Dr. Devine up, because it reminds us of how we might be led to tolerate child molesters. What are your thoughts?
Plus, there's precident; America exhonerated many Nazi scientists who were doing... Nazi things... as well as Unit 731 (and other similar projects) from the Japanese millitary - for those that don't know it, typical experiments included (warning, it's about to get grim): Stripping people naked and putting them in arctic conditions then performing un-anaesthetised vivisections (a common occurence to study the body's responce to conditions until the patient's demise). Infecting them with modified strains of diseases (e.g. super-syphilis) for the purpose of creating biological weapons (again, un-anasethetised vivisections) - interestingly enough, one of the few incidents where gang-rape of a test subject was punished came from this; as several soldiers raped a pregnant woman to death not knowing she had a modified strain of syphilis - the fact that they themselves contracted it was what earned them punishment (not the hideous crime). Again, let me remind you; completely exhonerated in exchange for data. Weapons testing - e.g. at what range is a grenade fatal, doing damage tests with flamethrowers, bayonets, various knives, guns and of course, chemical weapons. Removing limbs/organs and re-attaching them on other parts of the body. Oh, by the way, did I mention that children were subjected to all the abuse and experiments? Releasing thousands of flees infected with the Bubonic plague onto Chinese cities to study the spread of disease in an urban setting. Also poisoning the water supplies of cities with a variety of diseases. Plus, I think wikipedia says this part best: 'In other tests, subjects were deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death; placed into low-pressure chambers until their eyes popped from the sockets; experimented upon to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival; electrocuted; placed into centrifuges and spun until death; injected with animal blood; exposed to lethal doses of x-rays; subjected to various chemical weapons inside gas chambers; injected with sea water; and burned or buried alive.[44][45] Some of the tests have been described as "psychopathically sadistic, with no conceivable military application". For example, one experiment documented the time it took for three-day-old babies to freeze to death.' All in all, around half a million people died to these tests, while all but the 12 perpetrators hunted down by the Soviets continued having high-status careers (with 3 of Japan's prime ministers being suspected members) all in exchange for an estimated 5% of their data. So compared to curing cancer via a single pedophile... Eh.
@@maple2524 I mean, on a purely "Number of people helped" scale, curing 11,000 children a year is probably more effective than stopping however many crimes he commits.
@@blacklightredlight2945 That’s a utilitarian perspective on ethics. Effectively speaking, you’re right. You could compose a felicific calculus and come to the conclusion that the hapiness created by letting a paedophile abuse children on the condition that he saves people’s lives outweighs the sorrow felt by his victims. However, I don’t believe the ends always justify the means, and I believe first and foremost in justice. Emperor Ferdinand I of the Holy Roman Empire once said: “Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus”. I believe justice should be done, even if the whole world were to perish, because that’s generally a good principle to guide society. If we let paedophiles get away with sexual abuse just because there is some arbitrary goal that we can’t achieve without them, that means any crime could be justified, so any ground we cede to paedophiles and criminals bring us closer to societal collapse and anarchy. Look up utilitarian ethics and Bentham if you want to learn more.
@@maple2524 This is a rather extraordinary hypothetical situation. Maybe if the contributions of Devine were minimal, then sure. However allowing him to stay out provides such an unimaginable benefit that it cannot be put into human comprehension; the amount of suffering saved compared to the amount caused from a pedo curing cancer is not something we are really made to think about. Really? You would rather the world to end than cure cancer because 20-30 children were molested? By no means is their fictitious abuse irrelevant, but it is quite ridiculous. And besides, once the cure and the science have been distributed enough, there would be no more need to keep that doctor out of trouble and he may be locked up. You can't make an unquestionable decision that the lives of millions are worth less than the justice of a couple dozen, as justice itself is intangible, subjective, and purely a man-made idea. Lives? Those are tangible and meaningful in themselves. If you would really rather a man get locked up than have millions cured, it shows a lack of pragmatism, empathy, and overall an overly stoic, self-righteous approach to these kinds of thought experiments.
This entire bit was hilarious but I feel like she kind of rushed the delivery on this specific line. Didn't seem like the audience got it, and I probably wouldn't have if not for this comment
@@brandongore711 I think that was the point. Comedy is a puzzle, and that was the last piece in the jigsaw. Had she not "thrown it away," it would have been too intentional and a bit on the nose. Because she did that, she successfully closed the curtain to the performance herself with her last line, "it was unanimous." It was a sigh of relief after a rather tense subject that you don't know if you can laugh at, even though knowing it was skit. I think it was brilliant
@@minaolenella869 the police suspected him and found some evidence and there were witnesses of his behavior but everything was thrown out because several witnesses lied on his behalf including some of his victims.
"Oh, what a moral dilemma! Woody Allen, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, is an awful disgusting creep! Should we keep supporting his art or not?!" "Dude he has like 3 good movies at most wtf are you talking about"
The subtitles though “Audience loses their minds” “Audience loses their mind part two” “Some guy screams like a bird” “Audience laughs. Someone might be dying”
Honestly, its kind of admirable how she took this really sensitive, serious subject, and was able to make this stand up act without being incredibly offensive
Reminded me of 'They played it over this harrowing footage of some starving Ethiopians' and one person in the audience laughed, in that Peter Kay stand up
@@TheBlashMusic Art is inherently subjective, and to some people the artist is an integral part of whatever they create. I could easily say the same thing about people who choose to separate an artist from their art.
Art is one thing, but isn't science deliberately as objective a field as possible...? Like, this stuff would still be true no matter who came up with it.
@Quest Tzecai At least they live, and if society didn't condition them to feel like shit they could more easily live normal lives. And besides, child molestation is the least of children's problems. Of all the mentally damaged children, only 8% were sexually abused, the rest is shitty parents being shitty parents. School shooters weren't victims of sexual abuse.
We currently have somewhat of the same situation in medicine. Several diseases were first described and named by Nazis after themselves. Recently those diseases and structures have been renamed because of their dark history
This is a great example of a false dichotomy. It makes it seem as though the only options are to allow the molestation to continue, or allow cancer to continue. The way I see it, the best choice is to keep Dr Devine under supervision. The whole time you have other researchers working with him. Once other people understand the process, and can duplicate his results, you take him to the police.
Then they just wont work with others or share their research. May offer to cure 1 person a month in a private surgery but never releases their research so they cant be double crossed and taken advantage of. It’s less advantageous for both them and society, but necessary in order to prevent being captured.
@@vla1ne again, the fact that even to a basic person it seems like he’ll be screwed over and end in his death or torture, he thus will think the same and thus never release his research until it is beyond doubt he can be safe, if ever.
@@seraphendipity Not really. My solution is that the law leaves him alone so long as he releases the research. What _others_ do doesn't really change anything, as they ought to know that regardless of what they do with that deal, individuals would still do what they're gonna do.
@@vla1ne the researcher isnt just thinking about a vaccuum of he and the law. If a simple 10 seconds of thinking about it reveals “hey, he’s likely gonna be killed by the crowd and law wont protect him”, you dont think he, who his entire life is at stake, isnt gonna consider that possibility as well?
The main problem I see here is that this whole concept was designed to make a parallel with the cases of Roman Polansky and Woody Allen and the controversy of those who believe that their works should not be praised if not outright banned. However in those cases their works are already released and could still be screened and watched while their respective authors were hypothetically behind bars. If it was a proper comparison the cure for cancer would be already known and people could mass produce it, then the question would be: "should we keep using the cure of cancer or should we ban it since it was made by a pedophile?" And the answer, I think, would be pretty obvious, and there it would show that you can in fact still allow yourself to benefit from something a person did even if they are criminals.
I would report him. Then get a lawyer to make a case for house arrest under the condition that he continues to work on the cure. If he wants full immunity then the C.I.A. should threaten him with the opinion of take the deal or life in a black site working on the cure.
BITCHES BE LIKE I- I- YOU- WOW I- BITCH WHAT? SPEAK. SPIT IT THE FUCK OUT. WHAT DO YOU WANNA SAY? I'M LISTENING. WE'RE ALL WAITING, AND YOU'RE DOING NOTHING. THIS IS NONSENSE, YOU CAN'T EVEN USE WORDS ANYMORE. GO THE HELL OUTSIDE FOR ONCE DAMN, GODDAMN, GET A JOB OR SOMETHING.
Humor is a safe way to explore real life difficult dilemmas without actually realizing them into reality and it gives us perspectives on hard issue ... (I commenting on the thumbs down this routine got)
This made me think about the fact that a lot of medical and scientific advances have been made by human experimentation that would probably make our stomachs turn (for example, the vaccine for hepatitis was developed by deliberately infecting children with the virus to better study it). Was this morally right? No, but we're still enjoying the fruits of it. Similarly, a lot of beautiful or useful things such as buildings and railroads were build by slaves. A lot of our technology and fast fashion is still made on the backs of child labourers, and most of us turn a blind eye to it because it's convenient and because "out of sight, out of mind". Even in western societies, corporations innovate and make billions on the backs of overworked and underpaid employees. It's an interesting moral dilemma to ponder whether our advances as a species were/are really worth their true cost. And this is without even touching the whole "separate the art from the artist" thing, where we justify evil that's unrelated to the gain, because that makes it about 1000 times murkier.
It's more complicated than that still. Because the question of whether it's okay to allow a bad thing if it leads to a good thing, is actually relatively simple; however the real question is the hypothetical situations that come from it. Could the same achievement be made without those costs? For example, with child sweatshops, it's perfectly possible to still make T Shirts without employing children in terrible conditions, however you may have to pay slightly more for it. Maybe the Hepatitis vaccine would have been found without the need for those children to be experimented on. We like to tell ourselves that the bad way is the only way, but it rarely is.
Patrick Ellis things could probably be achieved with less unnecessary harm, but how many people are willing (or can afford the money and time to do the research) to pay the extra price for ethically sourced goods? how many companies are willing to make less profit in order to compensate their workers fairly? even on a small scale, how many of us recycle or ask about the source of our food? in order for it to work, the whole system and mentality would need to change, and I don't see that easily happening. and I would also argue that even the seemingly simple conundrum of allowing a small bad thing to happen if it leads to a greater good one, is only simple on paper, when you coldly do the math. but in reality, poised with the question of "should 20 kids die in order for millions to live", would that be an easy answer? maybe, but definitely not if you're the parent of one of the 20. or "would you kill one person to save a thousand?" is that an easy choice? what if the one person is your child or spouse, and the other thousand are strangers? I find that playing God is never simple or straightforward.
No these are things that were accomplished the wrong way for example haveing USA built by slaves ... it could have been built by free men these weren’t necessary evil they were just evil evil
@@addangel Just wanted to start by saying isn't amazing how a comedy routine can lead us to discussing such a moral quandary? XD Let's appreciate that first and foremost. Additionally, just wanted to say that I agree with your idea. It's incredibly complicated, and saying "oh yeah, it's an easy choice" really changes when, for example, someone close to you has their life on the line. Even things which seem like obvious evil may be more complicated than we give them credit for. Also, to anyone reading this post, I most likely don't know you, but I want to wish you a great day, personal opinions notwithstanding😁
@@reemalzubaidy9434 You might be interested to read the book Settlers, whilst it's certainly controversial, it does detail how slavery and genocide were necessary parts of building White America.
@@the1exnay What cure do you know is accepted&practiced by only one doctor in the entire medical field. The skit itself is a plot hole and I will not stand for it
Her facial expressions and voice completely made this piece. If you only listened to this, go back and watch it. Incredible. Also the Minions gag completely broke me 😂😂😂
This is just a deviation from the Trolley Problem. Do you actively harm a few to save many? At what point is this an acceptable ratio of harm to benefit?
@Oscar Gillette No, because if it was you, the random passerby, you wouldn't want that to happen! So to guarenty your safety and the one of other, you should choose to not do that and hope that organs get available before it's too late
Quest Tzecai In the dilema there simply isn’t time to wait for someone to die. You need those organs NOW and the only possible donor is the very ill guy.
@Quest Tzecai This only works if we assume that all five patients are able to wait for a donor. The point of the surgery trolley problem is that the decision has to be made quickly, just like the vanilla trolley problem.
Something really similar happened at my school. One of my best friends was choking and a teacher gave him the heimlich. Probably saved his life. About a month later, we found out that said teacher was a pedophile who had abused students. He's in prison now. It makes me sick just thinking about it
We had one of those teachers who was sleeping with students and openly creeping on them, but he was the only one to notice my depression and pushed enough to make sure I got help. So I have extremely mixed feelings on him… People are people, even people who do heinous things.
In a world with millions of pedos, another one won't make a difference. But in a world without a cure for cancer, one would make a world of difference! I mean this dilemma is a no brainer...
Cameron McCall, this is one of the most brilliant (if not THE most brilliant) pieces of comedic art I've ever seen - and I'm 56 years old, so I've seen quite a lot of comedy! You've taken an horrific dilemma and made it hilarious without making it offensive or idiotic. Brava!
As any philosophical dilemma it takes an extreme scenario, but you can relate it to every case in real life. How many arguable researches have been done, and we can benefit of them today? The so discussed experimentation over animal is not moral, but sometimes we need it. Don't stop at the example, use it and think how much this is an actual dilemma.
Most of the time, sure. But not every case. Penicillin was reportedly discovered when one lab scientist left his sandwich out over night and found the mold that would lead to him to examine the results that lead to the medicine.
I guess he's the main guy and he would be the only one who knows how this really works and it was tested by others, and others worked with him but it is hard to explain and replicate something u don't completely understand how it really works
Still one of the best piece of comedy i've ever seen, cause it lays so much on your psycholgical reaction that basically it works EVERY SINGLE TIME. I saw it at least 20 times since the upload and i shriek evertime
This was pretty funny. Honestly though, the best solution would be a bit of both sides? Get him arrested and put in a special jail where he can continue his research under guard. If he finishes the cure and releases it to the world he gets early release, with strict monitoring.
The funny thing is, I think put him under custody while making him DOING THERAPY and do his work. I once read a comment about man who admit hus attraction to child, but never commit. This make me think whether it's possible if we do this to pedo out there.
@@cestalia, that’s what we should do to every criminal. Putting someone in prison makes them more likely to reoffend, or commit other offenses, it’s worse than just letting them go on with their lives. The only reason we do it is because people are obsessed with the idea of justice, and care more about making life for criminals worse than making life for everyone better.
My uncle has been to jail countless times (petty thief and drugs) in America. He's only been in jail once in Mexico. I'll tell you why. American jails, warm cells, food on the daily, healthcare, education, library, gym, mostly clean facilities. Mexico, a yard, a bed, crap toilet if it works. You only eat if a relative takes you food on the daily, no protection during an attack, the guards are only there to make sure you don't escape. See the difference?
@@TheMuseSway fun fact ! the country with the lowest crime rates is Switzerland. switzerland literally has the nicest jails I've ever seen (in photos, I've never been) norway has the lowest offending rates in the world. norway also has incredibly nice jails (from google, maybe they're secretly awful, who knows). point is, from what information is available online, it would appear that the nicer the jails (and thus the more money available to those prisons to afford better therapy and resources for people who break the law), the less likely they are to break the law again.
funny and sad at the same time. And she presented it so so well, especially with the "vote" in the end and really engaging the audience then not letting you know what was decided. So well done
That's so good. "It was unanimous." Everyone knows the right answer to this "impossible question" pretty much immediately. But we must act like the answer isn't easy to give...
Weirdo0258 more than just that, the good news is that since the heads were down, everybody is led to believe that their opinion was shared by everyone else, thus leaving nobody feeling like they're at odds with anyone else in the audience, despite the highly controversial subject. Good news indeed.
Not a particularly new one though. I mean I've heard several variations of it and I don't exactly philosophical questions. Hell a necromancer in Skyrim asked me a slight variation of the same question.
This is even more hilarious when you switch on the captions 🤣 Edit: *"woop"* followed by *"some guy screams like a bird"* is currently my favourite line.
I love how this started with a kind of goofy dark premise, and then went really dark but never stopped being hilarious, even with the huge internal conflict the character was going through very seriously on stage. And making the audience vote... XD so good!!!!
I really thought this was gonna be like an intelligent conversation about what should occur if a bad person does a good thing. And I got something so much better.
I was crying with laughter. Bloody hilarious.. Reminds me of an ethics class, where the argument was about "is it ever right to murder?" we debated. "is it ever right to steal?" we debated. "is it ever permissible to rape? Everyone was saying "oh no no no". So I came up with the utterly fucking absurd situation, with Jack Bauer interrogating... And then raping a woman for answers as to where a nuclear bomb was. That was about 20 years ago, it's now like the screensaver for my brain.. A fucking episode of 24, with Bauer raping a woman for answers! Man alive.
This is brilliant. Brilliantly written, brilliantly executed, just really top notch. Deserves so many more views than the quite respectable number it has!
![[안방1열 풀캠4K] 베이비몬스터 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER FullCam)│@SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AQ4RIghEvUs/mqdefault.jpg)
Join our discord! discord.gg/nQ3FSxxycT
Hang out in our 24/7 twitch stream! www.twitch.tv/characterswelcome
57
Dude, cancer is a series of cascading genetic & molecular receptor glitches, each with unique symptoms & causes, that makes each version its own disease.
To cure it, you may as well say; let's cure virus, or " let's cure bacteria". Heck, you can even just say " let's cure coughing".
Now, in order to " cure" such a thing, there are only 2 paths;
1. An adjustable modified bacteria, with, a destructible reproductive genome, that ends far more quickly, then other forms of mutation.
Or
2. Programmable nanobots, which, work on capacitance variety in cancer cells, depending on the ambient fluid serum conditions, of the organ they are in.
I could have a team of backyard geneticists with crysper kits reverse engineering his research in a week if it's the former.
Or
I could pretty much commission Markiplier & a handful of microchip enthusiasts for the later, only requiring the equipment he used to processing the micro scale robots, in order to make more, both of the equipment, and, of the cure.
Only needing to read the Wikipedia articles on cancer , is enough to understand how ludicrous this argument is.
Granted; if you want to put him on the registry and in one of those house arrest millionaire mansions for his sentence, go right ahead.
But, pretending it's completely impossible to reverse engineer the cure, goes countermand to the idea there even IS a cure, as, peer review is an essential part, of the scientific process.
....
: /
This is literally a dramatic improv kind of moral dilemma
It really is. My mind is blown they managed to make such a dark thought experiment _funny_
Is it improv?
jo jones I think it’s scripted, but it has an energy similar to improv, I guess?
jo jones no, dramatic improv is an acting practice that provides either an ethical/moral dilemma to play out scene by scene, with the “main” actor being the one who makes the decision in the end. Many doctors, policemen, and other occupations have their students go through dramatic improv situations (staged hostage situations, ethical dilemmas that they may encounter, etc.) This topic seemed like something one would see in a dramatic improv situation: let kids die of cancer, or cure cancer and let some kids suffer horrible trauma. There is no correct choice, but as the scene goes on, new info is revealed (the presenters son having cancer, the pedophile being the only one with the cure, etc) that may sway the “main” actors choice. It’s a fascinating thing to watch and participate in.
In soviet union it isn't, you just make him continue his work in prison
This has to be the toughest “Would You Rather” I’ve ever played.
Everybody would have cancer. I mean everyone!
I say let him go on but when the cure becomes available then report him
@Quest Tzecai wtf..
It's easy, cure cancer!
*Put man wipes sweat meme here*
This actually reminds me of the old debate about using Nazi scientific research. This is like a modern comedic version
Crazelord91 well, as long as it’s not Nazis using them, they’re really just blueprints and other research
@@torlakkarstad4251 true
@@torlakkarstad4251 @@torlakkarstad4251 I'm not referring to general research, but when the methods they used to get that research were inhumane.
For instance they did a lot of work on how to properly warm up a hypothermia, by throwing jews naked into the freezing snow, waiting for hypothermia to set in, and then subject them to often fatal testing.
Or using jews as test dummies for weapons. Or just all the atrocities Joseph Mengele commited
So while it is a bit different than this bc in this sketch the dr is the only one who understands the research and those acts have nothing to directly do with the research, it's still the same argument of do we ignore the horrors that took place to get this research, or give it up as an act of moral integrity?
@@Crazelord91 The origins of that research is very cruel and inhumane, but if the research can be used for the good of humankind, why not use it? Not using it will not change history and reverse the harm done to these people. And using it doesn't mean we endorse the methods by which this research came to be, a statement that the researchers do not endorse the hateful crimes against humanity committed to acquire that knowledge should be put though, just out of respect.
@@MohamedElGoharyy That's one side of the argument and I'm pretty sure was the accepted action at the time.
But you also have to keep in mind it can encourage others that their research will be used and remembered even if they resort to inhumane means.
“Haven’t we tolerated worse for less?”
Ooh... now... you kinda... you kinda got me on that one...
Just because lesser men in the past made grave mistakes, that shouldn't mean we should use those mistakes to justify paedophilia. If anything, mentioning those mistakes is an argument for locking Dr. Devine up, because it reminds us of how we might be led to tolerate child molesters. What are your thoughts?
Plus, there's precident; America exhonerated many Nazi scientists who were doing... Nazi things... as well as Unit 731 (and other similar projects) from the Japanese millitary - for those that don't know it, typical experiments included (warning, it's about to get grim):
Stripping people naked and putting them in arctic conditions then performing un-anaesthetised vivisections (a common occurence to study the body's responce to conditions until the patient's demise).
Infecting them with modified strains of diseases (e.g. super-syphilis) for the purpose of creating biological weapons (again, un-anasethetised vivisections) - interestingly enough, one of the few incidents where gang-rape of a test subject was punished came from this; as several soldiers raped a pregnant woman to death not knowing she had a modified strain of syphilis - the fact that they themselves contracted it was what earned them punishment (not the hideous crime). Again, let me remind you; completely exhonerated in exchange for data.
Weapons testing - e.g. at what range is a grenade fatal, doing damage tests with flamethrowers, bayonets, various knives, guns and of course, chemical weapons.
Removing limbs/organs and re-attaching them on other parts of the body. Oh, by the way, did I mention that children were subjected to all the abuse and experiments?
Releasing thousands of flees infected with the Bubonic plague onto Chinese cities to study the spread of disease in an urban setting. Also poisoning the water supplies of cities with a variety of diseases.
Plus, I think wikipedia says this part best: 'In other tests, subjects were deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death; placed into low-pressure chambers until their eyes popped from the sockets; experimented upon to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival; electrocuted; placed into centrifuges and spun until death; injected with animal blood; exposed to lethal doses of x-rays; subjected to various chemical weapons inside gas chambers; injected with sea water; and burned or buried alive.[44][45]
Some of the tests have been described as "psychopathically sadistic, with no conceivable military application". For example, one experiment documented the time it took for three-day-old babies to freeze to death.'
All in all, around half a million people died to these tests, while all but the 12 perpetrators hunted down by the Soviets continued having high-status careers (with 3 of Japan's prime ministers being suspected members) all in exchange for an estimated 5% of their data. So compared to curing cancer via a single pedophile... Eh.
@@maple2524 I mean, on a purely "Number of people helped" scale, curing 11,000 children a year is probably more effective than stopping however many crimes he commits.
@@blacklightredlight2945 That’s a utilitarian perspective on ethics. Effectively speaking, you’re right. You could compose a felicific calculus and come to the conclusion that the hapiness created by letting a paedophile abuse children on the condition that he saves people’s lives outweighs the sorrow felt by his victims. However, I don’t believe the ends always justify the means, and I believe first and foremost in justice. Emperor Ferdinand I of the Holy Roman Empire once said: “Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus”. I believe justice should be done, even if the whole world were to perish, because that’s generally a good principle to guide society. If we let paedophiles get away with sexual abuse just because there is some arbitrary goal that we can’t achieve without them, that means any crime could be justified, so any ground we cede to paedophiles and criminals bring us closer to societal collapse and anarchy.
Look up utilitarian ethics and Bentham if you want to learn more.
@@maple2524 This is a rather extraordinary hypothetical situation. Maybe if the contributions of Devine were minimal, then sure. However allowing him to stay out provides such an unimaginable benefit that it cannot be put into human comprehension; the amount of suffering saved compared to the amount caused from a pedo curing cancer is not something we are really made to think about. Really? You would rather the world to end than cure cancer because 20-30 children were molested? By no means is their fictitious abuse irrelevant, but it is quite ridiculous. And besides, once the cure and the science have been distributed enough, there would be no more need to keep that doctor out of trouble and he may be locked up. You can't make an unquestionable decision that the lives of millions are worth less than the justice of a couple dozen, as justice itself is intangible, subjective, and purely a man-made idea. Lives? Those are tangible and meaningful in themselves. If you would really rather a man get locked up than have millions cured, it shows a lack of pragmatism, empathy, and overall an overly stoic, self-righteous approach to these kinds of thought experiments.
"Put your hand up if you want cancer to ravage kids."
"Okay, the rest of you, raise your hands. You are voting to let Doctor Devine do it."
I kind of wish she said "put your hand up if you want Dr. Devine to ravage kids" lmao
@Silva honestly far better
I just got it after reading this comment I'm screaming
This entire bit was hilarious but I feel like she kind of rushed the delivery on this specific line. Didn't seem like the audience got it, and I probably wouldn't have if not for this comment
@@brandongore711 I think that was the point. Comedy is a puzzle, and that was the last piece in the jigsaw. Had she not "thrown it away," it would have been too intentional and a bit on the nose. Because she did that, she successfully closed the curtain to the performance herself with her last line, "it was unanimous." It was a sigh of relief after a rather tense subject that you don't know if you can laugh at, even though knowing it was skit. I think it was brilliant
A philosophy major disguises herself as a comedy performer in order to get more participants for her research project
Jenni Tall inconceivable
Lol I literally majored in philosophy... did you know?
Cameron McCall no I didn’t! I guess you’ve just still got the strong philosophy vibe, haha
Jenni Tall wait, am I watching The Good Place?
Cameron McCall That explains why this had major “deep philosophical thought experiment disguised as a comedy routine” vibes
"Haven't we tolerated worse for less?"
Oof.
So true with MJ. People just turned a blind eye because they wanted to keep listening to his music.
@@10Slayer01 It's true with so many celebrities. People knew about Weinstein or Cosby for years, but nobody wants to be the one to call them on it.
I mean the Catholic Church still exists and they haven’t cured shit. Puts it into a pretty good perspective
@@minaolenella869 the police suspected him and found some evidence and there were witnesses of his behavior but everything was thrown out because several witnesses lied on his behalf including some of his victims.
"Oh, what a moral dilemma! Woody Allen, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, is an awful disgusting creep! Should we keep supporting his art or not?!"
"Dude he has like 3 good movies at most wtf are you talking about"
Omg that line “I asked our supercomputer and it killed itself” 😂
It was the woman's laugh that followed that caught my attention 😅
I've seen it in a meme already
I would too if I were that super computer
very Hitchhikers Guide
I would make it literally impossible for a.i to kill itself
The subtitles though
“Audience loses their minds”
“Audience loses their mind part two”
“Some guy screams like a bird”
“Audience laughs. Someone might be dying”
"Someone might be dying"
That's me, I'm dead XD
[one person cackling]
Whoever writes these needs a raise
Technically, we're all dying
I was hoping someone else saw them, absolute gold
"Here's the good news, it was unanimous"
That's a really good ending. Messes with the people who were honest enough to keep their heads down.
She said “the rest of you raise your hands.”
I feel like I'm too stupid to understand that line.
@@maxthexpfarmer3957 Nah, she was asking or those that wish to choose the other option to raise their hands
@@SukacitaYeremia She's in the comments, so I asked her. I don't know if she'll reply.
@@talafayad5631 basically it means people unanimously decided to let kids get m*l*sted or to die from cancer. There is no winning here.
Someone in the audience went “oh god” and I feel lol
😂😂
When
@Twitchy its about 1:16
I just loved hearing the audience's "oh my God" moments as they slowly realized what they got themselves into
Woman: …or,
Random dude: oh no
Woman: heAR ME OUT
I think he said “oh god”
@@allmachtigenallergroter5298 He did, and it sounded completely spontaneous.
women try not to normalize pedophilia challenge [IMPOSSIBLE]
The most difficult part of a skit like this is the ending. And she nailed it.
going out with a Michael Jackson track as well !! topical
I'm glad to see a comment on the ending. The ending is pure gold.
This is a masterpiece start to finish.
It was unanimous lmao
Honestly, its kind of admirable how she took this really sensitive, serious subject, and was able to make this stand up act without being incredibly offensive
It's not offensive to YOU.
its offensive to the paedophiles that are on the brink of finding the cure to cancer 🤯
@@joekopsick1540well is there a point to be offended for anyone else than ourselves?
@@mcstuffyfamily members?
@@Splicer-lb5xb well i thought that was a given.
“Haven’t we tolerated more for less?”
She makes a damn good point. Sad, honestly.
women try not to normalize pedophilia challenge [IMPOSSIBLE]
It's not a good point, it's a sunken costs fallacy
@@joekopsick1540Nope, it's just taking precedent into consideration, like, ya know, Operation Paperclip?
“My 8-year-old son has Stage 4 lymphoma”
Person in audience: HAHAHAHA
lmAO
To be fair, it is a tribute to the situation it puts the public in.
666 likes. Fitting.
I giggled at that too because she included his age…I knew where it was going lol
Reminded me of 'They played it over this harrowing footage of some starving Ethiopians' and one person in the audience laughed, in that Peter Kay stand up
Actress: my 8 year old boy has stage 4 lymphoma
Audience: AHAHAHAHA
@Genesis you didn't catch that Chloe says "actress" in the comment above? 😂
@Genesis they literally say actress, they're just pointing out the irony and how its funny when taken out of context
Genesis thank you i am aware is a skit
@Genesis shut up, god, I hate people like you who can't read.
@Genesis youre dumb
“We asked our super computer and it KILLED itself.”
Sky-net noped outta there.
take note edgy kids, THIS is proper dark humor, not screaming slurs
YES! THANK YOU!
really? N
@@pideruss woa thats so funny i must have forgot to laugh
@@robertsmithfan877 how do u forget to laugh it’s an involuntary response not something u remember to do
@@ashertoledano3338 ... you're kidding, right?
The doctor: "My son has cancer"
Like 5 audience members: "Uncontrollable Laughter"
"Can't we separate the science from the scientist?"
Guy in the back: Woooo!
Anyone who can’t do this is mentally challenged
@@TheBlashMusic Art is inherently subjective, and to some people the artist is an integral part of whatever they create. I could easily say the same thing about people who choose to separate an artist from their art.
Art is one thing, but isn't science deliberately as objective a field as possible...? Like, this stuff would still be true no matter who came up with it.
@@TheBlashMusic i agree but tell that to medical boards renaming diseases because nazi scientists found them
Yes, this is why medical research is against copyright
For the sake of children, or at the stake of children?
How many children live after cancer?
@Quest Tzecai At least they live, and if society didn't condition them to feel like shit they could more easily live normal lives. And besides, child molestation is the least of children's problems. Of all the mentally damaged children, only 8% were sexually abused, the rest is shitty parents being shitty parents. School shooters weren't victims of sexual abuse.
"Or the steak of the children?"
-Cannibals
@Quest Tzecai That's just strawman.
@@thenuggernaut9084 LMAOO
We currently have somewhat of the same situation in medicine. Several diseases were first described and named by Nazis after themselves. Recently those diseases and structures have been renamed because of their dark history
ASD.
You're doing amazing, medicine
🤔
Like number: 666
Such as? I didn't know about this
This is a great example of a false dichotomy. It makes it seem as though the only options are to allow the molestation to continue, or allow cancer to continue. The way I see it, the best choice is to keep Dr Devine under supervision. The whole time you have other researchers working with him. Once other people understand the process, and can duplicate his results, you take him to the police.
Then they just wont work with others or share their research. May offer to cure 1 person a month in a private surgery but never releases their research so they cant be double crossed and taken advantage of. It’s less advantageous for both them and society, but necessary in order to prevent being captured.
@@vla1ne again, the fact that even to a basic person it seems like he’ll be screwed over and end in his death or torture, he thus will think the same and thus never release his research until it is beyond doubt he can be safe, if ever.
@@seraphendipity Not really. My solution is that the law leaves him alone so long as he releases the research. What _others_ do doesn't really change anything, as they ought to know that regardless of what they do with that deal, individuals would still do what they're gonna do.
@@vla1ne the researcher isnt just thinking about a vaccuum of he and the law. If a simple 10 seconds of thinking about it reveals “hey, he’s likely gonna be killed by the crowd and law wont protect him”, you dont think he, who his entire life is at stake, isnt gonna consider that possibility as well?
The main problem I see here is that this whole concept was designed to make a parallel with the cases of Roman Polansky and Woody Allen and the controversy of those who believe that their works should not be praised if not outright banned. However in those cases their works are already released and could still be screened and watched while their respective authors were hypothetically behind bars.
If it was a proper comparison the cure for cancer would be already known and people could mass produce it, then the question would be: "should we keep using the cure of cancer or should we ban it since it was made by a pedophile?" And the answer, I think, would be pretty obvious, and there it would show that you can in fact still allow yourself to benefit from something a person did even if they are criminals.
Never before had an actor managed to make the sentence "my eight year old boy has stage four lymphoma" as hilarious as this one. Bravo
I would report him. Then get a lawyer to make a case for house arrest under the condition that he continues to work on the cure. If he wants full immunity then the C.I.A. should threaten him with the opinion of take the deal or life in a black site working on the cure.
This is not how Moral dielmma works, man xD
It's A or B. Not C xD
uhhh this is a comedy skit
@@gregorianallanheavans8095 Technically, I did choose one.
Jesus why would you answer the question it feels weird
Bruh this a comedy skit 💀
Wow, she's not just hilarious, she's legit an amazing actor. I wanna see this chick in movies and on SNL, STAT.
Imagine wanting someone to be on SNL yuck
An actual funny comedian on snl? Insanity
Idk why the hate for SNL in the replies but I agree she'd be good on SNL.
Most women arnt funny to me but she is the funniest
@@notnowmom6865 based
Is this a Good Place scenario?
tanya OH GOD
R.I.P. Chidi he’s never getting past this one
I have a tummy ache...
I'm curious to see what Eleanor would say about this scenario. She probably would just not care lol.
The answer is do you have enough money to beat the lawsuits from the parents of 20-40 molested children
THEY PLAYED ”I want you back” BY THE JACKSONS SUNG BY MICHAEL JACKSON AS A KID I-
JAILLL
BITCHES BE LIKE I- I- YOU- WOW I-
BITCH WHAT? SPEAK. SPIT IT THE FUCK OUT. WHAT DO YOU WANNA SAY? I'M LISTENING. WE'RE ALL WAITING, AND YOU'RE DOING NOTHING. THIS IS NONSENSE, YOU CAN'T EVEN USE WORDS ANYMORE. GO THE HELL OUTSIDE FOR ONCE DAMN, GODDAMN, GET A JOB OR SOMETHING.
“I asked our supercomputer, and it killed itself” is such an underrated line.
: (D
Even AM killed himself bro goddamn 😭🙏
Because it's the only part in this sketch that's not original.
Humor is a safe way to explore real life difficult dilemmas without actually realizing them into reality and it gives us perspectives on hard issue ... (I commenting on the thumbs down this routine got)
It's not even a dilemma, it's clear that the man is of more use free than not free.
@@SollomonTheWise that assumes a utilitarian view of ethics, which not everyone has.
its why people with a bad past always wind up making the best comedians.
This made me think about the fact that a lot of medical and scientific advances have been made by human experimentation that would probably make our stomachs turn (for example, the vaccine for hepatitis was developed by deliberately infecting children with the virus to better study it). Was this morally right? No, but we're still enjoying the fruits of it. Similarly, a lot of beautiful or useful things such as buildings and railroads were build by slaves. A lot of our technology and fast fashion is still made on the backs of child labourers, and most of us turn a blind eye to it because it's convenient and because "out of sight, out of mind". Even in western societies, corporations innovate and make billions on the backs of overworked and underpaid employees. It's an interesting moral dilemma to ponder whether our advances as a species were/are really worth their true cost.
And this is without even touching the whole "separate the art from the artist" thing, where we justify evil that's unrelated to the gain, because that makes it about 1000 times murkier.
It's more complicated than that still. Because the question of whether it's okay to allow a bad thing if it leads to a good thing, is actually relatively simple; however the real question is the hypothetical situations that come from it. Could the same achievement be made without those costs? For example, with child sweatshops, it's perfectly possible to still make T Shirts without employing children in terrible conditions, however you may have to pay slightly more for it. Maybe the Hepatitis vaccine would have been found without the need for those children to be experimented on. We like to tell ourselves that the bad way is the only way, but it rarely is.
Patrick Ellis things could probably be achieved with less unnecessary harm, but how many people are willing (or can afford the money and time to do the research) to pay the extra price for ethically sourced goods? how many companies are willing to make less profit in order to compensate their workers fairly? even on a small scale, how many of us recycle or ask about the source of our food? in order for it to work, the whole system and mentality would need to change, and I don't see that easily happening.
and I would also argue that even the seemingly simple conundrum of allowing a small bad thing to happen if it leads to a greater good one, is only simple on paper, when you coldly do the math. but in reality, poised with the question of "should 20 kids die in order for millions to live", would that be an easy answer? maybe, but definitely not if you're the parent of one of the 20. or "would you kill one person to save a thousand?" is that an easy choice? what if the one person is your child or spouse, and the other thousand are strangers? I find that playing God is never simple or straightforward.
No these are things that were accomplished the wrong way for example haveing USA built by slaves ... it could have been built by free men these weren’t necessary evil they were just evil evil
@@addangel Just wanted to start by saying isn't amazing how a comedy routine can lead us to discussing such a moral quandary? XD Let's appreciate that first and foremost.
Additionally, just wanted to say that I agree with your idea. It's incredibly complicated, and saying "oh yeah, it's an easy choice" really changes when, for example, someone close to you has their life on the line. Even things which seem like obvious evil may be more complicated than we give them credit for.
Also, to anyone reading this post, I most likely don't know you, but I want to wish you a great day, personal opinions notwithstanding😁
@@reemalzubaidy9434 You might be interested to read the book Settlers, whilst it's certainly controversial, it does detail how slavery and genocide were necessary parts of building White America.
The real question is whether to trust a cure thats apparently only understood by one guy. A noncey guy, at that.
Just think, if he actually can cure children he'll get so many coming to him for a cure. He has the most incentive to actually cure those kids
@@the1exnay What cure do you know is accepted&practiced by only one doctor in the entire medical field. The skit itself is a plot hole and I will not stand for it
Miriam Basheer
Maybe the cure requires these sleepovers and the rest of the scientific community is not ready for that sort of cure
@@the1exnay bruh Micheal Jackson discovered that treatment years ago we don't need this other guy
Miriam Basheer
But he died so we need a replacement
“To be honest, haven’t we tolerated worst for less?”
That’s going to be my campaign slogan
Look man, considering the options we've got, I'd vote for you
MIKE 2024
I'm sharing this to my friends, thanks
Her facial expressions and voice completely made this piece. If you only listened to this, go back and watch it. Incredible.
Also the Minions gag completely broke me 😂😂😂
This is just a deviation from the Trolley Problem. Do you actively harm a few to save many? At what point is this an acceptable ratio of harm to benefit?
@Oscar Gillette No, because if it was you, the random passerby, you wouldn't want that to happen! So to guarenty your safety and the one of other, you should choose to not do that and hope that organs get available before it's too late
SgtHuskyButt I like how you say it’s easy and yet it is one of the most discussed questions within the realm of philosophy.
Quest Tzecai In the dilema there simply isn’t time to wait for someone to die. You need those organs NOW and the only possible donor is the very ill guy.
@Quest Tzecai This only works if we assume that all five patients are able to wait for a donor. The point of the surgery trolley problem is that the decision has to be made quickly, just like the vanilla trolley problem.
heybrailsy 💀💀💀
the super computer line and “worse for less” got me 😂😂😂
I can literally see us discuss this in philosophy class, time to apply the ethical theories to this lmao
I meaaaan.... utilitarianists would say to let him cure cancer 😂😂
@@stellabella3337 Truuue, while moral obligation wouldn't
@@ezra6898 friggen Kant would never let anyone cure cancer tbh 😂😂😂
@@stellabella3337 😂
Something really similar happened at my school. One of my best friends was choking and a teacher gave him the heimlich. Probably saved his life. About a month later, we found out that said teacher was a pedophile who had abused students. He's in prison now. It makes me sick just thinking about it
your friend basically got dry-humped by him too
We had one of those teachers who was sleeping with students and openly creeping on them, but he was the only one to notice my depression and pushed enough to make sure I got help. So I have extremely mixed feelings on him… People are people, even people who do heinous things.
In a world with millions of pedos, another one won't make a difference.
But in a world without a cure for cancer, one would make a world of difference!
I mean this dilemma is a no brainer...
Cameron McCall, this is one of the most brilliant (if not THE most brilliant) pieces of comedic art I've ever seen - and I'm 56 years old, so I've seen quite a lot of comedy! You've taken an horrific dilemma and made it hilarious without making it offensive or idiotic. Brava!
This is so nice to hear, thanks Keith!
It's not offensive to YOU.
this may be one of the darkest routines i have ever seen, but it's still done with taste. well done.
Interesting dilemma, although I doubt there'd ever be a case where only one scientist knows something. Science is a shared body of knowledge.
As any philosophical dilemma it takes an extreme scenario, but you can relate it to every case in real life. How many arguable researches have been done, and we can benefit of them today?
The so discussed experimentation over animal is not moral, but sometimes we need it. Don't stop at the example, use it and think how much this is an actual dilemma.
Yeah no shit
Fine, an entire university made of only pedos and rape apologists, if we're willing to be pedantic.
Most of the time, sure. But not every case. Penicillin was reportedly discovered when one lab scientist left his sandwich out over night and found the mold that would lead to him to examine the results that lead to the medicine.
I guess he's the main guy and he would be the only one who knows how this really works and it was tested by others, and others worked with him but it is hard to explain and replicate something u don't completely understand how it really works
“My 8 year old son has stage 4 lymphoma”
The 3 people in the audience who laughed: this shits hilarious
Still one of the best piece of comedy i've ever seen, cause it lays so much on your psycholgical reaction that basically it works EVERY SINGLE TIME. I saw it at least 20 times since the upload and i shriek evertime
Thanks, man! I was wondering where the views were coming from
@@CameronMcCall ahahah you're the welecome
That was amazing. And horrible. Damn.
This was pretty funny. Honestly though, the best solution would be a bit of both sides? Get him arrested and put in a special jail where he can continue his research under guard. If he finishes the cure and releases it to the world he gets early release, with strict monitoring.
He can still refuse to do anything unless hes completely free of restriction
The funny thing is, I think put him under custody while making him DOING THERAPY and do his work.
I once read a comment about man who admit hus attraction to child, but never commit. This make me think whether it's possible if we do this to pedo out there.
@@cestalia, that’s what we should do to every criminal. Putting someone in prison makes them more likely to reoffend, or commit other offenses, it’s worse than just letting them go on with their lives. The only reason we do it is because people are obsessed with the idea of justice, and care more about making life for criminals worse than making life for everyone better.
My uncle has been to jail countless times (petty thief and drugs) in America. He's only been in jail once in Mexico. I'll tell you why. American jails, warm cells, food on the daily, healthcare, education, library, gym, mostly clean facilities.
Mexico, a yard, a bed, crap toilet if it works. You only eat if a relative takes you food on the daily, no protection during an attack, the guards are only there to make sure you don't escape.
See the difference?
@@TheMuseSway fun fact ! the country with the lowest crime rates is Switzerland. switzerland literally has the nicest jails I've ever seen (in photos, I've never been)
norway has the lowest offending rates in the world. norway also has incredibly nice jails (from google, maybe they're secretly awful, who knows).
point is, from what information is available online, it would appear that the nicer the jails (and thus the more money available to those prisons to afford better therapy and resources for people who break the law), the less likely they are to break the law again.
funny and sad at the same time. And she presented it so so well, especially with the "vote" in the end and really engaging the audience then not letting you know what was decided. So well done
She told everyone what they wanted to hear.
@@ThkaalI didn't want to hear that?
the unsure laughter when she first said “pedophile”
That's so good. "It was unanimous." Everyone knows the right answer to this "impossible question" pretty much immediately. But we must act like the answer isn't easy to give...
And that answer is…?
@@BlackCover95 THE ARISTOCRATS!
@@BlackCover95 ravage the children
BlackCover95 42
What’s the answer then
"His medication makes him bumpy." Best part.
That last line is genius!
Daniel O'Connell what did she mean??
I mean was there a joke there?
@@Weirdo0258 it was a unanimous vote. Whether it was for Cancer or Dr. Devine we will never know.
Dusk Alimar ahh.
Weirdo0258 more than just that, the good news is that since the heads were down, everybody is led to believe that their opinion was shared by everyone else, thus leaving nobody feeling like they're at odds with anyone else in the audience, despite the highly controversial subject. Good news indeed.
Dark, funny, intriguing- she really sold it. Great performance
She took what would normally be a 3-4 sentence joke in the middle of a larger performance and turned it into a full bit. Impressive.
That laugh at @0:38, you can tell he's just forseeing the joke at that moment and it's all clicking into place.
This is a phenomenal premise Im in tears😂
oml this is too good 🤣 imagine Chidi from The Good Place was given this moral quandary - his head would explode 🤯
Oh man this is way too real and soooo hilarious
In a number of years we’re actually gonna be having this discussion
This actually is a interesting moral question
Not a particularly new one though. I mean I've heard several variations of it and I don't exactly philosophical questions. Hell a necromancer in Skyrim asked me a slight variation of the same question.
No it's not. Liberals think-up B.S. reasons to turn a blind eye towards child abuse every day. Trying to make it funny is just a corollary of that.
This is even more hilarious when you switch on the captions 🤣
Edit:
*"woop"* followed by *"some guy screams like a bird"* is currently my favourite line.
This is dark humor at it's finest, honestly. Holy shit.
Hilarious, but also extremely well acted, with an insane range of emotions in a short clip. Bravo.
I always love that kind of humor that makes you feel like you're going to hell for laughing. It's such a fun awkward feeling.
Her facial expressions are EVERYTHING here. So much conveyed without words at all, it completely sells the entire piece.
"My God, has this been on the whole time?!" sent me!
I asked our super computer, and it killed itself
How does she keep a straight face at 1:00 ???!!!
It’s remarkable how a tragic thing becomes funny when you slap the word “comedy” on it. Well done!
I love how this started with a kind of goofy dark premise, and then went really dark but never stopped being hilarious, even with the huge internal conflict the character was going through very seriously on stage. And making the audience vote... XD so good!!!!
“A small price to pay for salvation” - Purple Guy
In which the guy who said “oh god” at 1:18 is all of us
"today we will vote whether we take these allegations to the police....or-"
Some random person:oh god
The subtitles were great. Especially when they were describing the audience
"Haven't we tolerated worse for less?" .. Dude, that was scary :(
The dude in the audience that goes "Oh god" at 1:16 knew exactly what was coming
3:02 that scream in the audience 😂
Never have I seen "moral" and "dilemma" overtake a comment section.
”Wow, I can’t believe Hatsune Miku made the cure for cancer!”
The subtitles saying “horrified laughter” from time to time gets me 😂😂
I've heard a lot of weird trolley problems but this is the best
this is like when grey matter's founder turned out to be an evil multi-billion dollar drug dealer
Omg this is... what why... why? This is
A weird type of funny
Yet also, a moral dilemma
It’s not funny, it’s uncomfortable.
The laughter is just there to relieve stress.
2:57
the entire audience dunks on the one that goes "woo!" for five seconds
I really thought this was gonna be like an intelligent conversation about what should occur if a bad person does a good thing. And I got something so much better.
0:37 that one giggling guy that quickly ramps up to a stifled cackle
"my son has cancer"
Audience: 🤣🤣🤣
this is a very interesting take at a moral question
I kept waiting for the punchline where she said: "Either way, those kids are fucked"
Whoever played the scientist did a great job on acting
The subtitles are friggin' priceless. Good work, behind the scenes person(s)!
The minion gif was a nice touch
"my 8 year old boy has stage 4 cancer"
audience: *agressive laughter*
I was crying with laughter. Bloody hilarious..
Reminds me of an ethics class, where the argument was about "is it ever right to murder?" we debated. "is it ever right to steal?" we debated. "is it ever permissible to rape?
Everyone was saying "oh no no no".
So I came up with the utterly fucking absurd situation, with Jack Bauer interrogating... And then raping a woman for answers as to where a nuclear bomb was. That was about 20 years ago, it's now like the screensaver for my brain.. A fucking episode of 24, with Bauer raping a woman for answers! Man alive.
I've watched this dozens of times, never noticed "I want you back" playing at the end
This is brilliant. Brilliantly written, brilliantly executed, just really top notch. Deserves so many more views than the quite respectable number it has!
This is some "The Good Place" stuff... incredible dilema presented on a comidic way. I love it.
"I asked our supercomputer and it killed itself" my favorite line
If this woman doesn't have a job writing for one of the BIG shows, I don't know what the hell we're even doing on this planet.
The subtitle [horrified laughter] pretty much sums it up 😂