Parameter: We have a monster.
Problem: It eats children.
Monster's rationale:
It justifies children consumption as a useful service to the community burdened with young hooligans.
Reaction:
Eating children does not benefit the community. It reduces the future potential of the community and while on the surface the beast's statement seems plausible, upon digging into the data we find:
A. Demons do not eat, on average more bad kids than good kids.
B. The opposite is occurs.
C. On average, hooligans are significantly eaten less times by monsters.
Counter:
The Demon says that the loss of good kids is still justifiable in the short term to get rid of the current problems of hooligans, and assures us that in the future it will return to eating more or even exclusively hooligans. It counters that any dead hooligan is good for the community, and regrets the undo consumption of good kids.
Questions:
1. Why do Monsters eat less hooligans?
2. Do Monsters like the taste of hooligans less than ordinary children?
3. Are Hooligans more difficult to catch & eat.
4. If #3 is true, why are hooligans more difficult to catch?
5. Are children the only slayers of Monsters?
6. Are hooligans, a subset of children, the only slayers of Monsters?
7. Do child slayers grow up to be hunters?
New Parameter: We have a Hunter.
Problem: Hunts for monsters always kill a lot of people, including children.
Obfuscation:
The Hunters justifies execution of people as a useful service to the community burdened with too many Monsters.
Problem: It eats children.
Monster's rationale:
It justifies children consumption as a useful service to the community burdened with young hooligans.
Reaction:
Eating children does not benefit the community. It reduces the future potential of the community and while on the surface the beast's statement seems plausible, upon digging into the data we find:
A. Demons do not eat, on average more bad kids than good kids.
B. The opposite is occurs.
C. On average, hooligans are significantly eaten less times by monsters.
Counter:
The Demon says that the loss of good kids is still justifiable in the short term to get rid of the current problems of hooligans, and assures us that in the future it will return to eating more or even exclusively hooligans. It counters that any dead hooligan is good for the community, and regrets the undo consumption of good kids.
Questions:
1. Why do Monsters eat less hooligans?
2. Do Monsters like the taste of hooligans less than ordinary children?
3. Are Hooligans more difficult to catch & eat.
4. If #3 is true, why are hooligans more difficult to catch?
5. Are children the only slayers of Monsters?
6. Are hooligans, a subset of children, the only slayers of Monsters?
7. Do child slayers grow up to be hunters?
New Parameter: We have a Hunter.
Problem: Hunts for monsters always kill a lot of people, including children.
Obfuscation:
The Hunters justifies execution of people as a useful service to the community burdened with too many Monsters.
No comments:
Post a Comment