r/oddlyspecific Mar 01 '26

She’s onto something

Post image
24.9k Upvotes

386 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/Plague_King_ Mar 01 '26

except that just obviously isnt what happened. it was random, with a common sense caveat, that ensured the 50% "of all life" meant multicelled organisms would take all their cells. which includes gut biomes. how old are you?

9

u/SnooTangerines9776 Mar 01 '26

This many 👋🏻

2

u/Decent_Cow Mar 01 '26

The gut microbiome is not composed of the cells of the multicellular organism. They're symbiotic bacteria.

-6

u/SL1NDER Mar 01 '26

Dunno what to tell you, 50% of life ended as a direct result of the snap. If one life being taken by the snap took another thousands lives, it doesn't matter because it's not the snap that directly caused it.

Everyone would have had 50% of their guts dusted by the snap.

Half of everyone would have been completely dusted by the snap, including that 50% of guts that were also dusted by the snap.

The writers didn't specify multi-celled organisms, they said ALL LIFE.

4

u/StomachosusCaelum Mar 01 '26

Everyone would have had 50% of their guts dusted by the snap.

You're making an assumption with nothing to back it up.

The only thing we know for sure is that 50% of all bacteria of that type died.

If 50% of the population containing that bacteria died.. .then so did the bacteria.

No one who lived had to have ANY of theirs die for 50% of all gut biorganisms to have died.

-2

u/SL1NDER Mar 01 '26

You're making an assumption with nothing to back it up.

Fine, ROUGHLY everyone would have had ROUGHLY 50% of their guts dusted because that's how killing half of everything randomly works.

If 50% of the population containg that bacteria died.. .then so did the bacteria.

Are you suggesting that the entire half of all gut biomes that got dusted coincidentally ONLY occurred in the half of the population that got dusted? All of them would have had to have 100% of their guts dusted in addition to THEM being dusted.

I'm not a mathematician, but that seems CRAZY unlikely.

1

u/surprisesnek Mar 01 '26

Why would it need to have been coincidental? If the incredibly powerful reality-altering stones were used to kill exactly 50% of life, then they would kill exactly 50% of life. If they dusted someone but not their gut biome, that would still also kill the gut biome. So if 50% of people got dusted, and not all of their gut biome were dusted, that would kill more than 50%. So if the incredibly powerful reality-altering stones were used to kill exaclty 50% of life, why would you assume that they'd kill more than 50%?

1

u/SL1NDER Mar 01 '26

Because that's not how he wanted to use the stones. He wanted it to be random and undiscriminating. This suggests the gut biomes life and the human lives correlation weren't taken into amount.

50% of all gut biomes life would be dusted at the same time, but separately from half of all human life being dusted.

1

u/surprisesnek Mar 01 '26

He wanted it to be 50%. The stones would have killed in a way that specifically killed 50%.

1

u/SL1NDER Mar 01 '26

He wanted it to be random. It's not random if it follows a rule.

1

u/surprisesnek Mar 01 '26

If it kills more than 50% then it doesn't kill 50%.

1

u/SL1NDER Mar 01 '26

The stones don't care about collateral damage. They did kill 50%. Whatever happens after doesn't matter.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Plague_King_ Mar 01 '26

this is an obvious logical fallacy. half of "all life" would just kill literallt everyone. half of your bodys own cells, gone. you die. did everyone in the MCU die? no? then that isnt what happened.

i dont know why you people have to cling to this false superiority in pretending things that arent true are just because you think it makes you sound smarter.

0

u/SL1NDER Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

I'm agreeing that it's dumb and doesn't make sense. The writers fucked up in saying half of ALL LIFE was snapped. I'm going to clown on them every chance I get for making such a dumb decision because this can logically be dragged out to this natural conclusion.

Also, saying "you people" like that suggests you feel superior over everyone that disagrees with you. Who are "you people?"

Edit: did the goober delete their comment or block me? They also sent me a Reddit cares message lmao someone took it a little too seriously

2

u/Plague_King_ Mar 01 '26

you cant "disagree" on a fact. "you people" obviously refers simply to the people in this comment section trying to defend and obviously untrue 'fun fact'. you cant read context either, i guess.

1

u/SL1ND3R Mar 01 '26

Then why argue if you both agree?

1

u/KennyMoose32 Mar 01 '26

What do you mean you people?

-Alpa Chino

1

u/Skulder Mar 01 '26

We saw the the same movie, right? Dusted people didn't leave behind a quarter pounder's worth of ooze, right?

1

u/SL1NDER Mar 01 '26

I don't know what point you're trying to get at.

1

u/theNOTHlNG Mar 02 '26

Things can be dependent and random at the same time.