The Gaming Den

I'll show you the relevance soon enough, just answer the question.

If it is as meaningless as you say it is, then it shouldn't hurt you to answer it. Though I suspect that you realize its relevance, which is why you're scared to answer.

You seem totally willing to type out a bunch of monolithic posts on anything.

I'll even repeat it for you.


------

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion: If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

Do you agree or disagree with either the premise or the conclusion?

Pie.

Why are you so afraid to answer such a "meaningless" question?

Why are you assuming that there is no reason not to answer your question except fear?

Because you wasted like 12 prior posts typing in crap about how you won't answer. So clearly the reason you won't answer isn't because you don't have the time or the desire to type up a response.

The only other reason you wouldn't answer it is because you feel it's devastating to your case and you can see that you're about to get trapped by what you deem to be a "meaningless" question.

I don't have a desire to answer a question that is designed to eliminate any answer the asker doesn't like.

Nevermind valid alternate viewpoints.

Elennsar wrote:I don't have a desire to answer a question that is designed to eliminate any answer the asker doesn't like.

It's a simple question. It's based entirely on basic logic.

If it eliminates your viewpoint, that would be because your viewpoint is illogical.

Besides you can answer the question either way you like. You can either say those statements are true or they're false. Or even if you like, say that one statement is true and the other is false. It's seriously up to you. But I want to know if you agree or disagree with the premise and conclusion I've stated.

No, it is because my viewpoint is deliberately ignored to avoid having to face that you are incapable of accepting my point.

Elennsar wrote:No, it is because my viewpoint is deliberately ignored to avoid having to face that you are incapable of accepting my point.

Are you saying your viewpoint can stand up to basic logic?

If so, then answer the question.

If not, then concede that your point is illogical.

My viewpoint can stand up to basic logic. What it can't stand up to is you deliberately setting up the question so that it is impossible to have any answer but the one you intend to claim is the only logical one, because you're incapable of accepting anything other than your answer.

Apparently, the difference between failing to roll a 1 and being unable to roll a 0 on a standard d20 is merely perspective.

Elennsar wrote:My viewpoint can stand up to basic logic. What it can't stand up to is you deliberately setting up the question so that it is impossible to have any answer but the one you intend to claim is the only logical one, because you're incapable of accepting anything other than your answer.

It's not impossible to have any other answer. You can answer it as true or false. That's your choice. I'm not asking you to agree to anything, I'm just asking you to state your stance on the statements I've made. You can either agree that the statements are true, or say "RC you're wrong about that and here's why."

I'm just asking you to put up some concrete response instead of your typical elusive bullshit.

You either agree with the premise and conclusion I have, or you disagree. It's a very simple question, and your viewpoint must fit one of those two answers into it for it to stand up to basic logic.

Once again:

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion: If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

Do you agree or disagree with either the premise or the conclusion?

I'm just asking you to put up some concrete response instead of your typical elusive bullshit.

There is nothing elusive about pointing out that the outcome that did happen is not necessarily the only possible outcome that could have occured.

Either deal with the fact that not all possible outcomes occur or watch this thread grow longer as you demonstrate you can't accept being wrong in any way shape or form whatsoever.

Elennsar wrote: There is nothing elusive about pointing out that the outcome that did happen is not necessarily the only possible outcome that could have occured.

There is something elusive about refusing to answer a question.

Since your question is basically set up so that it is either "agree with RandomCasuality2" or "be treated as illogical whatever your point is by RandomCasuality2", do you honestly expect an answer?

If your question is not set up so that those are the two answers, you're hiding it well.

Elennsar wrote:Since your question is basically set up so that it is either "agree with RandomCasuality2" or "be treated as illogical whatever your point is by RandomCasuality2", do you honestly expect an answer?

My question was simply that you state if a couple of statements are each true or false. And that's simply a statement of fact. If facts disprove your case... well then your case is wrong.

If either way you answer it, it leads to a logical conclusion that contradicts what you've said, then your point is not logically sound. And that's the building block of logic, taking true statements and coming to a conclusion from those statements.

And if you can't debate using logic with me, then your point is illogical. It does not derive from conclusions made from true statements, but rather it is simply something pulled out of your ass.



Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion: If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

These two statements can each be true or they can be false.

Stop being elusive and pick a fucking stance. This is a simple statement that you can either agree with or disagree with.

True or False? Hell, even answer with "I don't know."

But pick something. Cut the elusive question dodging, cut the ambiguous prose. I just want a simple True or false answer. Show some backbone and commit to something.

Premise: In the universe that McClane lives in, assuming that he is not in fact, invulnerable, he is capable of being killed.

Fact: In the script, he is not killed.

Conclusion: He is also capable of not being killed, which is as it turns out what happened.

So the script -could- have him die but didn't. Big difference between that and "it couldn't".


I am commited to something. That something is that your premise and conclusion are badly founded as a way to determine whether or not McClane is invulnerable or just lucky/skilled in the first place.

So, conclusion.

If McClane in the universe in which he inhabits, which the movie is telling a story of, is capable of being killed, then he is facing death.

The script saying he doesn't die doesn't mean he couldn't have died anymore than a Holocaust survivor (was intending to name a particular author, but his name escapes me) telling that he survived means he could not have died.

On the other hand, a rpg where you need to roll a 0 on a d20 to die eliminates that outcome from being created to begin with.

Very damn different situation.

OK I'll play your game, but I want you to answer my questions too.

I can answer true or false to what you've said as my stance.

Elennsar wrote:Premise: In the universe that McClane lives in, assuming that he is not in fact, invulnerable, he is capable of being killed.

I would have to agree with this because it is simply a hidden circular logic tautology. You're saying that P implies P. If McClane is not invulnerable then he's capable of being killed. That's just restating one idea in another form, and while true, is completely meaningless, since if you've proved P, you have no use for stating that if P is true then P is true. But you haven't yet made a premise that P is true in the first place and are just left iwth a hanging if statement.

EDIT: I've revised the aforementioned statement to be false. assuming that you're using the definition of invulnerable to mean "cannot be damaged" McClane can be damaged, he just can't be killed. So I'm changing it to false on both counts. If McClane can take damage then he's capable of being killed is a false statement.


But I dont' think that's what you meant to say.

Lets just shorten your premise to :

"John McClane can be killed in Die Hard. "
Or "John McClane is not invulnerable in Die Hard."

Would that be fair?

And if so, I would disagree with that revised premise.

Fact: In the script, he is not killed.

This is true.

Conclusion: He is also capable of not being killed, which is as it turns out what happened.

This is also true. McClaine is capable of not being killed. Though it isn't a conclusion reached from your premise, just the thing you stated as a fact.

So the script -could- have him die but didn't. Big difference between that and "it couldn't".

False.


Now, Prid Pro Quo.

I stated how I feel about your statements, now do mine.


Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion: If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

Do you agree or disagree with either the premise or the conclusion?

Lets just shorten your premise to :

"John McClane can be killed in Die Hard. "
Or "John McClane is not invulnerable in Die Hard."

Would that be fair?

McClane can have the outcome "killed" in the story that Die Hard is portraying. The script can have "McClane dies." in it.

It does not. So? Does that mean that no such script could be written? No.

The script saying he doesn't die doesn't mean he couldn't have died anymore than a Holocaust survivor (was intending to name a particular author, but his name escapes me) telling that he survived means he could not have died.

Edit:

Apparently, in your corner of reality, the Holocaust survivor telling of his experience was incapable of being slain.

Elennsar wrote: McClane can have the outcome "killed" in the story that Die Hard is portraying.

I would say false on that one.

Now answer my questions.

Now admit that you are incapable of telling the difference between the outcome that didn't occur and the outcomes that can't.

Your premise and conclusion are faulty to the point of being irrelevant to whether or not McClane if his situation was real would be facing death or not, which is what determines whether or not he is being heroic for facing it or whether he is unable to die.

The fact that the Die Hard movie does not have him die does not mean that it could not have had him die.

Unless, of course, there was no choice about what happened, and the script writer/s were also destined.

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

I stated the truth or falsehood of your statements in a few seconds.

Do the same for mine.

NO MORE BULLSHIT. TRUE OR FALSE.

Elennsar wrote:
McClane can have the outcome "killed" in the story that Die Hard is portraying. The script can have "McClane dies." in it.

If McClane could be killed in Die Hard movies, he'd been long since dead. The survivability of some of the things he does (especially in #4) is roughly nil. Hence, he is literally unkillable in those movies.

Faulty to the point of irrelevant.

Just because McClane does not die here does not mean that Die Hard could not have had him die.

Therefore, I could easily be watching it without that being the outcome that "really" happened.

In quotes, as "really" and 'fictional" don't mix smoothly.

If McClane could be killed in Die Hard movies, he'd been long since dead. The survivability of some of the things he does (especially in #4) is roughly nil. Hence, he is literally unkillable in those movies.

Roughly=/= exactly.

Nitpicking aside, if that's true, then he's not risking death - and isn't heroic in the sense heroism involves risking death.

Boring Invincible Hero. At least he can get hurt. That's something.

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion: If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

Do you agree or disagree with either the premise or the conclusion?