gieff wrote:You wouldn't have to repeat yourself if you realized that I was not telling Zilla to kill herself. I was demonstrating to her (and to everyone else) that her statement "I am sure I have caught 2 or 3 scum" is incorrect.
Do you really think it is plausible that I am scum and was hoping I could convince town-Zilla to self-vote? Really?
How, exactly, were you demonstrating that it's incorrect? Show me. Your conditional for proving that 'zilla is sure' is that zilla kills herself. It demonstrates nothing, because either:
1. zilla doesn't kill herself.
2. zilla kills herself, which still proves nothing.
It doesn't demonstrate anything because your clause for her statement to be true is absurd, and unlikely to happen.
gieff wrote:Do you really think it is plausible that I am scum and was hoping I could convince town-Zilla to self-vote? Really?
I think it's plausible you're scum making a pointless case that was meant to sound like it conclusively proved that zilla was unsure about her cases, when in fact, it doesn't demonstrate anything.
gieff wrote:If you love chocolate so much, then why don't you marry it?
Funny I was about to post an analogy. Here's mine:
analogy wrote:John and Joe, are from religion A and religion B. They've been arguing over who's religion is right for a while now. John says to Joe, "Alright, kill yourself. If your religion is right, you go to heaven. If it's wrong, you go to hell."
It's pointless, because either:
1. Joe doesn't kill himself. John (that's you), goes, "Aha! You didn't kill yourself. You're obviously not sure about your religion."
2. Joe does kill himself. It still doesn't prove religion B is right.
Also, sure, let's use your analogy too:
gieff wrote:If you love chocolate so much, then why don't you marry it?
Can you really not see the fallacy? Let's try it in a conversation:
ting: I love chocolate.
gieff: No, you don't love chocolate.
ting: I
do
love chocolate.
gieff:
If you love chocolate so much, then why don't you marry it?
ting: That's a stupid argument. Your conditional for me to prove that I really
do
love chocolate is that I marry it? Really? So either:
1. I marry chocolate - you accept that I really, honestly love chocolate.
2. I don't marry chocolate, even though it's
obvious
that this was a perfectly reasonable conditional for proving my honesty. Since I don't marry chocolate, I obviously don't love chocolate - I was lying.
Yes, I'm obviously going to marry chocolate. It's not at all absurd to expect me to marry chocolate to prove I was telling the truth.
Basically,
gieff wrote:Would you conclude that a child who asked the above question was really advocating for the chocolate-lover to marry chocolate?
I would conclude that the child who asked the above question just made a fallacy. Which is especially bad since said child used that fallacy to convince the other children in the playground that they should hang one of their number by a noose from the monkey bars.
---
gieff wrote:ting and sensfan, how close are you to finishing your re-read? It would be ideal to decide on a lynch candidate today, so we can work out the claims and the actual lynch in the next three days.
I'm behind on several games ever since I've had more work in RL. Also, this particular game moves really fast. Still, I'll set time up in the weekend to finish this off.
---
gieff wrote:And ting, THIS is why I wanted you to unvote. Dourgrim would have just accidentally hammered Panzer if your vote was still on.
I honestly doubt that.
---
gieff wrote:Dourgrim, Sensfan, and ting; we still need your top 3.
I gave my tentative top 3 already. Go ahead and put them in your top 3 listing; if my top 3 changes after I'm done reading, just change them.
