Ordin wrote:here's the way i see it:
Mr. M was stupid for ditching his chick and delving off to an uncharted island to get lost at. However, it is understandable that he got overly emotional and broke up with Ms. L after she slutted out to save him.
It's somewhat understandable that Mr. B would demand money for the rescue, though it is fucked up that he couldn't just do it and have L pay him back. Ships are expensive things to maintain and you can't just waste all of your time and money shoving off to rescue idiotic princesses who found themselves in distress via prancing about in a cranky dragon's cave.
Mr. S gets a hundred fucked up points for asking L to service him in reply for the rescue. Obviously they had been friends, seeing as L knew S had a boat and was willing to go to him about it. It's rape.
It's also fucked up L accepted it, but she was emotional and saw this as the only way to save her boyfriend. Yes, there were probably other things she could have done. But not everyone is a logical thinking person, so it's to be expected a weakminded fool would make a choice like this.
Like I said, it's understandable that M flipped out at L, but I'm sure they could've patched things up once they had calmed down. L didn't start the day thinking "man, i'm gonna go cheat on M, she only did it as her jaded last resort.
Mr. H is also duly fucked up for swooping in and taking advantage of ms. L's emotional state. If it weren't for him Mr. M and her could've gotten back together probably. Though they still could if she decided to ditch H.
So all in all they're all incredibly fucked up and all deserve a punch to the genitals.
I love you forever.
Toothpick wrote:I still think that the whole "she could have called the police" thing is a bit of a red herring.
I'll restate the experiment with the specific condition that their is no other solution to the problem of her rescuing her boyfriend. No police, no other boats, no radio, the water between is full of living razor blades and electrified razorwire jellyfish. Same exact situation. Fuck a skeeve or let your loved one die. I think that's what the authors of this little thing had in mind when they made it, though I could be wrong. And even if i am, i'd like to hear if that changes your perception of things, Davis.
>No Police
>No other boats
>No Radio
>Blake's opinions onlyFINAL DESTINATION
A red herring...based on the context of your sentence I doubt you even know what that is. In both formal and informal contexts it's a literary device that diverts attention away from the truth or main subject purposefully. Since the police, coast guard, and legitimate boat rental places all exist in what we call the "Metagame" (not in the story but do exist), they cannot be red herrings. The author of the original experiment as well as the artist who made it into a flash
didn't put in anything else and therefore it cannot be a 'red herring'.
Furthermore I will sate
once again that if you look at how the story's told, it has nothing to do with the choices she has, I will repeat that because it bears repeating; It has nothing to do with the choices she has. We aren't given her choices, we are told what she
DID. There's a huge difference there. If those were her only options, the story would be different, but we're told the actions she took and not the only choices she had in the whole wide world.
And lastly about your botched attempt at getting me to agree with you; I don't spend my precious thought power thinking up the solutions to ridiculously rare or improbable events. What you just listed would never happen in reality. Therefore I simply don't give a fuck. The original experiment has real life applications as long as it stays close as possible to real life. It's a bit queer, I admit, because rarely do people go on boats and get stuck on islands.
BUT IF SOMEONE DID: The first fucking thing you do is call the coast guard. They
will help, it's their fucking jobs. You don't even need to stress, because they'll find him. Even if you don't know what island he's on, you can just check the log at the local port he left from. All boats have to have a destination and cargo (if any) record. Even if you didn't know that or didn't know the coast guard existed, once you got screwed by Mr. B the logical thing to do, even the emotional thing to do, is to go to a legitimate boat rental place nearby.
In short, your argument will never work, it will never be right, and changing the conditions so that it could possibly have a tiny bit of merit only makes the conditions so extreme no one gives a fuck and it loses all use.
Let me point this out to you because I don't think you know; your argument is an Enthymeme. You do this a lot so I wanted to make you aware. And if you haven't used Google yet, an Enthymeme is an argument that makes an unstated assumption that must be true for the premise to follow to the conclusion. In this instance, you make the unstated assumption that they live in a magical land without coast guards, police, boat rentals, or phones simply because it wasn't stated. The idea of this kind of argument is persuasion through rhetoric rather than demonstrative purposes outlining what is valid and invalid. It's also called an "argument of oversight" where the person legitimately didn't realize they used this fallacy, though that doesn't stop it from being one. The biggest problem is that it usually evolves into a Rogerian argument (which yours did with the post I quoted) like how you tried to get us all on a common assumption about no police, no coast guard, razorwire jellyfish, final destination.
I can understand your debacle since I used an argument similar to Enthymeme but there's a huge difference, mine is valid. My argument is Modus Ponens. (If P then Q, P therefore Q)
- If the presentation contains elements of reality but no elements against reality, then it describes reality
- The presentation contained elements of reality but no elements against reality
- Therefore it describes reality
ATTENTION DUELISTS: My hair is narrowing your options!
Home
