We Do Not Kneel

[The Two Jerseys]

If the dictator is telling us that we'd be spared if we kneel, wouldn't he also have to tell us that we'd be killed if we don't?

Either both scenarios are interpretations, or both are statements. You can't mix and match.

Both are interpretations since there are no quotation marks, or god forbid grammatical incorrect !

Which confirms that IM's argument is completely dishonest.

[Great Nepal]

Both are interpretations since there are no quotation marks, or god forbid grammatical incorrect !

Which confirms that IM's argument is completely dishonest.

...but we knew that a long time ago, didn't we?

[The Two Jerseys]

Which confirms that IM's argument is completely dishonest.

...but we knew that a long time ago, didn't we?

Yup.

It's like that contest where they said the winner would receive a Toyota, but they actually gave her a toy Yoda and said "you misunderstood what we said". The court didn't buy it either.

[Ifreann]

You seem to be assuming considerable stupidity on the part of Stannis Baratheon. Why would he go to the trouble of trying to recruit soldiers he doesn't need?

There's no mention of Stannis in the OP, you chose to go there

Gosh, it's almost as though I'm inferring it from your well established obsession with the show.

---

I forgot, what century is this scenario?

300 years after Aegon's Conquest.

[Great Nepal]

...but we knew that a long time ago, didn't we?

Yup.

It's like that contest where they said the winner would receive a Toyota, but they actually gave her a toy Yoda and said "you misunderstood what we said". The court didn't buy it either.

That would have been gold moment to see the contestant's face though...

Anyway IM, GoT is awesome and some of the decisions made could be used as quite cool moral question thread in NSG but trying to play with the original scenario afterwards to make it suit your 'right' answer ruins the whole thing, and for someone so obsessed with honour is quite dishourable thing to do.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It determines contemporary values and interpretations thereof. Location is also important.

if it matters for your answer, then you can give conditional hypotheticals for each and every case

Or you can just give the intended place and time period.

There's no mention of Stannis in the OP, you chose to go there

Gosh, it's almost as though I'm inferring it from your well established obsession with the show.

---

I forgot, what century is this scenario?

300 years after Aegon's Conquest.

Nevermind, I've found it, so I'll give my answer:

I'd say,"Alright, you primitive screwhead, listen up! This is my BOOMSTICK!" then shoot him in the face. Actually, in reverse order, with more monologue. Then I'd end with shooting one of those Yankee thingies from the other side of the wall or some shit.

Army of Darkness>GoT

[Benian Republic]

Benian Republic wrote:
No, fight to the bloody end until your homeland is totally freed from the oppressive dictatorship and if you die while trying to do so then let your descendants follow in your footsteps til your land is wholly free.

[Ifreann]

Benian Republic wrote:
No, fight to the bloody end until your homeland is totally freed from the oppressive dictatorship and if you die while trying to do so then let your descendants follow in your footsteps til your land is wholly free.

It's not really your homeland. It's their homeland.

[Infected Mushroom]

Benian Republic wrote:
No, fight to the bloody end until your homeland is totally freed from the oppressive dictatorship and if you die while trying to do so then let your descendants follow in your footsteps til your land is wholly free.

It's not really your homeland. It's their homeland.

I said nothing about that in the OP

you are fighting for an ideology or a revolution you really believe in; that's different for everyone

the liberation of your homeland could be it for some people

[Camicon]

It's not really your homeland. It's their homeland.

I said nothing about that in the OP

you are fighting for an ideology or a revolution you really believe in; that's different for everyone

the liberation of your homeland could be it for some people

So we're allowed to interpret that part of your purposefully vague thought experiment however we want, but we can't interpret the dictator as being trustworthy enough to follow through with his promise not to kill us?

FOWYB

[Ifreann]

It's not really your homeland. It's their homeland.

I said nothing about that in the OP

Yes you did. Just not directly.

[Sun Wukong]

I shalln't kneel, for I stand before God, and to him only shall I kneel.

I'm pretty sure if a doctor said to you in a stern voice, "now for this next test I'm going to need you to kneel over there," you'd do it.

[Confederate Ramenia]

If the leader of a cause gives up, then almost everyone else in the cause will give up.

This. Never kneel. If you kneel you lose, if you die you win, it's literally that simple.

[Sun Wukong]

If the leader of a cause gives up, then almost everyone else in the cause will give up.

This. Never kneel. If you kneel you lose, if you die you win, it's literally that simple.

Tell that to the Tangut Empire.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If the leader of a cause gives up, then almost everyone else in the cause will give up.

This. Never kneel. If you kneel you lose, if you die you win, it's literally that simple.

You got that backwards. You can't win if you're dead.

[Confederate Ramenia]

This. Never kneel. If you kneel you lose, if you die you win, it's literally that simple.

You got that backwards. You can't win if you're dead.

The revolution can. True revolution leader die for glorious people's democratic republic of revolutionland.

[Waideland]

<---- Also just watched Braveheart.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You got that backwards. You can't win if you're dead.

The revolution can. True revolution leader die for glorious people's democratic republic of revolutionland.

If your plan ever includes,"And then the people will rise up," such as this one, then it's a bad plan.

Cite three historical examples of revolution inspired by the death of a prominent figure.

Wait, that was satire, wasn't it?

[Infected Mushroom]

I said nothing about that in the OP

you are fighting for an ideology or a revolutionary cause you really believe in; that's different for everyone

the liberation of your homeland could be it for some people

So we're allowed to interpret that part of your purposefully vague thought experiment however we want, but we can't interpret the dictator as being trustworthy enough to follow through with his promise not to kill us?

FOWYB

Yes.

Because the OP said in the first sentence that it is a FACT that ''you are fighting for a revolutionary cause or an ideology you really believe in.''

In contrast, the OP implies through paragraph construction that everything under the first major paragraph, since it follows ''You are told by the dictatorship government...'' implying that everything is to be evaluated based on what you are TOLD and that you have no real foreknowledge.

Just read everything as you would on an SAT Reading Comp test (where you should take everything at face value and not make leaps) and you'll be fine.

[The Two Jerseys]

So we're allowed to interpret that part of your purposefully vague thought experiment however we want, but we can't interpret the dictator as being trustworthy enough to follow through with his promise not to kill us?

FOWYB

Yes.

Because the OP said in the first sentence that it is a FACT that ''you are fighting for a revolutionary cause or an ideology you really believe in.''

In contrast, the OP implies through paragraph construction that everything under the first major paragraph, since it follows ''You are told by the dictatorship government...'' implying that everything is to be evaluated based on what you are TOLD and that you have no real foreknowledge.

Just read everything as you would on an SAT Reading Comp test (where you should take everything at face value and not make leaps) and you'll be fine.

And despite what you say, we still don't know that we'll be killed for not kneeling until they put a bullet in our head.

Option A CANNOT be an interpretation if Option B is a fact, and vice versa. Your "experiment" is completely invalid if it is.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So we're allowed to interpret that part of your purposefully vague thought experiment however we want, but we can't interpret the dictator as being trustworthy enough to follow through with his promise not to kill us?

FOWYB

Yes.

Because the OP said in the first sentence that it is a FACT that ''you are fighting for a revolutionary cause or an ideology you really believe in.''

National independence is an ideology.

In contrast, the OP implies through paragraph construction that everything under the first major paragraph, since it follows ''You are told by the dictatorship government...'' implying that everything is to be evaluated based on what you are TOLD and that you have no real foreknowledge.

It doesn't say the dictator is lying though.

Just read everything as you would on an SAT Reading Comp test (where you should take everything at face value and not make leaps) and you'll be fine.

This isn't the SAT.

[Arcanda]

"NUTS!"

Well said, no need to add more.
Live up your ideals until the end.You can die, but this way people'll remember you forever.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

"NUTS!"

Well said, no need to add more.
Live up your ideals until the end.You can die, but this way people'll remember you forever.

But McAulliffe lived and reinforcements saved Bastogne.

[Camicon]

So we're allowed to interpret that part of your purposefully vague thought experiment however we want, but we can't interpret the dictator as being trustworthy enough to follow through with his promise not to kill us?

FOWYB

Yes.

Because the OP said in the first sentence that it is a FACT that ''you are fighting for a revolutionary cause or an ideology you really believe in.''

In contrast, the OP implies through paragraph construction that everything under the first major paragraph, since it follows ''You are told by the dictatorship government...'' implying that everything is to be evaluated based on what you are TOLD and that you have no real foreknowledge.

Just read everything as you would on an SAT Reading Comp test (where you should take everything at face value and not make leaps) and you'll be fine.

The OP doesn't say why we are fighting. It tells us what we are fighting for, but not why we are fighting. So we are free to interpret that as we wish.

Likewise, the OP doesn't say that the dictator will kill us if we kneel. So basing our response around the very logical, very real possibility that this dictator doesn't kill us (it being a logical and real possibility due to the explanation we're given as to why) should be a perfectly valid interpretation. More so than the former example, because we are given evidence to support the latter but nothing to support the former.

And yet, you refuse to accept that the latter is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of your OP, because it completely dismantles your attempts to humiliate people that don't subscribe to your "honour above all else" code of ethics.

FOWYB

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes.

Because the OP said in the first sentence that it is a FACT that ''you are fighting for a revolutionary cause or an ideology you really believe in.''

In contrast, the OP implies through paragraph construction that everything under the first major paragraph, since it follows ''You are told by the dictatorship government...'' implying that everything is to be evaluated based on what you are TOLD and that you have no real foreknowledge.

Just read everything as you would on an SAT Reading Comp test (where you should take everything at face value and not make leaps) and you'll be fine.

The OP doesn't say why we are fighting. It tells us what we are fighting for, but not why we are fighting. So we are free to interpret that as we wish.

Likewise, the OP doesn't say that the dictator will kill us if we kneel. So basing our response around the very logical, very real possibility that this dictator doesn't kill us (it being a logical and real possibility due to the explanation we're given as to why) should be a perfectly valid interpretation. More so than the former example, because we are given evidence to support the latter but nothing to support the former.

And yet, you refuse to accept that the latter is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of your OP, because it completely dismantles your attempts to humiliate people that don't subscribe to your "honour above all else" code of ethics.

FOWYB

I'd still like to know how we have to trust the dictator's word for Option A, but when it comes to Option B we're suddenly omniscient...

Oh, that's right, IM is playing with loaded dice.