NationStates

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
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.

Both options are actions that you take. The consequences follow. In taking either action, you must anticipate the likely consequences.

That is all.

Camicon wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
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

You pick the option based on the most likely outcome and your own personal values; you have to anticipate the outcome and argue why that is the most likely outcome.

Its really not meant to be complicated.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Camicon wrote: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

You pick the option based on the most likely outcome and your own personal values; you have to anticipate the outcome and argue why that is the most likely outcome.

Its really not meant to be complicated.

And now BOTH options are open to interpretation...

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
You pick the option based on the most likely outcome and your own personal values; you have to anticipate the outcome and argue why that is the most likely outcome.

Its really not meant to be complicated.

And now BOTH options are open to interpretation...

there's very little interpretation for the option not to kneel. If you are prepared and willing to die a painful death, its irrelevant what they do next.

For the option TO KNEEL, there's a lot more to bet on assuming your goal is to live (and for some, its to live and then be in a position to betray the dictatorship).

That's the difference.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:And now BOTH options are open to interpretation...

there's very little interpretation for the option not to kneel. If you are prepared and willing to die a painful death, its irrelevant what they do next.

For the option TO KNEEL, there's a lot more to bet on assuming your goal is to live (and for some, its to live and then be in a position to betray the dictatorship).

That's the difference.

IE, in the former you're a dead man. In the latter there's a good chance chance you'll live to fight another day.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
there's very little interpretation for the option not to kneel. If you are prepared and willing to die a painful death, its irrelevant what they do next.

For the option TO KNEEL, there's a lot more to bet on assuming your goal is to live (and for some, its to live and then be in a position to betray the dictatorship).

That's the difference.

IE, in the former you're a dead man. In the latter there's a good chance chance you'll live to fight another day.

How did you come to the conclusion about the second part?

How are you so certain that the dictatorship will let you fight another day as opposed to doing the predictable thing of maximising its own benefit and security at your expense (sending you to die in a suicide battalion after maximising the political gains he can get from you from kneeling)?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:IE, in the former you're a dead man. In the latter there's a good chance chance you'll live to fight another day.

How did you come to the conclusion about the second part?

How are you so certain that the dictatorship will let you fight another day as opposed to doing the predictable thing of maximising its own benefit and security at your expense (sending you to die in a suicide battalion after maximising the political gains he can get from you from kneeling)?

Why are you so certain that the rebellion lives and dies on the whims of their captured "leader"? For the same reason, I would suspect: because that's the scenario in the OP.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:And now BOTH options are open to interpretation...

there's very little interpretation for the option not to kneel. If you are prepared and willing to die a painful death, its irrelevant what they do next.

For the option TO KNEEL, there's a lot more to bet on assuming your goal is to live (and for some, its to live and then be in a position to betray the dictatorship).

That's the difference.

The point is that your scenario is as consistent as the right field fence at Citi Field.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
there's very little interpretation for the option not to kneel. If you are prepared and willing to die a painful death, its irrelevant what they do next.

For the option TO KNEEL, there's a lot more to bet on assuming your goal is to live (and for some, its to live and then be in a position to betray the dictatorship).

That's the difference.

The point is that your scenario is as consistent as the right field fence at Citi Field.

its entirely consistent.

What is said in the OP is to be taken literally. Then you are to draw reasonable conclusions but not to make concrete leaps of logic.

If you are not sure which reasonable conclusions you can or can't draw, you can always say

''Assuming X, I do Y but I'm not sure if X will happen, I am going to gamble that it does happen and here's why I think it's likely to happen and I am going to present a line of reasoning that doesn't directly contradict anything explicitly said in the OP but supplements it in a reasonable way.''

I might not agree with you but at least we're speaking the same language.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:The point is that your scenario is as consistent as the right field fence at Citi Field.

its entirely consistent.

What is said in the OP is to be taken literally. Then you are to draw reasonable conclusions but not to make concrete leaps of logic.

If you are not sure which reasonable conclusions you can or can't draw, you can always say

''Assuming X, I do Y but I'm not sure if X will happen, I am going to gamble that it does happen and here's why I think it's likely to happen.''

I might not agree with you but at least we're speaking the same language.

FOWYB

Camicon wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
its entirely consistent.

What is said in the OP is to be taken literally. Then you are to draw reasonable conclusions but not to make concrete leaps of logic.

If you are not sure which reasonable conclusions you can or can't draw, you can always say

''Assuming X, I do Y but I'm not sure if X will happen, I am going to gamble that it does happen and here's why I think it's likely to happen.''

I might not agree with you but at least we're speaking the same language.

FOWYB

what's that?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:The point is that your scenario is as consistent as the right field fence at Citi Field.

its entirely consistent.

What is said in the OP is to be taken literally. Then you are to draw reasonable conclusions but not to make concrete leaps of logic.

If you are not sure which reasonable conclusions you can or can't draw, you can always say

''Assuming X, I do Y but I'm not sure if X will happen, I am going to gamble that it does happen and here's why I think it's likely to happen and I am going to present a line of reasoning that doesn't directly contradict anything explicitly said in the OP but supplements it in a reasonable way.''

I might not agree with you but at least we're speaking the same language.

So now it's guaranteed that the dictator will keep his word and spare us if we kneel?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Camicon wrote:FOWYB

what's that?

Fuck Off With Your Bullshit.

You've changed the goalposts so many times, you're not even pretending anymore. You've traded them in for a set of football chains.

Camicon wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
what's that?

Fuck Off With Your Bullshit.

You've changed the goalposts so many times, you're not even pretending anymore. You've traded them in for a set of football chains.

I have been entirely consistent.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
its entirely consistent.

What is said in the OP is to be taken literally. Then you are to draw reasonable conclusions but not to make concrete leaps of logic.

If you are not sure which reasonable conclusions you can or can't draw, you can always say

''Assuming X, I do Y but I'm not sure if X will happen, I am going to gamble that it does happen and here's why I think it's likely to happen and I am going to present a line of reasoning that doesn't directly contradict anything explicitly said in the OP but supplements it in a reasonable way.''

I might not agree with you but at least we're speaking the same language.

So now it's guaranteed that the dictator will keep his word and spare us if we kneel?

You can argue that its likely if you believe so (I disagree, I don't think its likely, they have every incentive to screw you over after and every incentive to safeguard against you).

But its not guaranteed. Whether or not its guaranteed depends on whether or not you believe dictatorships keep their word in good faith or not.

Why do you think its in the dictatorship's interest to keep you alive instead of double-crossing you after you've served your purpose?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:So now it's guaranteed that the dictator will keep his word and spare us if we kneel?

You can argue that its likely if you believe so (I disagree, I don't think its likely, they have every incentive to screw you over after and every incentive to safeguard against you).

But its not guaranteed. Whether or not its guaranteed depends on whether or not on whether you believe dictatorships keep their word in good faith or not.

Why do you think its in the dictatorship's interest to keep you alive instead of double-crossing you after you've served your purpose?

But we are guaranteed. You just said that everything in the OP is to be taken literally.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
You can argue that its likely if you believe so (I disagree, I don't think its likely, they have every incentive to screw you over after and every incentive to safeguard against you).

But its not guaranteed. Whether or not its guaranteed depends on whether or not on whether you believe dictatorships keep their word in good faith or not.

Why do you think its in the dictatorship's interest to keep you alive instead of double-crossing you after you've served your purpose?

But we are guaranteed. You just said that everything in the OP is to be taken literally.

it is to be taken literally which is why you cannot assume the dictatorship will keep its word

you can ARGUE that you think that based on what is said on the OP and the situation it describes, it is LIKELY that the dictatorship will keep its word in good faith. You can then draw on real life experiences, logic, incentives, psychology etc.

I think in terms of everything adding up, there's a pretty good chance you'll be double-crossed in some way if you kneel.

But if its a slightly increased probability of living that you want (at the definite expense of your personal honour), then go for it. It's not the ''Oh my God I'm definitely going to live and outsmart the dictatorship'' Golden Key option that so many are making it out to be.

At best you can argue there is SOME chance you'll live and SOME chance you might be able to betray them successfully. But that SOME chance is not very high assuming a remotely competent dictatorship (which is the majority of dictatorships).

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
You can argue that its likely if you believe so (I disagree, I don't think its likely, they have every incentive to screw you over after and every incentive to safeguard against you).

But its not guaranteed. Whether or not its guaranteed depends on whether or not on whether you believe dictatorships keep their word in good faith or not.

Why do you think its in the dictatorship's interest to keep you alive instead of double-crossing you after you've served your purpose?

But we are guaranteed. You just said that everything in the OP is to be taken literally.

Everything in the first major paragraph is what the dictatorship told you in the scenario. Nowhere in the OP does it say you assume the dictatorship will keeps its bargain in good faith (or that it will keep the bargain at all).

You are gambling.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:But we are guaranteed. You just said that everything in the OP is to be taken literally.

Everything in the first major paragraph is what the dictatorship told you in the scenario. Nowhere in the OP does it say you assume the dictatorship will keeps its bargain in good faith (or that it will keep the bargain at all).

You are gambling.

So how can we know for certain that we'll be killed if we don't kneel? Especially when the dictator never even told us what would happen if we don't kneel?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Everything in the first major paragraph is what the dictatorship told you in the scenario. Nowhere in the OP does it say you assume the dictatorship will keeps its bargain in good faith (or that it will keep the bargain at all).

You are gambling.

So how can we know for certain that we'll be killed if we don't kneel? Especially when the dictator never even told us what would happen if we don't kneel?

because that part is in a separate paragraph.

The OP is telling you what will happen.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:So how can we know for certain that we'll be killed if we don't kneel? Especially when the dictator never even told us what would happen if we don't kneel?

because that part is in a separate paragraph.

The OP is telling you what will happen.

Again: we CANNOT make a first-person decision when we have omniscient knowledge of the outcome of one scenario.

Your entire scenario is completely rigged.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
because that part is in a separate paragraph.

The OP is telling you what will happen.

Again: we CANNOT make a first-person decision when we have omniscient knowledge of the outcome of one scenario.

Your entire scenario is completely rigged.

what difference does it make?

Hypothetically, let's say you MIGHT NOT die if you refuse to kneel.

Why would that be a problem? You're still taking a huge risk and it still says something about your honour.

Does anything about the situation suggest that you should bank on living by not kneeling? How would you make that case out?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Again: we CANNOT make a first-person decision when we have omniscient knowledge of the outcome of one scenario.

Your entire scenario is completely rigged.

what difference does it make?

Let's say you MIGHT NOT die if you refuse to kneel.

Why would that be a problem? You're still taking a huge risk and it still says something about your honour.

What difference does it make?

Let's try a different scenario:

You are driving along a lonely road in the middle of the desert when your low fuel light comes on. You immediately come to a fork in the road and come to a stop. You have no map, no GPS, and have never been here before.

There is a sign at the intersection that says if you go left, you will reach a town in 20 miles.

The road to the right is unsigned, and somehow you magically know that as soon as you drive over the crest of the hill right there, your car will plunge off the edge of the world.

Which way do you go?

Now do you see what difference it makes?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
what difference does it make?

Let's say you MIGHT NOT die if you refuse to kneel.

Why would that be a problem? You're still taking a huge risk and it still says something about your honour.

What difference does it make?

Let's try a different scenario:

You are driving along a lonely road in the middle of the desert when your low fuel light comes on. You immediately come to a fork in the road and come to a stop. You have no map, no GPS, and have never been here before.

There is a sign at the intersection that says if you go left, you will reach a town in 20 miles.

The road to the right is unsigned, and somehow you magically know that as soon as you drive over the crest of the hill right there, your car will plunge off the edge of the world.

Which way do you go?

Now do you see what difference it makes?

I don't understand.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:What difference does it make?

Let's try a different scenario:

You are driving along a lonely road in the middle of the desert when your low fuel light comes on. You immediately come to a fork in the road and come to a stop. You have no map, no GPS, and have never been here before.

There is a sign at the intersection that says if you go left, you will reach a town in 20 miles.

The road to the right is unsigned, and somehow you magically know that as soon as you drive over the crest of the hill right there, your car will plunge off the edge of the world.

Which way do you go?

Now do you see what difference it makes?

I don't understand.

How could we possibly know that the car would fall off the edge of the world if we go right?

The same way we know that we'd be killed if we don't kneel.

It's rigged.