Logical Fallacies in Serenity by CTHawk

People have responded to the other things to my satisfaction, but the people thinking Reaver's thing is unrealistic still bugs me.

Where is it writ that people have to be stupid to be violent? So no killer has ever been able to do repairs or program a computer?

The idea that just because people are aggressive they will turn on each other. Some of the most violent groups are the most tight nit.

People who kill or rape others for fun have been known to be people intensely devoted to each other.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 12:09 PM

DC4BS

I'm interesed that NOONE seems to have twigged to the fact that the Operative didn't fall on his sword.

I mean, according to his own philosophy, "a man who has failed so completey"... "It is a good death."

If he is too weak in the end to do that, why would any of his other convictions be so rock stable either.

I like the outtakes of the final scene with Mal "What a whiner..." After being so much the bad ass heavy, it sums it all up. I think it should have been left in.

His flaws make him even more human and believable and scarier.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 1:04 PM

THESOAPBOXER

ChrisTheCynic makes good points.

No matter how much we have found out about Reavers, they are still a real mystery. All we (and the characters) really know at this point are their origins and their behaviors. All the rest is strictly speculation, which is where the theory that Reavers shouldn't be able to pilot ships comes from.

Reavers obviously can, in fact, pilot ships since we've seen them do it. While they seem to prefer the traditional metal and stone weapons, they can and do operate slightly more complex weapons (like guns) and how to handle certain poisons or toxins (like the kind Kaylee gets darted with). On top of this, they can also manage to assemble complex explosions linked to booby traps (in "Bushwacked"). They are systematic even when it comes to hunting (they prefer not to eat dead prey).

These are the things that we've seen them do, so if a character ever says that they can't do them, then it would be a contradiction. But since no one has said "Reaver's are too crazy and/or violent to pilot ships or form alligiences with one another" we have no choice but to assume they can.

Since Reavers are fictional characters, not based on any actual society or people, the only one who knows what they can and can't do is Joss. All that we can be sure of is what we've seen them do.

_____________________________________________
Could you please just make it stranger? Just stranger. Odder. Could be weirder. More bizarre. How about uncanny? ~Joss Whedon

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 1:05 PM

SILVERSURFER

Quote:
Originally posted by dc4bs:
I'm interesed that NOONE seems to have twigged to the fact that the Operative didn't fall on his sword.

I mean, according to his own philosophy, "a man who has failed so completey"... "It is a good death."

If he is too weak in the end to do that, why would any of his other convictions be so rock stable either.

I like the outtakes of the final scene with Mal "What a whiner..." After being so much the bad ass heavy, it sums it all up. I think it should have been left in.

His flaws make him even more human and believable and scarier.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

Yeah, I totally thought he was gonna fall on his sword at the end and was somewhat disappointed that he didn't. Hirikiri style baby!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 1:14 PM

ZEEK

1.) They may have made River better, but at what cost? "Better" is also subjective. She's a superior fighter to the Reavers, but she can't hold a conversation. The point is that the government shouldn't be trying to alter us against our will.

2.) The Operative saw what he was really fighting for. He believes in some evil to accomplish an overall good. When you see murder on that magnitude, you have to have a pretty huge good to outweigh it. I don't think he believes the ends justify the means anymore.

3.) I still maintain my theory that Reavers are just like animals. You can turn on the discovery channel and see a bunch of lions lying around together peaceful as a summer breeze, but when they see their prey, their instincts kick in. We've only seen the reavers in predator instinct mode. I'm betting there is a day to day mode as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
...there are a couple logical fallacies which baffle me.

The examples you gave are not fallacies. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

Formal fallacies have something wrong with the actual structure of the argument. For instance, "Some bankers are golfers; all crooks are golfers; therefore, some bankers are crooks" is invalid, because its conclusion doesn't follow from its premises. Formally fallacies are a matter of invalid form.

Informal fallacies have some problem with the meaning of the argument, as opposed to the form of the argument. An "ad hominem" informal fallacy, for instance is one that attacks the person who articulates the argument, not the argument itself.

The three instances you listed are not fallacies, as such. #1 is an apparent contradiction (though your argument could be attacked as a fallacy of equivocation), #2 questions the truth of one of the premises, but not the structure or meaning of the argument, and #3 isn't even an argument at all. To elucidate:

1) Not a fallacy, just an apparent contradiction. People cannot be made better. But River was made better. This isn't a fallacy, it's a contradiction in the following form (where "P" means "people can be made better" and "~" means "it is not the case that"):
1 (1) ~P A
2 (2) P A

This contradiction can be solved by one of the following:

1 (3) ~P 1,2RAA(2) or
2 (3) P 1,2RAA(1)

But the way you're presenting the argument falls into the category of equivocation, so your argument is false. You're equation the "better" of Mal's speech with the "better" that River was made, and they're hardly the same thing, so the contradiction that you're attempting to draw flies right out the window.

2) The second case looks like a fallacy, but isn't. You're suggesting that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, which would make it a formal fallacy. Your point of contention seems to be with whether or not the Operative would become disillusioned upon learning the truth. This doesn't make the argument fallacious. An argument can still be valid even if the conclusion is false. As long as the conclusion follows from the premises, it's valid. So here are the terms: T=learns truth; D=operative disillusioned; C=capture; K=kill; the "~" means "it is not the case that"; the "->" means "if [the thing on the left] then [the thing on the right]" and the "v" means "or". The movie has this:

1 (1) T->D A
2 (2) D->~(CvK) A
1,2 (3) T->~(CvK) 1,2HS
4 (4) T A
1,2,4 (5) ~(CvK) 3,4->E

You're assuming that the operative would not become disillusioned, which would look like this:

1 (1) T->~D A
2 (2) ~D->(CvK)
1,2 (3) T->(CvK) 1,2HS
4 (4) T A
1,2,4 (5) CvK 3,4->E

This is not a fallacy--you're not attacking the structure of the argument, you're questioning the truth of one of the premises of the argument and offering a completely different argument on that basis.

3) This one isn't even remotely close to a fallacy. We're not offered an argument that can be shown to be fallacious; we're given a statement of facts ("the reavers are insane", "the reavers don't turn on each other" and "the reavers can operate ships"). These three statements are not strung together in an argument. It takes an argument to have a fallacy, and there isn't one here.

Please educate yourself before you start throwing terms like "logical fallacy" around. That term doesn't mean what you want it to; it has a precise definition.

For a description of formal and informal fallacies go here: http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/formal_informal_fallacies.htm

For a list of and explanations of informal fallacies go here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I'm a philosophy major.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
...there are a couple logical fallacies which baffle me.

The examples you gave are not fallacies. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

.........{cut}

Please educate yourself before you start throwing terms like "logical fallacy" around. That term doesn't mean what you want it to; it has a precise definition.
________________________________________________________________________

I'm glad this is over the internet, otherwise I'm sure a lot of us would be giving you a wedgie right now after pinning the "Pompous Ass" award on your chest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Murkymerc:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
...there are a couple logical fallacies which baffle me.

The examples you gave are not fallacies. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

.........{cut}

________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I'm a philosophy major.

I'm glad this is over the internet, otherwise about 30 of us would be giving you a wedgie right now.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's the most hilarious ever! Plus, possibly the truest ever.

I'm a huge nerd! Cheers, everybody!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 5:43 PM

Causal,

I was reading your post and said to myself, "He's taken a math or philosophy class." Or something like that. Then I got to this:

Quote:
Yes, I'm a philosophy major.

-

Just remember most people don't know what they're talking about and a lot of people don't actually know what a fallacy is. It's no one's fault, save the schools they were educated in.

Personally I've mostly given up on correcting people, I just try to make sure the ones doing the correcting remember to be polite about it. Which you were, btw, so good job.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 6:10 PM

NOSADSEVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Murkymerc:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
...there are a couple logical fallacies which baffle me.

The examples you gave are not fallacies. There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal.

.........{cut}

Please educate yourself before you start throwing terms like "logical fallacy" around. That term doesn't mean what you want it to; it has a precise definition.
________________________________________________________________________

I'm glad this is over the internet, otherwise I'm sure a lot of us would be giving you a wedgie right now after pinning the "Pompous Ass" award on your chest.

Come on now, MurkyMerc, this is a sci-fi show fansite. We'd all have wedgies just for being here...

And Causal, really, think parsimony. You could've accomplished the same thing just by adopting a spanish accent and saying, "I do not think that word means what he thinks it means."

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Murkymerc:
...after pinning the "Pompous Ass" award on your chest.

And what award, exactly, do you get? Something about snarky, followed by something to do with asses. I suspect. I find it amusing that you felt the need to amend your original post so that it would be perfectly clear that you were being an asshole. Well done!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nosadseven:
You could've accomplished the same thing just by adopting a spanish accent and saying, "I do not think that word means what he thinks it means."

Point. But damn, that's irritating. Not excusing. Just saying.

I think that the two things (the pointless picking with plot and the horrible argumentation) in isolation wouldn't have set me off. But together...golly. Again, just saying.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nosadseven:
And Causal, really, think parsimony. You could've accomplished the same thing just by adopting a spanish accent and saying, "I do not think that word means what he thinks it means."

One final addendum: I'm fair certain that people are up in arms because I'm correcting someone's misapplication of a concept, not because I was a jerk. This would fall into the same category as people who get mad when people correct other people's grammar. It's completely beyond me why this hacks people off the way it does. On the RWED boards people can (and do) act much, much worse (outright insults). Why is it that that behavior is tolerated, but correction of out-and-out ignorance is lambasted? Is it really better to be a complete asshole over some ridiculous political point than it is to provide correction over the misuse of the English language? Honestly, at least the latter is educational...

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 9:22 PM

TENTHCREWMEMBER

Could you please just make it stranger? Stranger. Odder. Could be weirder. More bizarre. How about uncanny?

Cliff's Notes version:

Quote:
Originally posted by CTHawk:
1. The philosophical context of the show seems to be that people cannot be made better. Mal even says this in his monologue. Yet somehow the fates of the entire crew eventually rest in the hands of River who has been made better (although temporarily insane).

A: The philo-text is BELIEF*

Quote:
2. The operative does not kill/capture the crew because he is disillusioned by the Reaver information. It seems to me that the operative would accept that the Alliance is/has/will do bad things in order to eventually make a better world. I don't think we would really care the the Alliance is responsible for bad things.

A: Op thinks he is the "necessary evil" working for good (the Alliance). Good turns out to be evil. Everything he was and is made pointless, like FOX. Nothing left to see.

Quote:
3. This is something throughout the series that doesn't make sense, but I guess just needs to be accepted. The Reavers have been driven to virtual insanity by the Pax yet they don't turn on each other and can still operate complex space machinery.

A: PAX made them aggressive, not dumb. Think tribal. Ritualistic mutilation of self (and most likely others), hunting in packs, and living off the "land" (making use of flesh for clothing, slapping any old parts on that make the ship work/scary, making weapons out of whatever is handy, etc.). Stronger packs probably get the bigger ships too...alpha male syndrome, etc, etc, etc.

*as in, us Browncoats, the Creator, and the cast and crew who all BELIEVED this movie would happen

That's it! Test on Tuesday, remember to bring your number 2 pencil and standard immunization packets...we don't want anyone going home and eating their family again this year...

BWAH!
TCM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Avail yourself of my trade! I have original (meaning: designed by me!) T-shirts, posters, mugs and more at http://www.cafepress.com/10thcrew
*Download my Firefly Games for FREE at http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=13&t=12622
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In or near Ohio? Join us!
http://p097.ezboard.com/bohiofireflyfans
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly-ohio

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 9:34 PM

NOSADSEVEN

Causal- Sorry if you thought I was lambasting you - I was just amused at how appropriately your comments could be summed up by the Princess Bride line.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 10, 2006 9:58 PM

GIXXER

1. People can't be made better. Trying to do so causes most of the problems we have.

2. The secret's out. It'll soon be old news. True, if he had managed to stifle it, that would have been ideal, but shi...you know the rest. The Operative is a smart guy, and isn't concerned with shutting empty stable doors. If he choses not to go after Mal and the crew, it's probably a hefty hint to the Alliance not to as well.

The Alliance might consider punishing him, but I think they might realise what an Huge Mistake that might be*. Can you imagine him misbehaving on their asses? Good film right there, except The Bourne Supremacy has already been done.

3. Drunks can drive.

G

* Dunno though, corporate arrogance, stupidity and all? I mean. Look at those uniforms... Tragic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:23 AM

ASARIAN

The way I see it, Serenity really has only one severe continuation error, and that's the absence of a BDM sequel.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:29 AM

RCAT

I agree with all the explanations about the reavers organization and skills. I try to discribe it to my friends who brought up this apparent paradox as a pack of wild dogs. In rural areas dogs (both strays and housepets) will sometimes get together in a pack and harass livestock to the point of killing cattle and even entire heards of sheep, out of instinct, bloodlust or whatever, as they don't eat the livestock (my argument to those who say humans are the only ones who kill for reasons other than survival). I've never heard of these dogs turning on each other. Ranchers generally have to get together to hunt and 'put the animals down'. Supposedly once they get the taste for blood there's nothing else to do (once the dogs get the taste that is...as to the ranchers well that's up for debate).

"It's ok sweety he makes everyone cry. He's a monster."
-Kaylee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nosadseven:
I was just amused at how appropriately your comments could be summed up by the Princess Bride line.

I find that there is an appropriate Princess Bride quote for most situations in life.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 5:29 AM

DONCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by nosadseven:
I was just amused at how appropriately your comments could be summed up by the Princess Bride line.

I find that there is an appropriate Princess Bride quote for most situations in life.

Have fun storming the castle!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:05 AM

KWICKO

Causal: Thanks for pointing that out. I mean the bit about simply correcting someone, and how it DOESN'T necessarily mean you're being an ass when you do so. If someone corrects my grammar or spelling, am I do get huffy about it, or LEARN from it so as not to make the same mistake again? I don't generally see people getting snippy about things if someone corrects their math...

If I point out that it's "...could have been..." and not "...could of been...", I'm trying to inform, not ridicule. I see people abusing the language on a regular basis, and it irks me. If someone came here claiming that 2+2=9, we'd waste no time correcting them, yes? But try to correct their misuse of language, and you'll be kicking a hornet's nest.

Likewise, if you point out that "logical fallacies" as perceived are NOT logical fallacies, it doen'st mean you're trying to make the person look stupid; it means you're trying to educate them. Most people just don't need any help looking stupid, myself included. :)

We all have our theories on why certain "inconsistencies" within the movie actually work, and are consistent. I think we've sufficiently pointed out that they might *seem* inconsistent without really being so. Such is life; that which might seem wrong can sometimes be right, and vice-versa.

Mike

"Kaylee, find that kid that's taking a dirt nap with baby Jesus; we need a hood ornament."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:06 AM

ROCKETJOCK

For the record: The Alliance did not make River "better" -- her intelligence, gymnastic skill, and even her nascent psychic abilities were all existant before they stirred her brains with a fork. What they tried to do was make her more controllable.

"More controllable." That's the Alliance's idea of "better". That's what they tried to do on Miranda. And that's what Mal is dead set against.

Making a flock of sheep more controlable is a great idea, from the point of view of the sheep rancher. It don't do a world of good for the sheep.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man insists his environment adjust itself to him. Therefore all human progress is due to unreasonable men." -- George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Murkymerc:
...after pinning the "Pompous Ass" award on your chest.

And what award, exactly, do you get? Something about snarky, followed by something to do with asses. I suspect. I find it amusing that you felt the need to amend your original post so that it would be perfectly clear that you were being an asshole. Well done!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Hmm, actually I amended very shortly after submitting it, and I thought before anyone else had responded. I amended it because I thought I had been way too nice to you after your long rambling attempt to show off at the original posters expense. Also, I could resist the Jayne quote. "Today I was a pompous ass, and my sister was crazy" I will be honest though, after I saw the good natured way you took the original response, I felt bad because you did got my point without the adjustments.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:33 AM

ASARIAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Causal: Thanks for pointing that out. I mean the bit about simply correcting someone, and how it DOESN'T necessarily mean you're being an ass when you do so. If someone corrects my grammar or spelling, am I do get huffy about it, or LEARN from it so as not to make the same mistake again?

I would say: there is a place and a time for everything. So, to answer your question: it depends on where you are (or "I am", to make it an "I sentence"). If I were in school, I'd have no problem with a teacher correcting my grammar. But here, I would probably be rather ticked off at someone being unnecessarily nit-pickery and pendantic. Why? Because I do not come here to have my grammar/spelling/whatever corrected. I come here to have a good time.

Also, we're all just folks here, remember? Nobody has assigned anyone teacher/pupil roles. So, assuming a teacher role here -- especially when doing so for no greater purpose, really, than to stomp on a person -- is, yeah, annoying. :) And it is really also an "out-of-place" thing to do, really; and posssiby an "out-of-line" thing, too.

So, you think I do not know what a "logical fallacy" is? Think again. And yet, I have never, even once, felt but the slighest inclination to point out the misuse of term to the orginal poster. Why? I would say, because I'm not being a jack-ass. :) I know perfectly well what he means; don't you? Saying so would really serve no other purpose than to be a show-off and a put-down -- neither of which are things I particularly value.

Also, the thing about correcting is, it has a nasty tendency to come back, and bite you in the ass. Because, the next moment, people will be picking apart YOUR grammar. And, as far as making better worlds goes, I think that is just not the way to go about it.

But, hey, YMMV. :)

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

This would fall into the same category as people who get mad when people correct other people's grammar. It's completely beyond me why this hacks people off the way it does.

________________________________________________________________________

It thing it is how it is done as opposed to the correction itself. Most people don't mind being corrected if done respectfully. I thought your post was great until you concluded it with "Please education yourself ...”

However, that's neither here nor there, back the thread at hand...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:52 AM

SMOOF

I had to stop reading and respond at this point.

Quote:
3.) I still maintain my theory that Reavers are just like animals. You can turn on the discovery channel and see a bunch of lions lying around together peaceful as a summer breeze, but when they see their prey, their instincts kick in. We've only seen the reavers in predator instinct mode. I'm betting there is a day to day mode as well.

"So, what's going on today, Bob?"
"Oh, nothing Larry. I'm just pondering our existance."
"Oh yeah? Wanna go do some raping and pillaging? Maybe we can shop for new clothes with the "normies" skins!"
"Do I!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:15 AM

DIANASPR

Reavers

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE THIS WAY. they had families they loved and so on. The pax made them aggresive, BUT THEY WERE ALREADY ANGRY AT THE SITUATION,they are gettin evenThey have a logic to their killing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:29 AM

ASARIAN

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:

For the record: The Alliance did not make River "better" -- her intelligence, gymnastic skill, and even her nascent psychic abilities were all existant before they stirred her brains with a fork. What they tried to do was make her more controllable.

I fully agree. :)

I believe the whole making "better" worlds ideology has scarcely little to do with the program River was in.

The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate, added to the air processors to calm the population, and weed out aggression, THAT is the sort of "better worlds" they're trying to build. River, in this context, I am convinced, is not even really in the picture. The "better worlds" thingy is about control of civil populations; to make them more docile, quiet and easy to control, and unlikely to cause trouble. Things went kaboom on Miranda; but it is still precisely the thing Mal worries about, that they will try and do again: "Sure as I know anything, I know this: they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people better."

Serenity starts with this "making better worlds" theme, as we hear young River rebel against it: "People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."

River's training, I'm sure, did fit some obscure purpose in the grand scheme of making "better" worlds. But making River herself "better" never played into any of it, I think.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Murkymerc:
I amended it because I thought I had been way too nice to you after your long rambling attempt to show off at the original posters expense.

Just a note: your perception is that I was showing off. Not the case. I'm sick and gorram tired of people using "logical fallacy" when there isn't one. The long rambling wasn't meant to show off, but to hammer the point to death that there's no fallacy involved.

Incidentally, all the posters are right about the fact that the key thing is the way you correct grammar/punctuation. That being the case, I absolutely refuse to stop--it's not a matter of making people feel bad. It's just that I refuse to accept willful ignorance as an intellectually viable position.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:36 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

While we're correcting grammar...

Anyone think about 'verse speak. Pretty sure you guys could have a field day with the FF scripts. Have fun... and please post the amended versions.

I have no qualms with anyone correcting me on any subject even if the respondent is an A-hole. Still don't care.. people come here to enjoy the content: laugh, imagine, reminisce. Petty corrections are useless here.

As far as people being offending by grammar corrections vs. math corrections…..
Math is considered (get ready sci-fi fans) to be the universal language and considered by some more difficult to learn. One, they want to be corrected to belong or they may feel not as ashamed when corrected over math

Grammar to me seems more personal, regional, and nostalgic. More embarrassment ensues if you feel you can’t spell or communicate through words. Too many dialects… Let it be! If it becomes too difficult to read or understand, then ask a question or ignore.

back on topic

Quote:

More dificult for me to swallow is that they haven't all gone flying into the core worlds raping and killing long ago which has lead me to suppose that when they are floating in the empty wastes they are actively trying to supress their tendencies but that eventually the urge to commit the ol' ultraviolence gets too great.

From the PAX debacle, reavers population topped out at around 30,000. If they are smart enough to do all the things mentioned in this thread (flying spaceships, operating equipment); they surely wouldn’t just run into to core and start killing, millions live there, they’d be wiped out. I think they are interested in survival first, obliging their urges second.

U gonna be smart here Riva?!?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:44 AM

Murkymerc wrote:

Quote:
It thing it is how it is done as opposed to the correction itself...

Yeh. buit sum gramer nd spelig is so bed, yu cint tel wut thay iz tryig to saiy...

And Causal was right to point out that arguing something is a 'logical fallacy' when it is not, is really just saying 'this doesn't make sense to me personally'. Trying to pass it off as a provable illogicality is wrong, if that was the intention of the original poster.

I'd like to suspect that the original poster (CTHawk) really wanted to say, 'These things don't make sense to me personally', and just misused the words, 'logical fallacies', 'cuz it sounded smarter.

I do that all the time. Works, doesn't it?

Where CTHawk screwed up was in subsequently making a half-assed attempt at constructing a logical argument to support his/her position.

He/she was asking for it, by being unduly 'know-it-all' in the first place. Causal only administered the much-needed comeuppance; done in as nice -- and rigorous, I might add -- a way as possible.

Officiously,

zoid

P.S.
Causal: The actual sentential calculus made my eyes cross, too. Thanks for the summaries that followed. (zoid pulls Causal's underpants waistband off of Causal's head, but does not help him pluck the overstretched garment from twixt his buttocks. Some things a man's got to do for himself.)

CTHawk: I have personally had the shite kicked out of me on these boards for speculating on physics -- about which I professed no formal education/knowledge from the outset -- so I can sympathize. But, we both deserved the 'corrective' treatment we've received, you and I. I'm still looking for a way to engage in conversation on that topic without being taken to the woodshed every time I ask a question or - ulp! - voice an opinion. I wish you better luck than I've had...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
(zoid pulls Causal's underpants waistband off of Causal's head, but does not help him pluck the overstretched garment from twixt his buttocks. Some things a man's got to do for himself.)

Wow...I was wondering how long that would take! I guess I shall just count myself lucky that I didn't get hung on a fence or somesuch.

*commences undergarment plucking*

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:59 AM

GIXXER

(For PDC)

Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking... (pause for polite laughter) As you may have guessed, I am not a verbose fellow. However, I would like to thank you all very much indeed for being here, and for thinking so favourably of me.

In my opinion, the personal circumstances under which you good people live and work is entirely appalling, and among the worst I have ever witnessed anywhere.

It is a testament to your character that you accepted your lot and coped so admirably with it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, that is something.

G

Aaaargh!...Running too long without containment...become George Lucas...must reach Oscar Ceremony...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If someone came here claiming that 2+2=9, we'd waste no time correcting them, yes? But try to correct their misuse of language, and you'll be kicking a hornet's nest.

But that's the point isn't it? Even though he came from a philosophical background what he said is math. The first post was as wrong as 2+2=9, and would get you just as screwed over if you tried to apply it’s base logic in any real world situation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:09 AM

Gixxer wrote:

Quote:
Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking... (pause for polite laughter) As you may have guessed, I am not a verbose fellow. However, I would like to thank you all very much indeed for being here, and for thinking so favourably of me.

In my opinion, the personal circumstances under which you good people live and work is entirely appalling, and among the worst I have ever witnessed anywhere.

It is a testament to your character that you accepted your lot and coped so admirably with it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, that is something.

G

See? I like the way Jayne said it better. The 'correct' version is not nearly so heart/rabble-rousing, so politically astute...

Presidentially,

zoid

P.S.
I could see Simon giving that speech, and I could see him catching a gobbet of mud directly in the mush for his trouble, too...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:21 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

Quote:
Originally posted by Gixxer:
(For PDC)

Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking... (pause for polite laughter) As you may have guessed, I am not a verbose fellow. However, I would like to thank you all very much indeed for being here, and for thinking so favourably of me.

In my opinion, the personal circumstances under which you good people live and work is entirely appalling, and among the worst I have ever witnessed anywhere.

It is a testament to your character that you accepted your lot and coped so admirably with it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, that is something.

G

Aaaargh!...Running too long without containment...become George Lucas...must reach Oscar Ceremony...

Bwah aha ah aahaha hahaha!

Ode to the Protagonist of Canton

U gonna be smart here Riva?!?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:36 AM

pdcharles wrote:

Quote:
...Ode to the Protagonist of Canton.

Jayne Cobb: The Bashful Demagogue...

v/r,
-zed
_________________________________________________

"Pretentious?" -Jayne Cobb, heavily armed wordsmith; Firefly, "Shindig"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Gixxer:
(For PDC)

Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking... (pause for polite laughter) As you may have guessed, I am not a verbose fellow. However, I would like to thank you all very much indeed for being here, and for thinking so favourably of me.

In my opinion, the personal circumstances under which you good people live and work is entirely appalling, and among the worst I have ever witnessed anywhere.

It is a testament to your character that you accepted your lot and coped so admirably with it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, that is something.

G

Aaaargh!...Running too long without containment...become George Lucas...must reach Oscar Ceremony...

You need to correct this, it is totally lacking in the proper rhetoric. It's just wrong, it would never pass and english class. Pump it up with some ethos.

No high-school English teacher would let this fly. "I am not a verbose fellow," might make it in fourth grade, but not for anything in real life.

At the very least it should be, "I don't speak often," and, "I don't talk much," would work much better.*

Seriously man, how can you bring us such a flawed creation? At least pretend you went to school.

-

*Neither really has the right ring but you so totally destroyed all meaning in this that one can't jump from it to what would be a rhetorical smash worthy of Cicero, "I'm no good with words, don't use them much myself."

Oh, and for the record, your grammar was still bad.

(If you even considered taking this anything remotely close to seriously you'd best forget you read it.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:06 AM

christhecynic wrote, in part, and greatly tongue-in-cheek, I believe:

Quote:
...No high-school English teacher would let this fly...

Although you were being facetious (unless I mistook your last words, "If you even considered taking this anything remotely close to seriously you'd best forget you read it"), I believe that Gixxer is British, even though his(?) profile reads "no information available".

If true, then his English trumps the American "high-school" teacher's. There is nothing wrong with either his usage (although I might've said "that you have accepted your lot") or idiomatic expressions, from the viewpoint of his culture. It just sounds like something Tony Blair might say...

...And how is that working out for 'Ol' Tone'?

American-ly,

zoid

P.S.
Jayne Cobb for President in '08! And, no, I don't mean Adam Baldwin, either. I mean Jayne Cobb; although AB could play the role, just as Reagan portrayed a presidential character in the 80's. It worked then, it could work again. It sure as Hell would scare the living daylights out of the miscreants of the world...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:51 PM