I’m asking someone to explain why in this case, it matters rather than just repeat an assertion.Demonstrate through reasoning or example why a story can’t make a point if it’s false. See, I think even though I think it’s based in fact and lots of posters don’t it still makes the point I was trying to make just as a false/unproven/hypothetical/ scenario might and you just agreed can. If I had offered it as proof of a certain point that’s one thing. I didn’t. I offered it as an example of a simple and fairly obvious point.
I think in the original thread the truthfulness of the story didn’t matter, and the point I was trying to provide an example for could have been discussed on it’s merits regardless of what anyone believed about the story itself.
I’ve already simplified the story to to demonstrate how it might work as a hypothetical. The story remains the same with even fewer details. I purposely left out the details that people seemed to think were the most bizarre
While I agree that my story is improbable we started in a category that was already very improbable. From there I think people got hung up on details and/or the lack of detail and were bothered {for some reason} by the fact I trusted my source even though I didn’t expect them to. I understand that it matters if we consider the distraction factor but the statement that a false story can’t make a point is incorrect IMO.
If you don’t understand this I’m not sure I can explain it. But basically, a highly improbable hypothetical is generally pointless to debate because you’re far enough removed from reality that there is little or no value to the discussion. You’re simply wasting your breath.
E.g., if we’re having a debate on how many customers a carhop at Sonic could serve in an hour, it would not be fruitful to ask how liquid propane power rocket skates might speed service. Apples, oranges, whatever, I hope you get the point.
I’m thinking nobody can explain it cause it ain’t so.
I understand the apples and oranges thing that your example demonstrates. That wasn’t the case. Both the topic of discussion, a true story, and my story, were about civilians shooting it out with armed robbers. Both had outrageous details. How is that apples and oranges?
Not only that the point made by several is not if it’s to outrageous it can’t make the point. Their claim is that if it isn’t true it can’t make a legitimate point Here
So any of those posters are invited to explain why this is true. Why can’t a fictitious story be an example of a point being made just as fables and religious myth do?
Re your “investment” I suppose I’m puzzled by the level and tenacity of your outrage in that you appear to be taking it quite personally that reasonable people would contend with, and summarily dismiss, an assertion that comes across, by and large, as a steaming pile. Certainly anything is possible. I used the “Henry Kissinger signed my birth certificate” assertion as an example of something that sounds improbable, but is true (I was a foreign service brat) .
You are not a fool, nor are you particularly credulous. The story you related is improbable to the point of idiocy. To be frank the tenor of your continued defense of this “story” as it moves from a “trusted” FOAF story to some sort of hypothetical gedanken tug of war between the rational and the fabulous makes me think that this is less about the narrow mindedness of incredulous dopers and more of “dance puppets dance” game you are playing at this point.
Well either we’re all wrong and you’re right, or you’re unfathomably obtuse. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to deduce my opinion on the subject. Good night.
And I’m puzzled by posts like this that demonstrate the improbable is sometimes true and then wonder at my attitude. People could easily doubt your claim about your birth certificate but it would be true {assuming you’re telling the truth}
Another poster said
and my point was
My outrage, {pretty much over now} is not that reasonable people would disbelieve my story. I’ve said several times I get that. My outrage is the bullshit excuse for sound reasoning that accompanied it and the continued support of that faulty reasoning. Since then I’ve been puzzled by several phenomenon and thought processes that I’ve observed and mentioned.
Here again in these last few posts , I’ve asked posters to defend a point they asserted as fact that I find false. We’ll see if they can.
It doesn’t seem reasonable for people to judge an outrageous story in a category filled with outrageous stories as idiotic. If it’s possible it’s not idiotic, just improbable. I claimed that outrageous things happened to real people in an extraordinary event we know actually takes place with real people. I’ve admitted certain details may well be embellishment. How unreasonable is for me to trust a friend who’s character I know and believe the story is based largely in fact?
There it is again. I haven’t been* defending the story* for some time but for some reason posters keep insisting I am. That’s one of the interesting phenomenon’s I keep talking about. What I’ve been discussing is reason, and the lines between skepticism and dismissal. What I’ve questioned is poster’s odd thinking that the story doesn’t seem reasonable to them when the story is about a subject where reason and rationality shouldn’t even be expected. I’ve been puzzled at people thinking my integrity is somehow in question when I’ve done nothing to impugn it at all. How is that missed so consistently?
There is no puppet game going on. I’ve only responded to other posters. As the thread has gone on the things I’ve noticed have drawn me back for reasons that have changed.
I don’t actually expect posters to respond to my invitation. I don’t think they can reasonably defend their position so rather than admit an error they’ll opt to ignore it.
Okay. A perp kills a cop with his bare hands while fleeing the scene of a crime. Another cop tracks him all the way to a town somewhere in Central America but before he can put the arm on him, an earthquake strikes. The local orphanage is on the point of collapse but the perp, who is a remarkably strong guy, gets himself into the doorway and braces up the lintel for long enough for the nuns and kids to crawl out between his legs. There’s no way out for him though as no-one can get anything in to take the load off his shoulders without the whole pile coming down. He has time to tell the cop that chased him that he’s sorry for the other cop he killed as he didn’t mean to hit him that hard, and he knew what he was getting into when he stepped into the doorway. A minute or so later another tremor puts paid to the orphanage and him.
Now put yourself in the position of someone who could have dropped the perp fleeing the cop-killing. If you’d ventilated him then, a whole orphanage full of nuns and kids would have died. Moral?
(Story above isn’t mine, it’s one of Damon Runyon’s.)
The nuns? Don’t think so. The orphans? Unlikely. The perp? No, just a petty crim nicknamed “Earthquake”. And the (pursuing, not slain) cop was Brannigan the tough cop, who turns up in a number of stories.
I don’t know. Seems to me I remember Brannigan dancing a bit as he pursued a suspect through the dingy back alleys of NYC. Ya see, he had an audition the next day.
He cried “Halt or I’ll shoot” step 2 3 ball change 2,3,4."
