Religion is not fully agreed upon, but the majority of the people in this world are religious. Does that make religion true? Majority in itself does not make anything so, and having several edges in a field does not make victory. Sparta had skill, equipment and tactic over Persia, but their stand during the battle of Thermopylae was still lost due to a slit in vantage.
I did not agree that Solid Snake would so clearly best Sam Fisher, and I to date stand by that.
On the flip-side, an idea doesn't have to be agreed upon by everyone in order for it to be deemed the most feasible. 1 person out of 5 disagreeing with the notion that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that 2+2 equaling four is a controversial statement. Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy, but it's called a "logical" fallacy, for a reason. If 4/5 people think one thing, and 1/5 people think another, it is logical to assume that the group of 4 are at the least more likely to be right.
What I'm basically getting at here, is that a response of "Well I don't agree that Snake wins!" to a statement such as "It was decided that Snake won" is about as relevant as saying "I like turtles" when your friend asks you if she should wear a jacket or a sweater out.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on May 12th, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Wasn't that 7,000 Spartans vs 250,000~ Persians? If anything that averts the point seeing as their skill, equipment and tactics were enough to hold their own in three days of battle and kill more of the enemy than what they lost. Even when out manned 36 to 1.
The camo/chameleon-suit is give him the stealth catagory. Speed and superhuman strength gives him the advantage in close-quarters. And the guy who can dodge bullets will win in ranged combat. You may not think its a clear-cut victory, but you know that theres little to suggest a professional soldier will defeat a professional superhuman soldier.
__________________
"Gonna need more chloroform..."
"If you look down on us, judge us, condemn us... then you shall fear us!"
In short, no. NemeBro said that Snake won each time, and I pointed out that it was not fully agreed upon, explaining that there is a chance for discussion should it be desired. That is not the same as expressing you liking turtles to someone asking whether or not to wear a sweater. It is a terrible analogy.
And it is also called a fallacy for a reason, as much as it is called logical. It is called a logical fallacy, because the logic is fallible. There is logic in it, but there exist also logic without fallacy, which supersede a logical fallacy. This case as much as any.
No, that came after. The battle for Thermopylae involved 300 spartan soldiers, that held the line. The other 2700 involved were Greek forces not under spartan command, and were reserves for if the spartan line was penetrated, and served to safeguard the passage that could flank the spartans. The spartans held it for a time, but inevitably lost. I am well aware of the damage inflicted, of the odds that were against them and of all manner of other aspects, but the result remains. They lost. My point was not how well they did, nor is it of any relevance. They lost.
As I spoke during previous discussions regarding a battle between these two, Sam Fisher's win would be circumstancial. Under standard terms, he lose, but understandard terms, many of these threads serve no purpose. So I often assume that the battle is treated fairly, and in such a situation, Sam stands in my opinion quite the chance.
__________________
Last edited by Super Marie 64 on May 12th, 2012 at 05:52 PM
His point is that the general consensus on the topic is that Snake would whoop Sam Fisher's ass.
Disagreeing with that assertion doesn't really negate his point at all.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Yes, and I pointed out that there was chance for discussion if such would be desired. NemeBro implied that there could be none. The rest is discussion spawned by you guys.
There will always be debate. Some people think Sam will win. Some people really want him to win. But going by feats and the like, he doesn't win.
I love Sam Fisher, and I think against other people he's a monster. Hell in Conviction he showed impressive durability and borderline superhuman strength...Snake just showed a lot more.
So it was 300 Spartans? 1,000 men against each one? This even more so proves how important their attributes are in battle if the only thing that was against them was vast numbers.
If its a circumstantial one then yes, of course there may be a chance that Sam can pull off a win. The same can be said for Superman vs Master Chief if in a room of kryptonite with weapons made of same stone. But as I said for close, range and stealth combat; Snake is still higher ranked. So iIt would take specific terms and someone to sell the point for him to stand a chance.
The only question is under what situation will this be a level playing field.
__________________
"Gonna need more chloroform..."
"If you look down on us, judge us, condemn us... then you shall fear us!"
KMC Community Forums
May 23rd, 2011 05:35 PM
