|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 2, 2020 1:49:14 GMT
Because an MCU fan said 18 out of 19 (a 95% success rate, 5% failure rate) is better than 17 out of 17 (a 100% success rate, 0% failure rate). So I'm just asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same way. I think you're making that story up. No, I'm not making it up. Just look a few posts above in this very thread. 1 MCU fan wrote: So he thinks that a few dead hostages (a 5% failure rate) is better than no dead hostages (0% failure rate). So I'm just asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same way. This isn't a trick question. It's a simple Yes or No. Either you agree with him that a few dead hostages (a 5% failure rate) is better than no dead hostages (a 0% failure rate) or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 1:54:16 GMT
No, I'm saying saving 95 people is much more impressive than just saving one. No rational person would say otherwise. We don't need to deviate any further down the dcfan rabbit hole of faulty comparisons. If you failed to get your point across with the hostage scenario, it's game over, thanks for playing! Why don't you go to the sports board and ask if winning 1 out of 1 games (100%) is "better" (more impressive) than winning 95 games out of 100 (95%). I'm betting that no one will pick the one out of one scenario. Not if you let 1 person die vs not letting anyone die. In a hostage situation, all the lives are at risk. Saving a lone hostage is relatively easy compared to saving 95 out of 100. Raid on Entebbe, when some hostages were killed but most were saved, is considerably more impressive than rescuing a lone hostage in a bank heist.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 2, 2020 1:58:31 GMT
You're saying that 5 innocent people killed (a 5% failure rate) is better than zero innocent people killed (a 0% failure rate)? No, I'm saying saving 95 people is much more impressive than just saving one. No rational person would say otherwise simply because it returned a "100%" on the tally sheet. Why don't you go to the sports board and ask if winning 1 out of 1 games (100%) is "better" (more impressive) than winning 95 games out of 100 (95%). I'm betting that no one will pick the one out of one scenario ... because doing so is stupid. The Sports board already agreed that winning 17 out of 17 games is much better than winning 18 games and losing 1 game.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 2:21:51 GMT
No, I'm saying saving 95 people is much more impressive than just saving one. No rational person would say otherwise simply because it returned a "100%" on the tally sheet. Why don't you go to the sports board and ask if winning 1 out of 1 games (100%) is "better" (more impressive) than winning 95 games out of 100 (95%). I'm betting that no one will pick the one out of one scenario ... because doing so is stupid. The Sports board already agreed that winning 17 out of 17 games is much better than winning 18 games and losing 1 game. In the sports board the argument was different - there was a prize associated with winning 17 games in scenario 1. In scenerio 2 that prize wasn't even available until 19 game were won. In fact, just 17 games in scenerio 2 would have been considered quite the failure. I think only one moron (who shall remain nameless) tried to argue that 17 > 18. But these cross comparisons clearly confuse you. Let's just stick with the hostage scenario you introduced. Tell us again how rescuing a lone hostage is more impressive than saving 95 out of 100.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 2, 2020 2:40:20 GMT
The Sports board already agreed that winning 17 out of 17 games is much better than winning 18 games and losing 1 game. In the sports board the argument was different - there was a prize associated with winning 17 games in scenario 1. In scenerio 2 that prize wasn't even available until 19 game were won. In fact, just 17 games in scenerio 2 would have been considered quite the failure. I think only one moron (who shall remain nameless) tried to argue that 17 > 18. But these cross comparisons clearly confuse you. Let's just stick with the hostage scenario you introduced. Tell us again how rescuing a lone hostage is more impressive than saving 95 out of 100. Bottom line: The Sports board agreed that 17 out of 17 (100% success rate, 0% failure rate) is much better than 18 out of 19 (95% success rate, 5 % failure rate).
The fundamental principal of the American justice system is that it's better for 1000 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to go to prison. Basically, a failure rate of greater than 0% is unacceptable.
So explain in a hostage crisis, how the fuck is a failure rate of 5% (5 hostages dead) better than a failure rate of 0% (no hostages dead)?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 2, 2020 3:03:00 GMT
I think you're making that story up. No, I'm not making it up. Just look a few posts above in this very thread. 1 MCU fan wrote: So he thinks that a few dead hostages (a 5% failure rate) is better than no dead hostages (0% failure rate). So I'm just asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same way. This isn't a trick question. It's a simple Yes or No. Either you agree with him that a few dead hostages (a 5% failure rate) is better than no dead hostages (a 0% failure rate) or you don't. Depends on context. Saving 1 out of 1 hostages is more successful in terms of completing your goal, but saving 95 out of 100 hostages is far more difficult and impressive. So it really depends.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jan 2, 2020 3:04:25 GMT
You could at the very least put OT in the headline, doofus.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 3:24:48 GMT
Bottom line: The Sports board agreed that 17 out of 17 (100% success rate, 0% failure rate) is much better than 18 out of 19 (95% success rate, 5 % failure rate). LOL. If they did, you wouldn't be on this board trying to get someone (anyone) to agree with you. Bottom line: You lost the argument on the sports board, and now it looks like you're duplicating that failure on the MCU board. Why don't you try the DC board next? Should be good for a chuckle! I already did. Are you dense? It's about overcoming more difficult odds and saving more lives. Rescuing a lone hostage (100% success!) is relatively routine. If you do a raid on Entebbe where the success rate was less than 100% but the endeavor was far more impressive, they make a movie about it staring Charles Bronson. If you have nothing else besides repeating yourself, ad nauseam, I'll just add this one to your long list of failed threads. Bad start to the year, eh?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 2, 2020 4:17:42 GMT
No, I'm not making it up. Just look a few posts above in this very thread. 1 MCU fan wrote: So he thinks that a few dead hostages (a 5% failure rate) is better than no dead hostages (0% failure rate). So I'm just asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same way. This isn't a trick question. It's a simple Yes or No. Either you agree with him that a few dead hostages (a 5% failure rate) is better than no dead hostages (a 0% failure rate) or you don't. Depends on context. Saving 1 out of 1 hostages is more successful in terms of completing your goal, but saving 95 out of 100 hostages is far more difficult and impressive. So it really depends. The question is whether saving 17 out of 17 hostages is better or saving 18 out of 19 hostages is better. King Kong Shady says saving 18 out of 19 hostages is better than saving 17 out of 17 hostages so King Kong Shady believes that letting a hostage die is acceptable. That's why I'm asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 2, 2020 4:57:02 GMT
Depends on context. Saving 1 out of 1 hostages is more successful in terms of completing your goal, but saving 95 out of 100 hostages is far more difficult and impressive. So it really depends. The question is whether saving 17 out of 17 hostages is better or saving 18 out of 19 hostages is better. King Kong Shady says saving 18 out of 19 hostages is better than saving 17 out of 17 hostages so King Kong Shady believes that letting a hostage die is acceptable. That's why I'm asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same way. Answer is the same: depends on context. 17 out of 17 is a more successful mission. 18 out of 19 is the more difficult task. You need to put better context into your question.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 2, 2020 5:53:09 GMT
The question is whether saving 17 out of 17 hostages is better or saving 18 out of 19 hostages is better. King Kong Shady says saving 18 out of 19 hostages is better than saving 17 out of 17 hostages so King Kong Shady believes that letting a hostage die is acceptable. That's why I'm asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same way. Answer is the same: depends on context. 17 out of 17 is a more successful mission. 18 out of 19 is the more difficult task. You need to put better context into your question. The context is simple: Which is more successful? Saving 17 out of 17 hostages or saving 18 out of 19 hostages with 1 dead hostage? Would you feel better in the press conference saying "We were able to save 17 out of 17 hostages and had no casualties" or would you feel better in the press conference saying "We saved 18 out of 19 hostages and only had 1 casualty"? It's a simple question. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 11:00:29 GMT
King Kong Shady believes that letting a hostage die is acceptable. Once you start misconstruing what another poster has said, you've lost. I think you're done here, cupcake. Winning x football games in a row (which is what this is really all about) is not even remotely comparable to saving x hostages in a single rescue operation.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 13:51:13 GMT
In typical dcfan fashion, he has completely bungled the comparison between winning football games and hostage rescues.
Let me fix it for him.
In 1972 the Gotham hostage rescue team (GHRT-72) was faced with 17 hostage situations in one year. They successfully thwarted each situation and saved 17 people.
Flash forward to 2007. The crime rate in Gotham has risen, the criminals are tougher, and new police union rules have made it more difficult to keep the best officers on the rescue team.
The 2007 Gotham hostage rescue team (GHRT-07) also finds themselves up against 17 hostage situations and they also successfully thwart each of them, saving 17 people.
But then they run into something the GHRT-72 never had to contend with - an 18th hostage situation. GHRT-07 successfully does what no team had ever done before, or since – they rescue their 18th person.
Now, at this point, anyone keeping score would conclude that the successful rescue streak by GHRT-07 was obviously “better” than the successful rescue streak by GHRT-72. 18 > 17. It is impossible to argue otherwise.
But wait – there’s a little wrinkle to all this. Remember that higher crime rate in 2007? GHRT-07 now finds themselves faced with a 19th hostage situation! Two more than GHRT-72 faced in 1972.
Tragically, GHRT-07’s 19th rescue attempt fails.
Question 1: Does the failure of the 19th rescue attempt in anyway diminish the previous 18 successful rescue attempts by GHRT-07?
Question 2: Factoring in the result of the 19th rescue attempt, which team had the more impressive streak of successful rescues. GHRT-72 at 17, or GHRT-07 at 18?
I believe answering those two questions will put this topic to bed, once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 2, 2020 14:49:21 GMT
What if it was 17 Tom Bradys
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 2, 2020 15:11:37 GMT
King Kong Shady believes that letting a hostage die is acceptable. Once you start misconstruing what another poster has said, you've lost. I think you're done here, cupcake. Winning x football games in a row (which is what this is really all about) is not even remotely comparable to saving x hostages in a single rescue operation. In typical dcfan fashion, he has completely bungled the comparison between winning football games and hostage rescues. Let me fix it for him. In 1972 the Gotham hostage rescue team (GHRT-72) was faced with 17 hostage situations in one year. They successfully thwarted each situation and saved 17 people. Flash forward to 2007. The crime rate in Gotham has risen, the criminals are tougher, and new police union rules have made it more difficult to keep the best officers on the rescue team. The 2007 Gotham hostage rescue team (GHRT-07) also finds themselves up against 17 hostage situations and they also successfully thwart each of them, saving 17 people. But then they run into something the GHRT-72 never had to contend with - an 18th hostage situation. GHRT-07 successfully does what no team had ever done before, or since – they rescue their 18th person. Now, at this point, anyone keeping score would conclude that the successful rescue streak by GHRT-07 was obviously “better” than the successful rescue streak by GHRT-72. 18 > 17. It is impossible to argue otherwise. But wait – there’s a little wrinkle to all this. Remember that higher crime rate in 2007? GHRT-07 now finds themselves faced with a 19th hostage situation! Two more than GHRT-72 faced in 1972. Tragically, GHRT-07’s 19th rescue attempt fails. Question 1: Does the failure of the 19th rescue attempt in anyway diminish the previous 18 successful rescue attempts by GHRT-07? Question 2: Factoring in the result of the 19th rescue attempt, which team had the more impressive streak of successful rescues. GHRT-72 at 17, or GHRT-07 at 18? I believe answering those two questions will put this topic to bed, once and for all. As usual, you write a bunch of BS and nonsense which are not only wrong but irrelevant to the topic. This isn't about winning x games in a row. This is about perfection. Did you save ALL the hostages? Did you win EVERY time? If you save 17 out of 17 hostages, that's a 100% success rate and 0% failure rate. If you save 19 out of 19 hostages, that's even better than saving 17 out of 17 hostages. But if you save only 18 hostages out of 19 hostages, that's a 95% success rate and a 5% failure rate.
Would you feel better in the press conference saying "We were able to save 17 out of 17 hostages and had no casualties" or would you feel better in the press conference saying "We saved 18 out of 19 hostages and only had 1 casualty"?Also, you're attempt to support your case using a Charles Bronson movie is a losing argument. The more appropriate movie is not the movie about Entebbe but the movie about the school children held hostage in Djibouti. The special forces stormed the school bus and killed all the hostage-takers and rescued all but 1 of the children. When 1 of the special forces guys sees the dead children in the school bus, he sat there holding the dead child and crying because he knew their mission wasn't a complete success. When the special forces leader entered the school bus and saw the dead child, he didn't say anything. There was no celebration at having killed all the hostage-takers and rescuing most of the children. There was only sadness and disappointment that they failed to save ALL the children. And later when a politician told the special forces leader that they were going to hold a press conference to announce their success, the special forces leader got mad and said "You call this a success? A child is dead!". But you seem to think that's acceptable and 18 out of 19 (a 5% failure rate) is better than 17 out of 17 (a 0% failure rate).
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 2, 2020 15:14:58 GMT
The question is whether saving 17 out of 17 hostages is better or saving 18 out of 19 hostages is better. King Kong Shady says saving 18 out of 19 hostages is better than saving 17 out of 17 hostages so King Kong Shady believes that letting a hostage die is acceptable. That's why I'm asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same way. Answer is the same: depends on context. 17 out of 17 is a more successful mission. 18 out of 19 is the more difficult task. You need to put better context into your question. For more context, watch 15 Minutes of War, about school children held hostage in Djibouti. The special forces stormed the school bus and killed all the hostage-takers and rescued all but 1 of the children. When 1 of the special forces guys sees the dead children in the school bus, he sat there holding the dead child and crying because he knew their mission wasn't a complete success. When the special forces leader entered the school bus and saw the dead child, he didn't say anything. There was no celebration at having killed all the hostage-takers and rescuing most of the children. There was only sadness and disappointment that they failed to save ALL the children. And later when a politician told the special forces leader that they were going to hold a press conference to announce their success, the special forces leader got mad and said "You call this a success? A child is dead!". Would you feel better in the press conference saying "We were able to save 17 out of 17 hostages and had no casualties" or would you feel better in the press conference saying "We saved 18 out of 19 hostages and only had 1 casualty"? So the question is simple" Which is more successful? 17 out of 17 (a 100% success rate and 0% failure rate) or 18 out of 19 (a 95% success rate and a 5% failure rate)?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 18:19:05 GMT
later when a politician told the special forces leader that they were going to hold a press conference to announce their success They made a movie about the Djibouti rescue because it was considered a success. Like Entebbe. You couldn't figure that out on your own? 30 children were rescued. One died. Sure, there was sadness associated with the loss of that child, but overall it was an impressive endeavor - because it was so difficult. They don’t make movies about relatively easy hostage rescues that were “perfect” – because those are less impressive. So, thanks for making my point for me. Of course, this is just you throwing up smoke to avoid answering my questions. The number of hostages saved in a single operation is in no way comparable to winning football games. When I paint a more comparable hostage to football analogy, you flee. Like usual.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 2, 2020 19:58:51 GMT
Ah, I see you're going for a Lucifer principle type of tactic with this, good luck.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 3, 2020 3:39:15 GMT
later when a politician told the special forces leader that they were going to hold a press conference to announce their success They made a movie about the Djibouti rescue because it was considered a success. WOW! You really are an idiot. They didn't make the movie because it was considered a success. How the fuck is a child being killed by terrorists considered a success? There are plenty of movies made not because it was considered a success but because it was a tragedy. And that's what this movie was. A child was killed by terrorists. That's a tragedy, not a success.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 3, 2020 3:48:21 GMT
This has nothing to do with any DC movie. And neither of these scenarios were in an MCU movie (at least not that I'm aware of). This isn't a DC vs MCU thread. This is simply a question of whether 17 out of 17 (a 100% success rate) is better OR 18 out of 19 (a 95% success rate) is better. If you don't like the questions referring to The Avengers, then you can replace them with the Justice League or the X-Men or the Fantastic Four or the Justice Society or the Legion of Super-Heroes or any other team. The team doesn't matter, which is why the poll questions don't refer to any specific team. The poll is simply asking whether 17 out of 17 (a 100% success rate) is better OR 18 out of 19 (a 95% success rate) is better. So this thread matters even less than any other. This thread actually matters a lot. Many MCU fans here often say that I lumped MCU fans together into 1 category and that not all MCU fans are alike. So I'm giving MCU fans here a chance to voice their individual opinions. 1 MCU fan has insisted that 18 out of 19 (a 95% success rate and a 5% failure rate) is better than 17 out of 17 (a 100% success rate and a 0% failure rate). So he thinks that letting 1 hostage die is acceptable. I'm asking if the rest of the MCU fans here feel the same.
|
|