If that don't work, use more gun

119 points · 38 comments

submitted 5 months ago

38 Comments

submitattach picture

You are viewing a single comment. Click here to see all comments.

Lethalizing · 0 points · 5 months ago · parent

1. No, it doesn't matter. A sword does nothing. A bow does nothing. A gun does nothing. A bazooka does nothing. A bomb does nothing. A nuke also does nothing. A huge nuke does nothing...
Hypothetically, you could have enough force, but no you don't, and there is no logic in "because we have developed kinetic force some, creatures that were immune to kinetic force are now vulnerable...". We've scaled up the kinetic force so many times, and it's still useless.
2. No, that is not my logic at all. My real world example is an example that's practically invincible, but theoretically could be blasted away if we scaled up the force way way way way way more than what is being talked about in the post. My real world example isn't meant to be as good as the fantasy example. But it follows the logic more than well enough to prove the logic of the post wrong. And that's without using fantasy as a crutch.
3. Where does the knowledge come from? Who cares? Experimentation? Other magical means, like divination? Like, why do you care where we know it from? Fact is that we know that fact, and even if we don't comprehend why it works like that, we know it works like that.
Also doesn't matter if it's ONLY silver. We know silver works. We know iron doesn't. We've tried iron, it doesn't work. Iron with applied kinetic force is a no. So, there is no logic in going, "Yeah, it has proved invulnerable to iron so far, and vulnerable to silver, but if we add a bit more kinetic force to the iron, we for sure can kill it.".

My use of the word is kind of lax, but not really. You comprehend the logic. You don't comprehend the physics, or chemistry, or whatever magic shit is going on, that is underlying the logic. That is fitting use and not lax. Especially, since not every definition of "comprehend" is that tight. You're cherry picking.

Bright0001 · Experienced · 0 points · 5 months ago

1. Huh? What exact way of "upscaling force" happened to creatures created/"documented" in (pre) medieval times exactly?
Also you contradict yourself; You admit enough force being able to do harm to even the ocean, so why shouldn't it apply to some arbitrary monster as well? You putting your imaginary threshold above firearms is just your way of fantasy.
2. Again, "practically invincible", based only on people trying a crossbow at best against them.
3. Well, everybody? It does make a difference if a "fact" comes from a drunkard with a wild fantasy or from literal god, do you not see that?
4. Knowing that one basic metal works, and some other basic metals do not when swung, means jackshit.

My argument isn't an absolute statement that it will work, just that you can't know. It's like assuming you are invulnerable to ice, because snow doesn't hurt you, which will be a very different story very fast with your first thick hail encounter.

Lethalizing · 0 points · 5 months ago *

1. Huh? What are you even talking about? We upscaled the force from a low kinetic force from melee weapons to a huge kinetic force from bombs and nukes. The "creature" in this case is still unfazed.
And I am not contradicting myself. My real world example, outside of fantasy, is already so resistant to kinetic force that it is practically invulnerable to it. And that's just a real world concept. That's outside of fantasy. I could have chosen the sun or a black hole as the real world example of something that won't be hurt by us using bigger weapons, but it's really besides the point. It's just to make you comprehend that upscaling the force a bit is not a catch-all, fool-proof, "now the rules of old no longer matter", method. And that's just by using real world concepts, with real world logic, as examples. In fantasy it can be so much more invincible through whatever magic rules is in place.
My point was never that you can't make fantasy in which a creature's strengths and weaknesses can be rendered useless through sheer power. Just that it's not logical to assume that any and all strengths and weaknesses of any and all mythical creatures become useless, if you upscale the force a bit of what they were invulnerable to last time you checked. The ocean is already a good enough example of this. By switching from a sword to a rifle, we have not become "the horrors beyond comprehension", when trying to kill the ocean. It doesn't matter if it could fathom our modern weapons 3000 years ago, it is still unfazed by them. It never needed to develop a new immunity to deal with modern weapons.

Cards on the table: Why are you doing this? Are you just a troll? Because it really seems like it to me. You're really not grasping anything I am sending your way. Seems like you're busy attempting to make weak ass "gotcha" semantics instead.

Bright0001 · Experienced · 0 points · 5 months ago

At least we understand each other, as in thinking the other one must be trolling. To 1.: If you meant by your upscaling the way from monster to the ocean, then I misunderstood you. As it is pretty deranged arguing the attributes of some ~100kg-ish demon to a billion cubic kilometers of water coming in at more than a Quintillion tonnes. Only to be shown that with enough force even that could be dispersed, just to row back with "doesn't matter".

I'm doing this because why not, thinking you have no base to make any solid argument, or to conclude anything about what might happen using modern weapons whatsoever.

Lethalizing · 0 points · 5 months ago *

Jesus Christ...
It's an example for the sake of making you understand the concept of how upscaling something ineffective doesn't mean that it is necessarily effective... A sword is ineffective, so you upscale to a gun. That is still ineffective, so you upscale to a bazooka. That is still ineffective, so you upscale to a bomb. That is still ineffective, so you upscale to a nuke. That is still ineffective, so you upscale to a bigger nuke, and that is still ineffective... That's the ***ing point... Shit is ineffective, and it always was. The ocean doesn't need to develop any new immunities...
The concept is the same as with a creature that is magically immune to certain kinds of damage... The example's got nothing to do with mass or size. We just don't have magic in the real world, so to give the simplest and most direct examples of real world things that are immune to kinetic force from our weapons even as we upscale from weapon to weapon, it will have to be something grand... Really ***ing simple...

You officially don't comprehend anything, no matter how simple and logical it is, got it... Either you're honest and retarded, or you're a troll. In both cases there is no point in debating with you. I'm out.

Bright0001 · Experienced · 0 points · 5 months ago

Sorry mate, but you gotta swallow the lack of comprehension pill on your end. I explicitly stated that WE DO NOT KNOW. That was the whole point. We cannot assume something ineffective becoming effective just by scaling, and we cannot assume something ineffective staying ineffective despite scaling.

Your whole argumentation is just a hasty generalization fallacy with mythology sprinkled in.

Show more →