Is John the strongest spartan out of all of them? (1,2s,3s,4s)

#151LordNobunagaPosted 11/14/2012 1:30:10 AM
Imagine if Bungie originally said that the reason he has been through the events of Halo CE-4 and lived to tell the tale was because "God is looking out for him". Now that would get people angry.
---
Elisabeth Blanctorche fanboy.
youtube.com/user/CommElite, and GT: TM07
#152Alternative_1Posted 11/14/2012 7:01:35 AM
VandorLee posted...
I would explain more on how this is just bad writing and to fill in the wholes. "Hes just lucky". No, thats not a sarcastic response, thats LITERALLY the answer to why John's awesome.

So in some horrific circumstance that 9/10 people would die in, John would get that 10% chance boosted to 100% and he would live.

Oh and ITS WRITTEN THAT WAY.


Pretty much. My contention from the start has been that the "luck" explanation is terrible writing, but there you go. I suppose we could be favourable to Bungie/343 and say it's some kind of meta-comment on games but. . .well, yeah, probably not.

SirLezdain posted...
GGearX posted...
SirLezdain posted...
ITT people don't know the difference between tangible/quantifiable and intangible/unquantifiable.


Please explain. I'm not an English expert.....


Luck is generally agreed upon to be a real thing but it's hard to define or observe, thus making it intangible, IE having no true physical presence. Because of this it can't be measured or appropriately studied, making it unquantifiable.


No. You are the one confusing "lucky" as a descriptor to an event (totally legitimate) and "lucky" as a human attribute (complete nonsense). The difference has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's tangible or quantifiable.
---
tahts halo
dont worry
#153faxmachnePosted 11/14/2012 7:32:42 AM
Alternative_1 posted...
VandorLee posted...
I would explain more on how this is just bad writing and to fill in the wholes. "Hes just lucky". No, thats not a sarcastic response, thats LITERALLY the answer to why John's awesome.

So in some horrific circumstance that 9/10 people would die in, John would get that 10% chance boosted to 100% and he would live.

Oh and ITS WRITTEN THAT WAY.


Pretty much. My contention from the start has been that the "luck" explanation is terrible writing, but there you go. I suppose we could be favourable to Bungie/343 and say it's some kind of meta-comment on games but. . .well, yeah, probably not.

SirLezdain posted...
GGearX posted...
SirLezdain posted...
ITT people don't know the difference between tangible/quantifiable and intangible/unquantifiable.


Please explain. I'm not an English expert.....


Luck is generally agreed upon to be a real thing but it's hard to define or observe, thus making it intangible, IE having no true physical presence. Because of this it can't be measured or appropriately studied, making it unquantifiable.


No. You are the one confusing "lucky" as a descriptor to an event (totally legitimate) and "lucky" as a human attribute (complete nonsense). The difference has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's tangible or quantifiable.


no it can be used in that way

that person is one lucky son of a ****

a person can be lucky, hugh heffner is one lucky son of a ****
---
Thanks to the guy who blabbed on my old one
#154Alternative_1Posted 11/14/2012 7:36:07 AM
That's not an attribute. It's a descriptor.

He has gotten lucky, ergo he is described as "lucky". He does not have superior luck, however, in the way that someone being picked for getting "lucky" would have to have.
---
tahts halo
dont worry
#155faxmachnePosted 11/14/2012 7:40:47 AM
Alternative_1 posted...
That's not an attribute. It's a descriptor.

He has gotten lucky, ergo he is described as "lucky". He does not have superior luck, however, in the way that someone being picked for getting "lucky" would have to have.


no he good very will be a lucky person, it could be an attribute

but because we are unable to measure a quality as luck we cannot be certain

this does not mean that it is not
---
Thanks to the guy who blabbed on my old one
#156Alternative_1Posted 11/14/2012 7:45:27 AM(edited)
Well yes, being able to fly unaided could be a human attribute as yet unnoticed too. As there is absolutely zero evidence that humans can fly, and the entire idea clashes with our understanding of science, I feel perfectly fine in saying that, no, being able to fly is not a human attribute.

Appealing to the idea of falsifiability to make your claims seem reasonable is not a good idea. All you are doing is saying "Anything is possible!!", which is technically correct, but when you put your ideas on an equal footing to fire breathing dragons actually existing on Earth you're rather shooting yourself in the foot.
---
tahts halo
dont worry
#157faxmachnePosted 11/14/2012 7:51:50 AM
Alternative_1 posted...
Well yes, being able to fly unaided could be a human attribute as yet unnoticed too. As there is absolutely zero evidence that humans can fly, and the entire idea clashes with our understanding of science, I feel perfectly fine in saying that, no, being able to fly is not a human attribute.

Appealing to the idea of falsifiability to make your claims seem reasonable is not a good idea. All you are doing is saying "Anything is possible!!", which is technically correct, but when you put your ideas on an equal footing to fire breathing dragons actually existing on Earth you're rather shooting yourself in the foot.


no

you are saying that is my argument

I am saying that some people think other people re lucky, they are always in the right place at the right time and always know what to do in ay situation even if they should have no idea

these things can be explained as coincidence or a fluke, some people consider it lucky and from this consider certain people do be lucky

some people think that having a certain person around makes them play a game better, they think that they bring them luck. Now it may be more probable that it just helps the person feel better and it is more of a placebo effect, it still makes people thin kthat they are lucky.

this is the big difference between luck and flying. no one thinks a human can just get up and fly, but people believe in luck and lucky people.

that is my point, theoretically it could be an attribute we just cannot quantify the evidence.

Personally i think that if luck does exist it is more akin to a virus, but that is me.

Regardless luck IS considered an attribute to a character in Halo. Therefore it is an attribute to him because the writers decided that it was. If they want humans to fly in it they can, but they have chosen not to.

Regardless to your feelings of luck and the human body in the halo universe it is considered an attribute and one that John-117 has.
---
Thanks to the guy who blabbed on my old one
#158Alternative_1Posted 11/14/2012 7:58:43 AM
Some people thinking something is the way the world is has zero effect on whether it's a reasonable belief or not.

Lots of people believe in stupid things. Thinking luck is an attribute is one such stupid belief.
---
tahts halo
dont worry
#159faxmachnePosted 11/14/2012 8:00:50 AM
Alternative_1 posted...
Some people thinking something is the way the world is has zero effect on whether it's a reasonable belief or not.

Lots of people believe in stupid things. Thinking luck is an attribute is one such stupid belief.


in your onion though

this is the problem, you are confusing your opinion with fact

people believe in god, other people think that is crazy

neither are wrong

this is the same
---
Thanks to the guy who blabbed on my old one
#160Alternative_1Posted 11/14/2012 8:04:44 AM
Actually, when two people have contradictory beliefs, one of them (and potentially both) absolutely is wrong. That's a tautological fact.

Some beliefs in gods are absolutely and clearly completely lacking in reason, some are not.
---
tahts halo
dont worry