r/Invincible • u/mwthecool Omni-Mod • Nov 17 '23

Invincible [Episode Discussion] - S02E03 - This Missive, This Machination! EPISODE DISCUSSION

Episode 3 - This Missive, This Machination!

Mark starts his college career, Debbie struggles with personal trauma, and Allen the Alien returns home to find a new threat facing the Coalition of Planets.

Full cast, crew and characters

Join the r/Invincible Discord server!

Please act appropriately and follow our rules. We ask you to report any comments that are uncivil/malicious or don't belong in the non-comic spoiler thread.

DO NOT post comic book spoilers in this thread - use [the comic spoiler discussion thread](LINK HERE) for discussion using comic book context

Please report comments discussing comic book spoilers in this thread.

1.9k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/SilasX Nov 20 '23

That ... was a natural implication of the quoted argument, plus your point:

Mark had no way of knowing whether the bug alien was telling the truth, but he can't risk it if the alien isn't.

If you think that implication is stupid, you're getting to see why your original argument is, too. It's in the same class as Pascal's Wager arguments. "Oh, there's just a tiny chance of saving lots of lives, so I have to drop everything." No, not what a sane decision theory looks like.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '23

It's not a "natural implication." I never said that there's no level of risk/reward that wouldn't make it worth it. You're putting words in my mouth.

However, Mark made a decision that the bug alien was likely not a major threat, so he deemed that the potential reward (saving billions of alien lives) outweighed the risk (of some trap).

I think Mark made the right choice based on the information he had. You're free to disagree; it's a matter of opinion. But please don't put words in my mouth. I suggest that you try to interpret comments charitably rather than the "well actually" approach because your interpretation of my comment is frankly insulting. Just start off by assuming everyone's as smart as you and has basic reasoning skills and you'll communicate much more effectively with people online.

1

u/SilasX Nov 20 '23

It's not a "natural implication." I never said that there's no level of risk/reward that wouldn't make it worth it.

Correct, you just left it unspecified, indicating you hadn’t realized it’s an issue in the first place, which is worse!

1

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '23

You're contradicting yourself. Either I implied something or I left it unspecified. Those are mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what you think your accomplishing, but I'm not interested in a pointless argument.

1

u/SilasX Nov 20 '23

Leaving it unspecified means you didn’t think of the implications. This isn’t hard.

At least, it isn’t hard for people with experience with Pascal’s Wager-type arguments.

Which you looked up by now, right? Because of your intellectual curiosity and all? 🙄