NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/25/connecticut-state-senator-alarmed-over-non-existent-rape-scene-gta-iv

(Original story: http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=8476 )

Apparently, according to the Kotaku article, the good senator is demanding proof of the non-existance of said rape-scene. This has, naturally, prompted much humor in regards to things like burden of proof, proving a negative, and so forth.

In the mean time, I'm waiting for Jack Thompson to announce that the Florida Supreme Court supports rapists.

EDIT:
Got so caught up in writing my post I forgot the title :P

There's a rape scene!? And I missed it?!

THE HUMANITY!

There's a rape scene!? And I missed it?!

THE HUMANITY!

Yup. And all those 'bonus points' too.

Pardon my language, but who the HELL have we been electing?

This has, naturally, prompted much humor in regards to... proving a negative, and so forth.
My jumper is red.
Therefore, my jumper is not green.

Yaaay! I proved a negative.

My jumper is red.
Therefore, my jumper is not green.

Yaaay! I proved a negative.
I demand proof that there is not a pocket in your jacket.

I demand proof that there is not a pocket in your jacket.
Quite easy, but you'd need to come a bit closer.

EDIT: With regards to the Senator's comment, though they may be rather dim-witted, if one were to go through the code of the game, showing what each part did, one could easily prove that there was no rape scene in the game.

I'm still pissed I missed the rape scene. :(

Quite easy, but you'd need to come a bit closer.

EDIT: With regards to the Senator's comment, though they may be rather dim-witted, if one were to go through the code of the game, showing what each part did, one could easily prove that there was no rape scene in the game.

Besides the fact that that doesn't make sense and isn't feasible, you can't prove something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist.

There's a rape scene!? And I missed it?!

THE HUMANITY!

Pfft, there's a scene where Nikko raises Christ from the dead, pumps him full of lead, and declares himself the anti-Christ. :p

Bah, there is too much labeling as it is... Besides, only ignorant parents think their children will turn bad for playing a damn game :headbang:

Pfft, there's a scene where Nikko raises Christ from the dead, pumps him full of lead, and declares himself the anti-Christ. :p
/Sigable (If I had the room)

Wait there is a rape scene? How far in the game is that?

Maybe the Senator who says she hasn't being able to reach that level yet should knuckle down and start playing more, practice make perfect she will learn how to evade the police soon enough.

Looking at the comments of the original article, someone who called himself a gamer geek said that there is no rape scene in GTA 5 so does he have inside knowledge and was vastly off topic or is he not a gamer geek think that the new GTA is GTA 5, maybe he doesn’t know roman numerals.

Pardon my language, but who the HELL have we been electing?

Hey, I didn't vote for her. First off, we're not in the same district, and second off, I wouldn't have voted for her anyways (I have relatives that live down that way, and they tell me they hate her).

Pfft, there's a scene where Nikko raises Christ from the dead, pumps him full of lead, and declares himself the anti-Christ. :pI thought the rape scene was in there somewhere too ...?

I thought the rape scene was in there somewhere too ...?

Nikko would have a very strange reproductive system if it involved heavy metals instead of organic compounds.

There's a rape scene!? And I missed it?!

THE HUMANITY!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/1362599_02bcdea730.jpg

Besides the fact that that doesn't make sense and isn't feasible
How isn't it feasible?

We can quite easily examine my jacket closely, with different techniques, to show that there is no pocket in it.

Furthermore, we can examine all the constituent parts of the game, especially the code, to show that there is no rape scene included in the game.

What's so difficult about that?

you can't prove something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist.
Depends on what you mean by 'prove', and what you're trying to show the non-existence of.

Things like gods or ghosts, the supernatural in general, will be impossible to disprove, for they are, a priori, outside of nature and thus no test inside of nature can conclusively prove their no-existence.

However, proving the non-existence of many natural things, especially things in (relatively) fixed positions, is quite simple. I can prove there is no elephant in this room by conducting a number of empirical tests.

Now, you can point to the problem of induction, or the fact that we can never, 100%, prove the non-existence of anything (for we may be at the mercy of Descartes' daemon, or a brain in a vat), but these points also show that we can never prove anything with 100% certainty, so the objections are moot.

How isn't it feasible?

It is, but generally, the onus is on the one saying that something exists, otherwise we'd be too busy proving things didn't exist to do anything productive.

It is, but generally, the onus is on the one saying that something exists, otherwise we'd be too busy proving things didn't exist to do anything productive.
Sure, all I'm doing is countering this strange idea which crops up everywhere that you can never prove a negative.

However, proving the non-existence of many natural things, especially things in (relatively) fixed positions, is quite simple. I can prove there is no elephant in this room by conducting a number of empirical tests.


Oh, you hadn't heard about that new model of elephant they released? Invisible, intangible, environmentally-friendly, it's got everything.

Oh My Days.

That may just be the worst case of "If I can't do it no one can" ever.

you can't prove something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist.

nonsense. I can prove there exists no sheep in my refridgerator by opening my refridgerator and examining all the places a sheep might hide (check behind the ketchup)

Oh, you hadn't heard about that new model of elephant they released? Invisible, intangible, environmentally-friendly, it's got everything.
If he don't look like the below, I ain't impressed.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/4859/elmerbathtoyis7.jpg

nonsense. I can prove there exists no sheep in my refridgerator by opening my refridgerator and examining all the places a sheep might hide (check behind the ketchup)

But what about quantum sheep? And the waveform doesn't collapse? Then you would have possible sheep, in a quantum state of being and non-being, occupying the space where your beer would be. :p

But what about quantum sheep? And the waveform doesn't collapse? Then you would have possible sheep, in a quantum state of being and non-being, occupying the space where your beer would be. :p

Where might I purchase one of these quantum sheep?

Where might I purchase one of these quantum sheep?

YOu may or may not be able to purchase them at the shop that may or may not be on the corner, though you may or may not be able to afford...

Geez, doesn't Quantum Mechanics do anything else funny? Entanglement? Superfluids?

Pardon my language, but who the HELL have we been electing?
It's not impossible that Satan has made the election of that senator possible. Let's face it, it's rather diabolical for someone who's supposed to be a serious politician to waste their time on a subject that really isn't worth all the hubbub instead of doing something about matters that are actually relevant.

How isn't it feasible?

We can quite easily examine my jacket closely, with different techniques, to show that there is no pocket in it.
But are you going to come to that conclusion by examining each thread and how it is worked in?

Furthermore, we can examine all the constituent parts of the game, especially the code, to show that there is no rape scene included in the game.

What's so difficult about that?
That depends, what is your professional skill set in?


Depends on what you mean by 'prove', and what you're trying to show the non-existence of.

Things like gods or ghosts, the supernatural in general, will be impossible to disprove, for they are, a priori, outside of nature and thus no test inside of nature can conclusively prove their no-existence.
Exactly. You can't prove what isn't there.

However, proving the non-existence of many natural things, especially things in (relatively) fixed positions, is quite simple. I can prove there is no elephant in this room by conducting a number of empirical tests.
But what is the elephant is wearing red nail polish?

Now, you can point to the problem of induction, or the fact that we can never, 100%, prove the non-existence of anything (for we may be at the mercy of Descartes' daemon, or a brain in a vat), but these points also show that we can never prove anything with 100% certainty, so the objections are moot.
Proving non-existence is proving a negative and thus you obviously can't prove the non-existence of anything :rolleyes:

But are you going to come to that conclusion by examining each thread and how it is worked in?
In part, yes. I don't see why this is hard to grasp.

That depends, what is your professional skill set in?
And now you're being rather silly; of course we need someone skilled in whatever field we are studying.

Exactly. You can't prove what isn't there.
I can't prove the non-existence of something outside of nature with tools inside of nature, no. But how is this in any way a worry?

But what [if] the elephant is wearing red nail polish?

Proving non-existence is proving a negative and thus you obviously can't prove the non-existence of anything :rolleyes:
Neither can we prove, with 100% certainty, any single fact of life whatsoever.

But once we leave the baby philosophy behind, we can see this is not a worry in any way.

Let me prove a negative for you:

1 + 1 = 2

Therefore, 1 + 1 != 3.

Satisfied?

In part, yes. I don't see why this is hard to grasp.


And now you're being rather silly; of course we need someone skilled in whatever field we are studying.


I can't prove the non-existence of something outside of nature with tools inside of nature, no. But how is this in any way a worry?


Neither can we prove, with 100% certainty, any single fact of life whatsoever.

But once we leave the baby philosophy behind, we can see this is not a worry in any way.

Let me prove a negative for you:

1 + 1 = 2

Therefore, 1 + 1 != 3.

Satisfied?

Math is probably not the best way to go about proving that. You'll get some smartass put out a 20 page proof showing that in certain circumstances it can.

Math is probably not the best way to go about proving that. You'll get some smartass put out a 20 page proof showing that in certain circumstances it can.
:p

I suppose. But it's a simple shorthand for what I'm trying to get across.

Let me prove a negative for you:

1 + 1 = 2

Therefore, 1 + 1 != 3.

Satisfied?

Khadgar's right, you don't want to go there.

actually, it's only a few pages, but...

In part, yes. I don't see why this is hard to grasp.
No you're not because the threads don't tell you anything about what they compose.

And now you're being rather silly; of course we need someone skilled in whatever field we are studying.
You misunderstood. I was asking you personally what your professional skillset is.



Let me prove a negative for you:

1 + 1 = 2

Therefore, 1 + 1 != 3.

Satisfied?
I laugh at your attempt to prove things using math. And very basic math at that. I took a college course based upon the fundamental basics of mathematics. It only reinforced in me the idea that math is made up gibberish.

I leave off the fact you did it wrong.

No you're not because the threads don't tell you anything about what they compose.
Which is why examining threads individually wouldn't be the only way to go. Are you seriously suggesting that we can never be sure that the clothes we wear have 'secret' pockets that none of us are aware of?

You misunderstood. I was asking you personally what your professional skillset is.
I don't quite know what you mean by 'professional skill-set', but I'm a philosophy student living with two computer game designers if you're trying to get me to say I have no experience with games...

I laugh at your attempt to prove things using math. And very basic math at that.
Great.

Would you care to show me where I'm wrong, or are you just going to posture all day?

EDIT: Try this one then.

The next letter after A in the English alphabet is B.
Therefore, C is not the letter after A in the English alphabet.

I have proven a negative.

I don't quite know what you mean by 'professional skill-set', but I'm a philosophy student living with two computer game designers if you're trying to get me to say I have no experience with games...
I'm getting to you have no experience with programming. Did you ask them if it made sense before you went on the "examine every line of code/every function" bent?

Great.

Would you care to show me where I'm wrong, or are you just going to posture all day?
I assume 1 = 2. Thus 1 + 1 = 4.
Math is a series of assumptions. We assume and accept the value of 1. We also assume and accept how math works. Math is not where you should be trying to go Captain Philosophy.
As a philosophy student, you will luckily not have to take high enough level math classes to have to deal with that bs, but that means you shouldn't try to argue you it when you arn't sure you are arguing with people who have.

EDIT: Try this one then.

The next letter after A in the English alphabet is B.
Therefore, C is not the letter after A in the English alphabet.

I have proven a negative.
No you havn't. You have proven you like logical fallacies. At no point was C even mentioned thus you can't begin to assert where C comes in the alphabet. Also. What is C is on the same level as B? Then C is the letter after B in the English alphabet (in a non-linear alphabet, regardless of how little sense that makes).
Also, you have only proven that the next letter after A is B. Nothing else. You might be able to argue that you proved C isn't the next letter by contradiction. The problem with proofs and negatives is you can't prove a negative but you can do things that look like you are proving a negative.

I'm getting to you have no experience with programming. Did you ask them if it made sense before you went on the "examine every line of code/every function" bent?
No, I tend not to discuss forum posts with flatmates.

Are you now saying that it would be impossible to go through all the constituent parts of a program, including the code and the modules the code controls and implements, in effect creating 'secret' sections of the game?

And will you be answering my question of whether you are seriously suggesting that we can never be sure that the clothes we wear have 'secret' pockets that none of us are aware of, or will you merely be lording your knowledge of programming over me this evening?

If you do want to discuss this topic, rather than just waving your cock about, I'll be here.

I assume 1 = 2. Thus 1 + 1 = 4.
Then insert the implicit premise that 1 = 1, and we can all go away happy.

Alternatively, using your above schema, if 1 = 2, and 1 + 1 = 4, then 1 + 1 != 5. Once again, proving a negative.

At no point was C even mentioned
C was mentioned, indirectly, when I talked about the English alphabet.

Where might I purchase one of these quantum sheep?

They come in boxes. Talk to guys stranded in the desert; one of them should be able to provide. Just explain that you want the Schroedinger version. :p

Are you now saying that it would be impossible to go through all the constituent parts of a program, including the code and the modules the code controls and implements, in effect creating 'secret' sections of the game?
It would be impossible to go through code and prove something doesn't exist. You can go through code and prove something does exist, but only exhaustively.

And will you be answering my question of whether you are seriously suggesting that we can never be sure that the clothes we wear have 'secret' pockets that none of us are aware of, or will you merely be lording your knowledge of programming over me this evening?
Considering the topic and your statements about going through code to prove "not" things, mainly the latter.


Then insert the implicit premise that 1 = 1, and we can all go away happy.

Alternatively, using your above schema, if 1 = 2, and 1 + 1 = 4, then 1 + 1 != 5. Once again, proving a negative.
Unless we use more absurd math. But let's not go there, it's a scary place.

C was mentioned, indirectly, when I talked about the English alphabet.
Which really doesn't have anything to do with anything.

It would be impossible to go through code and prove something doesn't exist. You can go through code and prove something does exist, but only exhaustively.
Not just the code though, the entire program. For example, for there to be a rape scene in GTA4, there would have to be (at the least) video and audio. One could quite easily bring up all video and audio used in the game, go through each one and show there was no such scene.

Considering the topic and your statements about going through code to prove "not" things, mainly the latter.
Then create a new thread please; there's no need to sully this one any further.

Which really doesn't have anything to do with anything.
It does if I'm showing in which order the letters of the English alphabet are in, and to prove that C is not the letter after A.

EDIT: Try this one then.

The next letter after A in the English alphabet is B.
Therefore, C is not the letter after A in the English alphabet.

I have proven a negative.

No you haven't.
1, you haven't proven that B is the next letter after A in the alphabet, you merely stated it.
2, You haven't proven that the alphabet is linear and can't go both ways so that B and C can be the next letter after A.
3, You haven't proven that B and C are mutually exclusive.
4, In fact, you haven't proven that C is not B.

So your proof is sorely lacking.

1, you haven't proven that B is the next letter after A in the alphabet, you merely stated it.
2, You haven't proven that the alphabet is linear and can't go both ways so that B and C can be the next letter after A.
3, You haven't proven that B and C are mutually exclusive.
4, In fact, you haven't proven that C is not B.
By the very nature of the English alphabet, I have proven all the above.

If you want to question the order or make-up of the English alphabet, then by all means go ahead, but centuries of tradition, let alone Sesame Street, will disagree with you.

By the very nature of the English alphabet, I have proven all the above.

If you want to question the order or make-up of the English alphabet, then by all means go ahead, but centuries of tradition, let alone Sesame Street, will disagree with you.

No you haven't. You didn't proove the very nature of the english alphabet. So we could be talking about two different english alphabet.

Even if we are talking about the very same english alphabet, you have to state why B and C are not the same in your proof.

What you did is make two claims and said they are related and proove each other. A proof doesn't work that way.

No you haven't. You didn't proove the very nature of the english alphabet. So we could be talking about two different english alphabet.
No... but neither have I solved the problem of induction, proven I am not under the sway of an evil daemon, or shown how the external world exists.

I'd hoped we needn't go down that route.

Not just the code though, the entire program. For example, for there to be a rape scene in GTA4, there would have to be (at the least) video and audio. One could quite easily bring up all video and audio used in the game, go through each one and show there was no such scene.
Actually, no. Audio is not required and video wouldn't exist unless there is a cut scene of pre-created video.


Then create a new thread please; there's no need to sully this one any further.
You brought it up and and you are wrong. If you want to keep talking about coding, you can go make a new thread and we can discuss how you are wrong there.

It does if I'm showing in which order the letters of the English alphabet are in, and to prove that C is not the letter after A.
Only by contradiction. You proved B is the letter after A. By contradiction, you have shown that Not B is not the letter after A.

Actually, no. Audio is not required and video wouldn't exist unless there is a cut scene of pre-created video.
Which is what, IIRC, the senator is claiming, that there is a pre-created rape scene utilising video (presumably with accompanying video) that players can access after they achieve a certain goal in the game.

This can be proven to be not the case.

If you want to keep talking about coding...
Not particularly, but I'm happy to discuss proving a negative.

By contradiction, you have shown that Not B is not the letter after A.
Which is called...?

(Proving a negative, don'tcha know. )

Which is what, IIRC, the senator is claiming, that there is a pre-created rape scene utilising video (presumably with accompanying video) that players can access after they achieve a certain goal in the game.

This can be proven to be not the case.
Correct. Assuming it is pre-created video, it will be held in a video file somewhere. It has nothing to do with going through code.

Correct.
That wasn't so hard, was it?

Correct. Assuming it is pre-created video, it will be held in a video file somewhere. It has nothing to do with going through code.

what do you think code does, exactly? For a video file to be present in a video game, two things must be present:

1) a video file to be played

2) code that tells the game to load the video file at the proper time.

The absence of either is proof of non existance.

That wasn't so hard, was it?
You knowing what you were talking about would have saved alot of time.

what do you think code does, exactly? For a video file to be present in a video game, two things must be present:

1) a video file to be played

2) code that tells the game to load the video file at the proper time.

The absence of either is proof of non existance.

Unlike you two, I do know what code does. Knowledge for which I am payed a decent amount of chump change.

Code that says "load this" is not proof of existence. It could be a generic loading function or the file could not be there. In the former, there is no guarantee what it is going to do and in the latter, if the file doesn't exist, the file doesn't exist. A video file must be present for a video to be present in a game.

And after so many pages, do I need to go after you as well about "going through each line of code"?

Code that says "load this" is not proof of existence.

Indeed, so I suggest you look up what it means when I said "the absence of either". And considering I'm not looking for "proof of existence" but rather proof of non-existance, as I said, for a game to contain video, it must have both a video and code referencing to it. Code that says "load it" doesn't prove it exists in game. A video file depcitcing it does not prove it exists in game.

Indeed, in order to prove it exists in game, you need to prove both exist. Thus to prove it does not exist you need only prove one does not exist.

And since all the money you're paying has thus far, evidently, not provided you with even the most basic primer of logic, I do believe you're owed a substantial refund, as your eductional providers have most certainly failed you

Indeed, so I suggest you look up what it means when I said "the absence of either"
Since you know so much about code, you realize that the absence of code does not mean the file, and thus video, doesn't exist and that the lack of a video file renders any code relating to it irrelevant and thus rendering the video non-existent (and thus can't be used to prove any scene does or doesn't exist).

You knowing what you were talking about would have saved alot of time.
Your the one who's turned this into a (rather flimsy) argument about coding.

Since you know so much about code, you realize that the absence of code does not mean the file, and thus video, doesn't exist and that the lack of a video file renders any code relating to it irrelevant and thus rendering the video non-existent (and thus can't be used to prove any scene does or doesn't exist).
And the lack of both would prove the negative that the scene does not exist in the game.

And the lack of both would prove the negative that the scene does not exist in the game.
Yes, the lack of both would 'prove' that the video does not exist because the lack of a file means it doesn't exist. Lack of code means squat.

Yes, the lack of both would 'prove' that the video does not exist because the lack of a file means it doesn't exist.
Not only that, it would prove it without the scare quotes. Proving a negative.

Lack of code means squat.
I don't know what this obsession with code is all about...

nonsense. I can prove there exists no sheep in my refridgerator by opening my refridgerator and examining all the places a sheep might hide (check behind the ketchup)

But what if they're very tiny sheep?

But what if they're very tiny sheep?
Then they'd better not get into my coleslaw.

They come in boxes. Talk to guys stranded in the desert; one of them should be able to provide. Just explain that you want the Schroedinger version. :p

From 'The Little Prince', right?

Math is probably not the best way to go about proving that. You'll get some smartass put out a 20 page proof showing that in certain circumstances it can.

1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8
Express with 1 sig fig.
1 + 1 = 3

I could probably arrange it as a logical proof or a mathematical proof, but I'm lazy.

1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8
Express with 1 sig fig.
1 + 1 = 3
But isn't that sort of... cheating?

At the very least, it's rather disingenuous.

Math is probably not the best way to go about proving that. You'll get some smartass put out a 20 page proof showing that in certain circumstances it can.

Let me see if I understand were this WHOLE discussion is going...


You guys are trying to prove the non-existance of a prove of non-existance...

*thinking.....thinking.....still thinking....HEAD EXPLODES!!!!*

nonsense. I can prove there exists no sheep in my refridgerator by opening my refridgerator and examining all the places a sheep might hide (check behind the ketchup)

You could very possibly be insane and are only imagining that there are no sheep hiding behind your ketchup, when any sane person would clearly see several sheep behind the ketchup and several more lurking about in your fruit drawer. You're just crazy is all.

But isn't that sort of... cheating?

At the very least, it's rather disingenuous.

We aren't exactly assuming ingenuity...

Please guys... dont do this again.

There are a myriad of mathematical prooooofffs of non-existance....

like the non existance of two natural numbers p,q so that squareroot of 2 is equal to p/q...

knock it off already...:rolleyes:

Please guys... dont do this again.

There are a myriad of mathematical prooooofffs of non-existance....

like the non existance of two natural numbers p,q so that squareroot of 2 is equal to p/q...

knock it off already...:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Slightly different?

From 'The Little Prince', right?

<< S'il vous plaît, dessine-moi la possibilité d'un mouton... >> :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Slightly different?

yes yes... proofs of non existance and proofs of impossibility exists in mathematics for long long time... now Im starting to wonder if they arent the smae thing.

We aren't exactly assuming ingenuity...
You knows what I means... :p

You knows what I means... :p

That something can be denied to within a reasonable doubt? yeah, kinda, but that's not quite what's been said...

The Hell?

That something can be denied to within a reasonable doubt? yeah, kinda, but that's not quite what's been said...
I'm not getting you.

Not only that, it would prove it without the scare quotes. Proving a negative.


I don't know what this obsession with code is all about...

You brought it up and people keep harping on it thinking they know all about coding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Slightly different?

Like I said, with proofs and non-existence, there are alot of proofs that look like you are proving non-existence.

Let me see if I understand were this WHOLE discussion is going...


You guys are trying to prove the non-existance of a prove of non-existance...

*thinking.....thinking.....still thinking....HEAD EXPLODES!!!!*

*cleans up mess*

No you haven't.
1, you haven't proven that B is the next letter after A in the alphabet, you merely stated it.
2, You haven't proven that the alphabet is linear and can't go both ways so that B and C can be the next letter after A.
3, You haven't proven that B and C are mutually exclusive.
4, In fact, you haven't proven that C is not B.

So your proof is sorely lacking.

It's actually easier than that:

Assuming the English alphabet goes in the order it always goes in:
B comes after A, C comes after B, therefore: C comes after A, even if it does not come directly after A.

Similar to: How many months have twenty-eight days?

The answer is all of them. February is the only month that has ONLY 28 days, and not more. And I'm going by the Gregorian calendar and English numerals. You know what I mean, don't be a smart-ass.

I hate the Connecticut voting public so much right now.

I also hate all of you who are arguing about proving non-existence. Knock it off. :p

Furthermore, we can examine all the constituent parts of the game, especially the code, to show that there is no rape scene included in the game.

That could take some time…

Also, you have only proven that the next letter after A is B. Nothing else.

But there could be a special invisible letter after A…

So the senator is keen to label things. I will agree when all his election pamphlets and other election media have warnings such as

1) This person is most likely a financial whore. Be carefull about Sexually Tranmitted Dollars
2) Lies and deciet are contained. Treat as fiction.
3) Morals may not be as they appear. Please consider electoral situation before forming an opinion

The biggest difference between the political warnings and the game warnings is that the political warnings are almost certainly true. The other is yet to be found

Besides the fact that that doesn't make sense and isn't feasible, you can't prove something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist.

That.
Is awesome.

But There Could Be A Special Invisible Letter After A…
A'

That could take some time…
Indeed it might, but it's still possible.

But there could be a special invisible letter after A…
Then we would not be talking about the modern English alphabet. Moreover, I wonder how something of the nature of a non-physical letter could be invisible...

Moreover, I wonder how something of the nature of a non-physical letter could be invisible...

Through the power of magic?

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/25/connecticut-state-senator-alarmed-over-non-existent-rape-scene-gta-iv

(Original story: http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=8476 )

Apparently, according to the Kotaku article, the good senator is demanding proof of the non-existance of said rape-scene. This has, naturally, prompted much humor in regards to things like burden of proof, proving a negative, and so forth.

In the mean time, I'm waiting for Jack Thompson to announce that the Florida Supreme Court supports rapists.

EDIT:
Got so caught up in writing my post I forgot the title :P

Wow. This is even funnier than all those politicians getting their noses out of joint by non-existent oil drillers off the cost of the US.

Barry claims to be a widow, Barry is a man, therefore Barry is not a widow. That's... proving something wrong. Yes it's tautology, but then maths is often just incredibly complex tautology.

proving something wrong.

Okay, now we're really obviously getting very far away from what was intended in the impossibility of proving a negative thing. I mean, do you honestly think they meant 'it's impossible to prove anything wrong?' Moreover, Chumbly, I don't think proving a statement with the word 'not' in it is what's the main drive here.

That could take some time…



But there could be a special invisible letter after A…

There is. alt+0173, the top secret invisible character.

Okay, now we're really obviously getting very far away from what was intended in the impossibility of proving a negative thing. I mean, do you honestly think they meant 'it's impossible to prove anything wrong?'

Pantless was acting as if it were the case.

Pantless was acting as if it were the case.

Then my message is meant for him as well, I suppose...:confused:

Moreover, Chumbly, I don't think proving a statement with the word 'not' in it is what's the main drive here.
Then what is?

The OP seems to suggest that it would be impossible to prove that there isn't a rape scene in GTA4, and I think we've dispelled that falsehood.

Furthermore, we've discussed the notion that one can never prove something's non-existence, and how this is false.

I agree we get onto different territory when we discuss certain substances or beings that folks claim to exist; but I've never said we could prove the non-existence of anything.

I think a general rule is, its impossible to disprove the non existence of something when its not contingent on other observable factors (a.k.a the supernatural, perhaps aliens etc...) otherwise it is possible.