Ponies vs Raptors?

Everybody hold on a second, let me throw down an ontological proof:

1. It is given that those who always win always win
2. It is given that those who try to win yet fail have a higher chance of failing.
3. It is given that the definition of failing is coming short of one's objectives.
4. Ponies often come short of their objectives.
5. Colin Mochrie never comes short of his objectives.
6. Colin Mochrie is a member of the Raptors party.

ERGO

7. Since Colin Mochrie is a member of the Raptors and never comes short of his objectives he must always win. Furthermore, ponies always fail.


INFALLIBLE LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SoulArbiter]

Originally Posted by mahay Everybody hold on a second, let me throw down an ontological proof: 1. It is given that those who always win always win 2. It is given that those who try to win yet fail have a higher chance of failing. 3. It is given that the definition of failing is coming short of one's objectives. 4. Ponies often come short of their objectives. 5. Colin Mochrie never comes short of his objectives. 6. Colin Mochrie is a member of the Raptors party. ERGO 7. Since Colin Mochrie is a member of the Raptors and never comes short of his objectives he must always win. Furthermore, ponies always fail. INFALLIBLE LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite possibly the greatest amount of logic shown anywhere - ever.

[neondantou126]

Originally Posted by mahay Everybody hold on a second, let me throw down an ontological proof: 1. It is given that those who always win always win 2. It is given that those who try to win yet fail have a higher chance of failing. 3. It is given that the definition of failing is coming short of one's objectives. 4. Ponies often come short of their objectives. 5. Colin Mochrie never comes short of his objectives. 6. Colin Mochrie is a member of the Raptors party. ERGO 7. Since Colin Mochrie is a member of the Raptors and never comes short of his objectives he must always win. Furthermore, ponies always fail. INFALLIBLE LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I challenge the soundness of your argument. ESPECIALLY Premise #4.

Originally Posted by neondantou126 I challenge the soundness of your argument. ESPECIALLY Premise #4.

I can understand the hesitation in accepting premise number four but let me assure you it is entirely true.

let me provide this discussion as to when a member of the pony party has failed :

 

http://www.mlptp.net/forums/trader-help-advice/67931-whippetluv-fails.html

also, if you have failed to see this ridiculous pony, this may help in the enlightenment:

 

in the preceding video, Taft, a member of the pony party, mentions that the other generals may have been right in suggesting that the pony brigade was a mistake. Mistakes are generally construed as failures.

Also, premise number four works hand-in-hand with premise number two showing that once failure has occurred, it is consistently more likely that failure will occur again.

Any questions, Neondantou?