Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 3612554" data-attributes="member: 8439">This is a strawman... My initial insertion of the consequences aspect was based not on the dragon saying what it would do but on the history of what the dragon had done. [my] analysis of the safety of the hostages relies entirely on judging the predicatability of a dragon who has eaten people in a consistent way for a while now. Nothing was said about the dragon merely making threats. (nor does eating people have anything to do with predicatability of behaviour.)edit : if this was the first time the dragon had asked for a sacrifice and/or the first time anyone had stood up to it, the decisions matrix would in fact be more complicated, but that's not what I suggested as a additional factor.Double edit : see Reign of Fire. the Defender's stance was not based merely on the idea that if the Cowboy failed the dragon might track them back and harm them but on good evidence that it had done exactly that before. The Cowboy had additional information about the consequences of his actions but did not care that the lives of people not even involved in his decision could be risked as well.</blockquote>