Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 148538" data-attributes="member: 2013">Geez...Let me play with your "first order logic"...Premise 1:  All Standard Actions are PA + MEA.  (I think we have established this clearly).Premise 2:  All Double Move Actions are MEA + MEA.  (Again, clearly established).Premise 3:  All Double Move Actions are a "special specific case" (to use your own terminology) of the Standard Action.  (Also clearly established in the rules).Note that Premise 3 is the General Case for Double Move actions, but a Specific Case of Standard Actions.  This is where you fall into Accident Dicto Simpliciter.Allow me to re-state the above in a manner that ought to bring out the problem...Premise 1:  The General Case of Standard Actions are MEA + PA.Premise 2:  The General Case of Double Moves are MEA + MEA.Premise 3:  The General Case of Double Move is a Specific Case of Standard Action.If I try to use Premise 3 to form the equation Double Move = Standard ActionI have fallen prey to Accident Dicto Simpliciter in that I have equated a Specific Case of a Standard Action (the Double Move) to the General Case of All Standard Actions.The only conclusion I can draw from the three Premises is that The General Case of a Double Move is a Specific Case of a Standard Action and in that case (only) I receive an MEA and an MEA.The Specific Case of a Double Move is trivial, however, since it can be derived from the General Case of Standard Actions simply by using the rule that an MEA may be substituted for a PA.  IOW, I could start with...Premise A:  The General Case of Standard Actions are MEA + PA.Premise B:  A MEA may be substituted for a PA.Conclusion:  The General Case of Standard Actions may consist of Specific Cases where we have MEA + MEA (substituted for a PA).(Corollary: For convenience, we name such Specific Cases "Double Moves.")This conclusion does not imply that MEA + PA = MEA + MEA, merely that MEA + PA -> MEA + MEA.IOW, definition of Double Move gives us NO information we did not have before (a Specific Case of the Standard Action may lead to MEA + MEA), and is therefore uninteresting as a basis for an argument.Summary:  You fall into Accident Dicto Simpliciter in moving from Premise 3 (The General Case of Double Move is a Specific Case of Standard Action) to your first original (i.e., not a rules quote) assertion (EA + MEA = MEA + PA) because, as I have demonstrated, you HAVE compared a Specific Case (the Standard Action known as the Double Move) to a General Case (the  Standard Action), your howls to the contrary notwithstanding.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification