Analyzing JT's rhetoric: assassins vs. gamers
Jack Thompson has made headlines again after convincing the police to seize games from a suspect who shot a delivery man in the face (you can read the details at GamePolitics). The new quote that is making its rounds on gaming blogs is widely regarded as one his craziest yet: "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer." Before we attack Mr. Thompson, let us see exactly what that means (WARNING: Dry logical analysis ahead).
"Unless" can be a tricky word, logically. It is defined as "except on the condition that." The sentence now reads "Nobody shoots anybody in the face except on the condition that you're a hit man or a gamer." Therefore, if man X is to shoot someone in the face, he either falls in the category of (a) a hit man or (b) a gamer. While he may believe so, the quotation does not make either of the following assertions:
A gamer is equal, in some regard, to a hit man. While person X, who has shot somebody in the face, must fall into one of the two categories (or both; it is not mutually exclusive), it does not say that "All gamers are assassins" or "All assassins are gamers."
All gamers can (or will) shoot someone in the face. This would follow an implication that "If X is a gamer, then X will shoot someone in the face." However, such a statement is not found in Thompson's comment.
Although neither of those proposals are explictily stated in his latest wacky quote, the fallacy lies in not taking into account outside influences: cops can also shoot people in the face and not fall into either category (gamers or hit men). Ergo, finding one example of a face-shooter who neither plays games nor earns money killing will nullify his statement. Q.E.D.
[Thanks to everyone who tipped us!]
