Bree's Dad NOT Dead?

[platypusrex256]

ok this is right after bree makes a break for it. the one in the middle is bree's dad...

thankyou for doing this. i think you are onto something. if the order actualy killed bree's father it would totaly ruin my little theory.

my theory basicly being that the ceremony started when bree decided not to be a part of it and will keep going until... i dont know how long it goes. i dont think anybody really knows at this point.

[longlostposter]

ok this is right after bree makes a break for it. the one in the middle is bree's dad...

thankyou for doing this. i think you are onto something. if the order actualy killed bree's father it would totaly ruin my little theory.

my theory basicly being that the ceremony started when bree decided not to be a part of it and will keep going until... i dont know how long it goes. i dont think anybody really knows at this point.

Umm, he was saying that Bree took off before the shot was heard.

[Balmung]

ok this is right after bree makes a break for it. the one in the middle is bree's dad...

thankyou for doing this. i think you are onto something. if the order actualy killed bree's father it would totaly ruin my little theory.

my theory basicly being that the ceremony started when bree decided not to be a part of it and will keep going until... i dont know how long it goes. i dont think anybody really knows at this point.

Umm, he was saying that Bree took off before the shot was heard.

although i don't completely understand his theory, i think al that platypusrex meant was that he likes the possibility that bree's dad might not be dead.

[platypusrex256]

although i don't completely understand his theory, i think al that platypusrex meant was that he likes the possibility that bree's dad might not be dead.

exactly. i think my theory is explained elsewhere but i dont mind going through it again.

i operate under the assumtion that bree is not hiding anything from us. in other words, she is just as in the dark as we are.

if that is true, then bree doesn't know if the order wants to hurt her or kill her or anything. all she knows is that they make her uncomfortable. granted, she has every right to feel uncomfortable but she also has no reason to believe that her life is in danger.

if the order killed or even hurt her dad, my theory would be destroyed. because now she does have reason to believe the order might want to kill her.

however, if all is just an illusion, then perhaps bree's father is not dead. granted, bree has no reason to believe that her father is alive. but we, as viewers of a cult thriller, do have reason to believe that her father is alive. that is how these stories work! they trick the viewer into thinking something happened when really something else happened.

[Lurker]

i operate under the assumtion that bree is not hiding anything from us. in other words, she is just as in the dark as we are.

We know that's not true, though. Even if she has told Jonas and Daniel everything she knew before all this and all that her dad told her before he was killed, she hasn't told us. She's even told us (in "Rescuing Daniel") that there were some things she couldn't say to us.

if that is true, then bree doesn't know if the order wants to hurt her or kill her or anything. all she knows is that they make her uncomfortable. granted, she has every right to feel uncomfortable but she also has no reason to believe that her life is in danger.

if the order killed or even hurt her dad, my theory would be destroyed. because now she does have reason to believe the order might want to kill her.

Obviously, as you said, she has no reason to believe he's alive, but even with him dead, she still hasn't yet been given a reason to think the Order's trying to kill her. That they take care not to harm her or even forcibily remove her to their location is a good enough indication of that.

granted, bree has no reason to believe that her father is alive. but we, as viewers of a cult thriller, do have reason to believe that her father is alive.

Not yet we don't.

[Balmung]

right, we just know that it's not impossible.

[platypusrex256]

i stand corrected. maybe bree knows that it's all just a game. maybe bree knows that her father is not really dead. maybe all this information was given to her to protect her. and for some reason, she holds the information from us. mainly, she doesn't want to compermise the ceremony. the ceremony being the game. the "on the run, trying to harness her will" game.

so yes, we have reason to believe he is alive. simply because we are not absolutley sure that he is dead is enough reason to believe that he is alive. that's why i said "as viewers" we have reason to believe. the lack of evidence is in itself evidence.

[Balmung]

i dissagree. just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be assumed that it is true, it just means it shouldn't be assumed the opposite is true.

we do have reason to beleive he is dead, because we were told so, and it was set up to look that way.

we don't have reason to beleive he is not dead, because we haven't seen anything that suggests that he is alive.

the only thing we know, basically, is that we don't know for sure that he is dead, although so far our evidence still points toward that conclusion.

[platypusrex256]

i dissagree. just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be assumed that it is true, it just means it shouldn't be assumed the opposite is true.

we do have reason to beleive he is dead, because we were told so, and it was set up to look that way.

we don't have reason to beleive he is not dead, because we haven't seen anything that suggests that he is alive.

the only thing we know, basically, is that we don't know for sure that he is dead, although so far our evidence still points toward that conclusion.

i understand why you dissagree. there is no need to explain it. my reasoning is again, as viewers, we must play by different logic. suppose this was not lonelygirl but actualy a conspiracy thriller or even just a murder mystery? then i am sure you would agree with me that the most twisted probable scenario is probably true.

[Balmung]

ehhhhh

yeahh i see where you're coming from now



i think we're gonna have to agree to dissagree on this one, though

[longlostposter]

If Bree's dad were alive, then there would be no reason to grab Daniel. Her father would have been the hostage and bargaining chip.

[Lurker]

so yes, we have reason to believe he is alive. simply because we are not absolutley sure that he is dead is enough reason to believe that he is alive. that's why i said "as viewers" we have reason to believe. the lack of evidence is in itself evidence.

Actually, no. That's a huge logical fallacy.

The lack of evidence for something is never evidence against it. However, this is not a case where we have a lack of evidence for. We have a gunshot, we have Bree's dad's body on the ground, and we have it being carted away to a trunk. That's evidence.

Until such time as we have evidence going in the other direction, all we can reasonably assume is that he is dead.

When you start playing the "we are not absolutely sure" game you have to (by the very nature of the argument) open the door to all kinds of arguments, including the strikingly ridiculus. By that same logic, I can argue that Bree might be a boy. I can argue that Jonas is from Mars. I can argue that Lucy is Daniel's mother and that Tachyon is his father ("We've never seen Tachyon and given her a physical ourselves. How do we know she's really a woman?").

i dissagree. just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be assumed that it is true, it just means it shouldn't be assumed the opposite is true.

we do have reason to beleive he is dead, because we were told so, and it was set up to look that way.

we don't have reason to beleive he is not dead, because we haven't seen anything that suggests that he is alive.

the only thing we know, basically, is that we don't know for sure that he is dead, although so far our evidence still points toward that conclusion.

i understand why you dissagree. there is no need to explain it. my reasoning is again, as viewers, we must play by different logic. suppose this was not lonelygirl but actualy a conspiracy thriller or even just a murder mystery? then i am sure you would agree with me that the most twisted probable scenario is probably true.

We don't even know what genre to classify LG15 under right now, so I'm not sure that argument helps.

Seriously, we can't make an argument like "If A is true and B is true, then the chances of C are pretty good" when we don't have any reason to believe A or B are true.

If Bree's dad were alive, then there would be no reason to grab Daniel. Her father would have been the hostage and bargaining chip.

Yeah, that would have been more simple. Though, to be fair, if her dad were alive, they could have still gone about things the way they did to make Bree fear more for Daniel's safety.

[platypusrex256]

Actually, no. That's a huge logical fallacy...

The lack of evidence for something is never evidence against it. However, this is not a case where we have a lack of evidence for. We have a gunshot, we have Bree's dad's body on the ground, and we have it being carted away to a trunk. That's evidence.

...

Seriously, we can't make an argument like "If A is true and B is true, then the chances of C are pretty good" when we don't have any reason to believe A or B are true.

If Bree's dad were alive, then there would be no reason to grab Daniel. Her father would have been the hostage and bargaining chip.

Yeah, that would have been more simple. Though, to be fair, if her dad were alive, they could have still gone about things the way they did to make Bree fear more for Daniel's safety.

i'll say it bluntly althuogh i dont really want to fall out of character. your problem is that you are aplying real life logic into a drama.

i am not just trying to say that bree's father MUST be alive because there is no evidence that he is infact dead. i am just trying to say that bree's father MUST be alive because that would be most entertaining.

this logic does not aply to real life, as you have so elequently pointed out.

however, this logic is supreme when we are talking about storytelling.

[Lurker]

i'll say it bluntly althuogh i dont really want to fall out of character. your problem is that you are aplying real life logic into a drama.

I'm fine with bluntness. There is a difference between being blunt and being a jerk, and you weren't a jerk here, so don't worry.

Anyway, the problem with not applying real life logic is, again, that suddenly it becomes open season for every possible theory. Every last one suddenly gains instant credibility.

Even a fictional story has to maintain some air of believability. If Bree's dad were to be revealed as alive, the question of how he survived will be posed and must be answered.

i am not just trying to say that bree's father MUST be alive because there is no evidence that he is infact dead. i am just trying to say that bree's father MUST be alive because that would be most entertaining.

That seems a little less-than-objective. How would it be most entertaining? Not trying to fight with you if you'd prefer that, but individual preferences aren't what I'm asking about. I'd personally say it's not, but that's just me. I'm just not seeing how that would be inarguably most entertaining. You seem to be implying that it's qualitatively superior.

this logic does not aply to real life, as you have so elequently pointed out.

however, this logic is supreme when we are talking about storytelling.

Yet there's no basis by which to determine what is or is not reality within the fictional world save for the concepts of imperical evidence and reasonable inference, which are used in real life. Otherwise we might as well not be discussing the plot at all, because each person here could claim a completely different story has unfolded thus far.

I, of course, think it's fine to say "The possibility remains that Bree's dad is alive" or "I just have a feeling that he isn't dead." What could one say to either of these things? The possibility, of course, is there (whatever evidence may or may not exist for it) and one can hardly argue with another's gut instincts (only time could deal with that).

Where I think it gets a little messy is placing the possibility of him being alive alongside the possibility of him being dead and gauging both as equal. To do that, you've got to manufacture evidence that doesn't exist, or sidestep some that does.

Again, not saying he's definitely not alive. Just saying that's not what the presentation of the story so far would have us believe.

[platypusrex256]

i'll say it bluntly althuogh i dont really want to fall out of character. your problem is that you are aplying real life logic into a drama.

I'm fine with bluntness. There is a difference between being blunt and being a jerk, and you weren't a jerk here, so don't worry.

Anyway, the problem with not applying real life logic is, again, that suddenly it becomes open season for every possible theory. Every last one suddenly gains instant credibility.

i just mean that a different logic applies to storytelling. in my logic, if a twist is possible, it is to be expected as a possability. if it can happen, it will. right?

granted, entertaining is a subjective qualitative judgement. i think it's more entertaining and apparently you don't.

if this was an m night shamalan flick (note, i am not trying to imply that i like his movies) then we would all be saying "oh i bet you they're all dead!" or some other illogical conclusion. however, in the constructs of an m night shamalan flick, that would probably be the most logical assumtion.

a paralel universe run by paralel logic? ;-p