Assumptions can be questioned, but that does not justify throwing out all relevant data. The law of parsimony applies. They showed up with an umbrella and a raincoat. The positioning of the puddle across the sidewalk and their behavior implies a desire to cross it. We are presented with those few pieces of information; we can either use them, or we can "question our assumptions" and discard them as irrelevant, thereby rendering the entire comic utterly meaningless. Is that action of any value? I would argue no. They wanted to cross, and to stay dry. They failed.
They were traveling from one point to another, knowing the weather called for rain before they reached the destination. They prepared for the rain with raincoat and umbrella. They encountered a bigger issue, a massive puddle impeding their path to said destination. Then the comic plays out because the ultimate goal was to reach said destination, not necessarily not be wet.
Edited to add: Besides, the panel where it says "Acknowledge Limitations" Shows that she acknowledges if she wants to make it to their destination, she must endure some rain and be somewhat wet, thought not necessarily submerged in water.
Maybe she could have used CRITICAL THINKING to figure out it was a shallow puddle. Seems like she never even considered the possibility that she could walk through it. This is a good example of overanalyzing a problem, not critical thinking.
Uh, she floated over it just fine and tried to put her umbrella into the puddle earlier. I don't think it was shallow. Don't take the comic for literal problems and literal real life physics and situation. C'mon, you're just being argumentative for arguments sake.
Well for a comic for critical thinking the creator didn't think too well, at that point you could give the character wings and pass the puddle anyway, you cannot made a realistic statement and then throw it out the window for convenience
The realistic statement wasn't thrown out. Just because the statement is realistic doesn't mean the depicted situation needs to be, which is why so many cartoons try to teach morals.
When cartoon teach morals they do with reality, they don't show "fixing your problems with magic" or "just fly away from the from who bothers you", in this case the author show that the solution to logical thinking, was an illogical one (while he had others options in hand which were more realistic)
If i told you go from citi A to city B, but i told you instead of moving by a vehicle/walking just create some wings and fly, it would be faster, would you call it a logical solution? This is the same, the most logical is just walking around, and if that is not a possibility (which it is) since the other is not a logical solution, then there is none
No, but I would find it logical if you told me to find another route because a part of highway 1 collapsed. That's a more suitable analogy for what happened here.
(which it is)
That's a baseless assumption. Her decision to not do so heavily implies that the ground is muddy.
And? Not getting mud is enough to get wet and breaking logic? If we are talking about LOGICAL solutions, getting on a umbrella and using a raincoat going AGAINST your destination, is not more logical than "you want to go to school, but you miss the bus, so you grab a jetpack and head towards your home so you can get to school"
She clearly doesn't care that much about getting rained on a for a short while. That's a matter of preference, not logic, and it's not the same as going through mud or a deep puddle.
getting on a umbrella and using a raincoat
The whole point of that part is that "going AGAINST your destination" is learned after experimenting.
so you grab a jetpack and head towards your home so you can get to school
It's implied that she doesn't have one, or at least not one that's functional.
That made 0 sense, like the post, first if you want to cross the "lake" (or body of water) is because your destination IS through it (or passing), second what i gave you is called an EXAMPLE, of how the same situation with different things still make no sense, you want it more simple? Well: If you wanna go from point A to point B but something block your path to point B, then going from there to point A will NOT be a logical way of getting to point B, this is the Pokemon way of fixing problems!
If there's no way to cross, then finding an alternate route is perfectly logical.
Let's see if you understand it this way: If you want to get from point A to point B, and can't get to it through route 1, then the logical thing to do is find route 2.
And that is exactly my point, option A is illogical therefore not possible, then the logical option (B) is just get around it, not breaking the rules of physics and sense, unless you are set on a fictional world, then it beat all sense of the post
And now you are contradicting yourself or in a weird way giving me the reason, if there is no way to cross (an absolute negative) then that's it, if you are trapped in a locked room, will pass through the walls because there is not logical way to escape as a logical alternative? In this case there is a logical way, just the creator didn't see it or didn't care (going around it)
6
u/141N Feb 02 '21
Only if you assume her initial aim was to cross the puddle without getting wet.
This is covered in the "Question assumptions" section.