>It’s not about what I want; it’s about what’s fair! You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time! But you were wrong. The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair. His son’s got the same chance she had: 50/50.
This quote is uttered by Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight. Unfortunately for Dent, his train of thought is demonstrably false.
By the end of The Dark Knight, Dent's philosophy is that a coin toss is the only unbiased and fair method of going through life. Indeed, if one believes that coin flips are actually 50/50, it makes sense. However, studies have shown that coin flips are actually closer to 51/49. (http://econ.ucsb.edu/~doug/240a/Coin%20Flip.htm) Dent's whole line of thinking is completely groundless, held up solely by a falsehood that simply refuses to die.
Of course, the 51/49 figure is actually quite generous. Newly minted coins are unavoidably somewhat blemished due to the minting process, and only continue to accumulate bacteria, smudges, dings, and (pun intended) Dents that accumulate over time - these, of course, greatly skew the chances, and that's not even getting into Dent's coin's horrendously scarred backside (charred in an explosion).
In conclusion, LITERALLY all that Batman would have to do in order to stop Two-Face is let him know how greatly the odds are skewed in a coin toss. Of course, this never occurs to the World's Greatest Detective, and he is forced to break his one rule in a flagrantly out-of-character moment.
Bravo Nolan.
dent's coin was originally a double tailed(faced?) coin. it was then marked during the explosion just like his face was. your argument is based on the premise that he's using a minted coin.
your premise is flawed.
so your argument is flawed.
so your thread is flawed.
therefore you are a flawed faggot
DELETE THIS
>>69162802
Except my argument isn't flawed. I was using the minted coin example simply to show how every coin has minor imperfections which eventually accumulate. The same holds true for Dent's coin.
>>69162864
DELETE THIS
>>69162680
We need to find a way to weaponize autism like this, folks.
>>69162864
the imperfections are effectively random. the side that got charred was effectively random. you do not know in what way the coin's chance per side was affected, so even in the the case that it is a flawed coin, picking the side with the worse/better chance is effectively random.
your argument is flawed
DELETE THIS
>>69163093
Except Dent chooses the coin flip specifically because, in his own words, it's a 50/50 shot whether the victim lives or dies. However, it's not actually, as you and I both agree. This is my point - if Batman simply notified Dent that the coin's chances of falling clean-heads was not 50%, then Dent would have likely accepted it.
Of course, Nolan fucked up Two-Face in this movie, so maybe not.
>>69163191
>However, it's not actually, as you and I both agree
it is, but part of the chance is transferred to the choice of heads or tails as a success. again, neither dent nor batman would know which side has a better chance. since you only pick 2 options, you have a 50/50 chance of picking the better odds side. also since there are only two options, any decrease in the chances of success for one side is going to be equal to the increase in chances of success for the otherside. therefore, for any sample of random coin flips with random picks between heads/tails the expected success value would still be 50%.
Round Up/Round Down... dumbass
>>69163387
However, you don't choose which side means you go free. The sides are strictly defined - scarred is death, clean is life.
>>69163480
yes but harvey does not know which side is more successful/less successful so the head/tail choice randomness is still there.
but even if it wasn't your whole argument is that batman would have stopped him by pointing out the unfairness. Even assuming the first point is wrong, the coin toss would still only be unfair if he doesn't let them choose the side. therefore the only thing batman could convince him to do would be to let him choose the side. everyone is still in danger and batman would still have to kill him.
>>69163604
Just because Dent doesn't know which side is more successful doesn't mean there isn't a side that is more successful. It would be unpredictable, but it wouldn't be 50/50.
>>69163799
>doesn't mean there isn't a side that is more successful
yes but as explained earlier a more successful side doesn't necessarily equate to unfairness. So the first coin toss would be fair as it's only unfair once you "stick" to a side and the side that got charred was chosen randomly. I do grant you that the second/third would not and therefore the situation would be still be flawed. but see my second point, harvey would stll need to be killed as it is easy to modify the situation into a fair game.
