From the lore of the Predator species, a Predator who goes for a hunt is trying to prove they are worthy of adult status in their society. As each Predator dies in the film they fail to attain adult status in their society.
From the lore of the Predator species, a Predator who goes for a hunt is trying to prove they are worthy of adult status in their society. As each Predator dies in the film they fail to attain adult status in their society.
That’s non-sequitur. Predators go on more than one hunt in their lives. Your statement would only be valid if their 1st hunt was their only one.
That’s not what non-sequitur means.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
How do you define it, then? The definition I’m aware of is for an inference that doesn’t follow from the premise.
Literally, you’re right - in Latin it means “not following”. But in conventional usage, non-sequitur is more for things that are so completely out of place for the conversation.
Not a non-sequitur: “Okay, so based on this finding, [insert something topical but wrong]”.
Non-sequitur: “Okay, so that’s great, but Michigan beating Ohio State means this is irrelevant”.
(edit because I did not realize the formatting I used for my non-sequitur example caused it not to render)
Your definition for non-sequitur is correct, however the conclusion that Predators are failing to come of age is a logical conclusion of the stated premise. The actual issue, which you pointed out, is that of using a false or faulty premise (that all Predators in the movies are on their first hunts). The validity of an argument isn’t a function of how true a premise is. So you were right that op was wrong in their conclusions, you just mislabeled the issue
It’s all about the same movie series canon, none of this is non-sequitur. They would have to be talking about Predator canon and then just start talking about Terminator or something. And even that’s not a great example, because Arnold is in both of them.
Removed by mod