Walper Defends Murderous Snowflake

[DaveJB]

Commander Data determined that the universal translater was making progress. It had found communication patterns in the signals sent by the entity and was begining to decipher it. It was made very clear that communication was possible and by every expectation going to be achieved. All that was required was time, and they did have it.

I'm not saying that it would have been impossible, but to say that just because it was capable of communication and (possibly) intelligent means the Enteprise would have been able to talk it out of eating biosystems is IMO, a leap in logic.

But there was no harm in trying. That's my point, and I was ticked off the the scientist Marr did not give the attempt a chance. I haven't been suggesting that the Enterprise would have succeeded, I am merely pointing out that their attempt to communicate with the entity was lost by a vengeful and premature violent attack on part of Marr.

See below. (my third response)

No, non-sentient lifeforms defend themselves all the time. Look to nature for examples. Plants defend themselves. Are plants sentient?

Plants use passive mechanisms to defend themselves. The Enterprise had (and I believe used, though I can't say for sure as it's been a while since I saw the episode, and I frankly have no intention of shelling out £80 to buy a box-set) active methods of self-protection.

The Enterprise raised it's shields, that was all. That would be considered a passive defensive measure.

Yes, it raised it's shields. That makes it an active measure, as a passive measure (i.e. the spines on a cactus) is fixed in place (at least that's what I understand by "passive" measure. If someone can prove me wrong, by all means do so).

It may not be "evil", but when your friends, family and people are in danger, I imagine your perspective on the situation would be somewhat different.

Possibly hindering any objectivity I might have, which I have now and where I'm arguing from. Losing objectivity is the entire point I'm arguing against.

You've perfectly illustrated one of the problems with Roddenberry's vision of the future. People simply do not act the ideal way 100% of the time. Ideals are a nice thing to have, but if you expect people to fully adhere to those ideals, regardless of circumstances, prepare to be disappointed.

You have yet to submit evidence suggesting that the entity A) knew it was killing sentient lifeforms, B) did so intentionally, and C) had a choice in the matter. We as humans must kill to survive, even vegetarians.

What bearing would that have on my original argument, which was that in times of danger, the fastest, safest option should be taken to eliminate the danger?

Since the Enterprise was in no immediate danger and nor was any nearby world or vessel, then your arguement is rendered moot.

Immediate danger, no. But if the entity had damaged or destroyed the Enterprise (we know from Datalore it was at least something of a threat), then the longer-term consequences could be disasterous.

Your analogy does not work. The sniper is killing for no reason other than the killing and madness. The entity was killing so it could survive, like any other lifeform. It did nothing wrong.

I was not trying to compare the two scenarios directly, I was trying to point out that in both scenarios, killing or disabling the threat carries the greater chance of minimising further deaths.

Killing the entity most certainly solved the problem. However, what I'm disputing is your assertion that this was the only viable solution to the problem.

Communicating with the entity was certainly a viable option. What I'm disputing is your notion that it was the best course of action. Though you seem to be regarding Picard's option as "best" via ideals, wheras I'm treating Marr's option as "best" via longer-term results.

False analogy. Hitler commited crimes that served no purpose other than to put forth his vision of the world. The entity killed lifeforms so it could survive. Do you honestly not see the difference here? Was Hitler a monster because he ate food that required said sources of food be killed?

Badly stated argument, I admit, but I was trying to point out that because a lifeform can communicate, and may have a significant level of intelligence doesn't automatically mean it is benevolent.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm merely pointing out that the entity was living creature whom I would at least give the benefit of the doubt. Doctor Marr did no such thing. That is my arguement, her actions at the time were unnecessary and IMO, immoral.

Again, people simply do not act according to ideals.

But that is not my arguement, I'm trying to point out that the reason the entity killed was to survive. That is not a crime, I do not fault a living creature for doing what it needs to do to survive.

When did I imply that the entity was evil? My point was that the entity was a threat on a large scale, and the best course of action was to deal with it before more deaths could occur.

Which is exactly what the Enterprise was doing! What are you arguing about then?

The Enterprise was "dealing" with the problem alright, but their methods I have problems with. When something has been causing damage on the scale of the entity, I'd choose a proven method any day.

It seems to me that this debate has been mainly one of ideologies. Since I honestly don't see us dissuading one another, I think we should draw the debate to a close, before someone gets hurt!

[Isolder74]

You can hardly say the Enterprise was "making progress" when they don't know what they were saying.

Commander Data determined that the universal translater was making progress. It had found communication patterns in the signals sent by the entity and was begining to decipher it. It was made very clear that communication was possible and by every expectation going to be achieved. All that was required was time, and they did have it.

I'm not saying that it would have been impossible, but to say that just because it was capable of communication and (possibly) intelligent means the Enteprise would have been able to talk it out of eating biosystems is IMO, a leap in logic.

What I was saying. its MO indicates that it will continue to kill. Even though the creature's ability to stop doing it was not tested. I would have killed it.

I didn't know that, but thanks for the fresh ammunition. If Lore told the entity about the Omicron Theta colonists, how could the entity possibly know they weren't sentient?

All this required was ignorance on the entity's part. Lore simply had to say nothing about them. You seem to think the entity focuses on killing humans or sentient lifeforms. It doesn't, it consumes wide ranges of life, from bacteria in the soil to trees, animals, etc. Sentient lifeforms are just another "victim" it's it's feeding habits.

You seem to think the entity is incapable of (or just not bothered about) telling the differences between Humans and soil. In all truth, there is no evidence I can think of to support either of us, so we should probably drop this strand of the argument.

Even if Lore lied to the entity and told them they weren't, surely the fact that Enterprise tried to defend itself

No, non-sentient lifeforms defend themselves all the time. Look to nature for examples. Plants defend themselves. Are plants sentient?

Plants use passive mechanisms to defend themselves. The Enterprise had (and I believe used, though I can't say for sure as it's been a while since I saw the episode, and I frankly have no intention of shelling out £80 to buy a box-set) active methods of self-protection.

and gave Lore "back" to the entity would have alerted the entity that Lore hadn't told it the whole truth.

The Enterprise beamed Lore into space where he spent two years drifting. He was not given back to the entity or like. It simply no longer had access to what was communicating with it, so it left.

Lore wasn't communicating with the entity prior to being beamed off - he was shooting at the crew in the cargo bay! The fact that the entity stopped its attack after Lore was beamed out suggests that it recognised Lore's presence. Logically, this should mean that the Enterprise crew recognised the threat posed by Lore and the entity, and thus acted in self-defence. If it cannot deduce logically (very doubtful), then your "communication" argument becomes invalid, as there would be no way to reason with the entity.

If it did know they were sentient, then I don't see what the point of negotiating with the entity would be, as it obviously didn't care about what it was doing.

There's no evidence suggesting that the entity knew that it killed sentient lifeforms. Even if it did, it did so only to feed and survive. Killing other lifeforms to nourish one's self and survive is not a crime or evil act. You and I do it all the time.

It may not be "evil", but when your friends, family and people are in danger, I imagine your perspective on the situation would be somewhat different.

Why don't you ask the plankton what they think of that? (Yes, I know plankton aren't intelligent, I was being sarcastic)

You have yet to submit evidence suggesting that the entity A) knew it was killing sentient lifeforms, B) did so intentionally, and C) had a choice in the matter. We as humans must kill to survive, even vegetarians.

What bearing would that have on my original argument, which was that in times of danger, the fastest, safest option should be taken to eliminate the danger?

Getting back to the scenario, if there are more people around that the sniper could potentially kill, which of the following options carries the greater chance of success:

A) Shooting the sniper with intent to kill
B) Shooting the sniper with intent to disable him or his rifle
C) Trying to talk him down

Of course, C is going to be preferable, but realistically you'd have to choose A or B. Picard's intentions were no doubt noble, but they didn't have the greatest chance of success. Whether or not Marr was thinking objectively at the time is irrelevant, as A (or B, but I don't think that could have been applied in that situation) was most likely to prevent more deaths.

Your analogy does not work. The sniper is killing for no reason other than the killing and madness. The entity was killing so it could survive, like any other lifeform. It did nothing wrong.

I was not trying to compare the two scenarios directly, I was trying to point out that in both scenarios, killing or disabling the threat carries the greater chance of minimising further deaths.

Hitler possessed a significant level of intelligence, but would you seriously suggest he was no monster?

False analogy. Hitler commited crimes that served no purpose other than to put forth his vision of the world. The entity killed lifeforms so it could survive. Do you honestly not see the difference here? Was Hitler a monster because he ate food that required said sources of food be killed?

Badly stated argument, I admit, but I was trying to point out that because a lifeform can communicate, and may have a significant level of intelligence doesn't automatically mean it is benevolent.

The fact that the entity was willing to chat with the Enterprise proves nothing.

Proves it had the capability and willingness to communicate, suggesting a significant level of intelligence.

My pet Mice have the capability and willingness to communicate (with me and each other), but they don't have what would be considered a "significant" level of intelligence.

But that is not my arguement, I'm trying to point out that the reason the entity killed was to survive. That is not a crime, I do not fault a living creature for doing what it needs to do to survive.

When did I imply that the entity was evil? My point was that the entity was a threat on a large scale, and the best course of action was to deal with it before more deaths could occur.

And it should be treated like a rouge bear.

[SirNitram]

Sorry, I thought you'd seen "Devil in the Dark". The Horta burrowed through rock at an amazing rate, had been killing miners with acid for seemingly no reason and was immune to Type-I phaser fire. After Kirk and Spock wounded it with Type-II phasers, they chose not to finish it off. Instead, Spock went to great personal risk to mind-meld with it and learn its true motives. If Kirk and Spock had been concerned only with the preservation of human life, they should have finished the dangerous beast off.

And thus the whole thing is a horrible analogy; the Horta could be negotiated with, because, get this, it's place in the galactic ecosystem was not 'eat entire colonies of humans'. The Crystalline Entity's basic existance was devouted to eating lots and lots of humans.

Lying is bad Martin.

Wow, you can copy someone else. You probably even think this makes you somehow witty.

Seriously though, there is no evidence to suggest the entity was dependent upon "eating lots and lots of humans". Frankly, I'm surprised you even suggest that since the episode in question made it abundantly clear the entity feed off grass, trees, nutrient rich dirt, etc, etc. There was no implication or evidence to suggest the entity needed to feed upon humans or other sentient lifeforms.

Yet.. It did anyway. Of course, a tiger in the savannahs of Africa is not required to eat humans to survive. Does this make it somehow wrong that primitive man killed them? Nope.

Your argument rests on 'It's bad to ensure your own survival'. Congratulations, retard. Your philosophy dooms any civilization that seriously follows it the instant something bigger comes by.

It was capable of communication with them(Shown by the fact Lore struck a deal with it), are you now going to argue it simply didn't bother to check if it's food could talk back until then?

It entity obviously realized it could talk with Lore. However, we both know Lore is an artificial lifeform, and the entity may have determined him as capable of communication and sentient without having to applying the same standards to other lifeforms.

Baseless assumption. Seriously, do you have any proof the Entity was not a contemptible killing machine, or are you simply reaching up your ass and praying no one actually saw the episode?

Welcome to the Big Scary Universe. Sometimes it works via the Law of the jungle: Kill or be killed. You can whine about the better side, but Picard was a moron: Sometimes you must slaughter in order to survive.

And why are you arguring that killing the entity was the only possible solution?

Actually, I'd argue that eternal imprisonment would also be a solution, but the cost effectiveness and potential threat are too high.

The reason is blindingly simple for anyone with a functional frontal lobe, Robert. It is a species who, without remorse, travels through Warp, scours colonies clean, and moves on. It's like a locust swarm. With no evidence at all that it would stop, the only reasonable thing to do is blow it away before Humanity as a whole is in direct danger.

Picard realized this may be the necessary solution, he merely wanted to give the entity a chance to communicate which he knew it could. No one was in direct danger at that time, they effectively had the entity's attention and where making progress as communication. If communication proved fruitless, then by all means destroy or contain it. But that wasn't given a chance, which I found distasteful.

Oh yes. We should trust Mr. 'Don't Raise Our Shields, It Might Provoke Them' to kill when it's time to take the gloves off. You're a fucking retard: The Entity killed without remorse or hesitation, and despite your desperate attempts, you show not one shred of proof it would do any different in future.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't four levels of quoting a little excessive, for fuck's sake? Especially when you quote a huge block of multi-level quote text just to respond with a one-liner? I'm looking at you, Isolder74.

[Isolder74]

Isn't four levels of quoting a little excessive, for fuck's sake? Especially when you quote a huge block of multi-level quote text just to respond with a one-liner? I'm looking at you, Isolder74.

Sorry I forgot to snip out demons of stupidity out

[Robert Walper]

Lying is bad Martin.

Wow, you can copy someone else. You probably even think this makes you somehow witty.

Oh for fuck's sake! Lighten up Nitram! It was joke man! I swear sometimes you take this debating shit way too seriously.

I take it you didn't notice the wink face and my next line which started with "Seriously though". In the English language, that implies that the previous line just said is not to be taken seriously.

Seriously though, there is no evidence to suggest the entity was dependent upon "eating lots and lots of humans". Frankly, I'm surprised you even suggest that since the episode in question made it abundantly clear the entity feed off grass, trees, nutrient rich dirt, etc, etc. There was no implication or evidence to suggest the entity needed to feed upon humans or other sentient lifeforms.

Yet.. It did anyway. Of course, a tiger in the savannahs of Africa is not required to eat humans to survive. Does this make it somehow wrong that primitive man killed them? Nope.

You're correct, it wasn't wrong for primitive man to kill tigers in self defense and preservation of their own species. However, the entity situation is significantly different and you know it.

Your argument rests on 'It's bad to ensure your own survival'.

You're an idiot if you think that's what I've been suggesting or implying. I've stated several times that killing the creature may have been necessary, but the action that lost the chance to communicate with it was premature and unnecessary.

Congratulations, retard. Your philosophy dooms any civilization that seriously follows it the instant something bigger comes by.

Not at all. You appear to be under the mistaken impression the entity whilst in company of the Enterprise was an immediate threat. They had time to try and communicate with it, and it was killed by a premature action initiated by a person with no objectivity in regards to it's existence.

The entity obviously realized it could talk with Lore. However, we both know Lore is an artificial lifeform, and the entity may have determined him as capable of communication and sentient without having to applying the same standards to other lifeforms.

Baseless assumption. Seriously, do you have any proof the Entity was not a contemptible killing machine, or are you simply reaching up your ass and praying no one actually saw the episode?

I'm pointing out that it is entirely possible the entity may not have known it was killing sentient lifeforms. It's own concept of what life is is undetermined. Communicating with it would have helped, but unfortunately the chance was lost due to premature action.

As to the entity being a contemptible killing machine, I would not label it as such. I don't consider a whale a contemptible killing machine, even though it kills/consumes lifeforms on the scale of millions per day and continues to do so.

And why are you arguring that killing the entity was the only possible solution?

Actually, I'd argue that eternal imprisonment would also be a solution, but the cost effectiveness and potential threat are too high.

False dilemma. You're assuming you can only either kill it or imprison it. Communication could have resulted in a solution that suited both sides. For example, finding another source of nourishment the entity could utilize.

The reason is blindingly simple for anyone with a functional frontal lobe, Robert. It is a species who, without remorse,

Interesting. You have proof the entity was incapable of remorse? Or is this just another baseless assumption pulled out of your ass? I find that interesting because I know people who kill of out necessity but feel remorse nonetheless.

travels through Warp, scours colonies clean, and moves on. It's like a locust swarm. With no evidence at all that it would stop, the only reasonable thing to do is blow it away before Humanity as a whole is in direct danger.

Well, if you're under the impression that the entity can only be contained or killed, clearly killing it would be the practical solution. Of course, I don't subscribe to your limited interpretation of what might have been accomplished had communication been acheived.

The Entity killed without remorse or hesitation,

Care to prove the entity killed without remorse or hesitation?

and despite your desperate attempts, you show not one shred of proof it would do any different in future.

You must be incredibly stupid if you think I'm suggesting I would "know" what it would do in the future. My entire arguement has been pointing out the lost chance at communicating with the entity that could have resulted in a solution not requiring it to be killed or imprisoned.

[SirNitram]

Lying is bad Martin.

Wow, you can copy someone else. You probably even think this makes you somehow witty.

Oh for fuck's sake! Lighten up Nitram! It was joke man! I swear sometimes you take this debating shit way too seriously.

This from someone who cannot perceive sarcastic wit is quite amusing.

I take it you didn't notice the wink face and my next line which started with "Seriously though". In the English language, that implies that the previous line just said is not to be taken seriously.

Given that you can't perceive sarcasm, little one, you're not one to give lectures.

Seriously though, there is no evidence to suggest the entity was dependent upon "eating lots and lots of humans". Frankly, I'm surprised you even suggest that since the episode in question made it abundantly clear the entity feed off grass, trees, nutrient rich dirt, etc, etc. There was no implication or evidence to suggest the entity needed to feed upon humans or other sentient lifeforms.

Yet.. It did anyway. Of course, a tiger in the savannahs of Africa is not required to eat humans to survive. Does this make it somehow wrong that primitive man killed them? Nope.

You're correct, it wasn't wrong for primitive man to kill tigers in self defense and preservation of their own species. However, the entity situation is significantly different and you know it.

How about you prove this, instead of asserting it.

Your argument rests on 'It's bad to ensure your own survival'.

You're an idiot if you think that's what I've been suggesting or implying. I've stated several times that killing the creature may have been necessary, but the action that lost the chance to communicate with it was premature and unnecessary.

And you keep failing to show why we should assume it will do anything but what it already has.

Congratulations, retard. Your philosophy dooms any civilization that seriously follows it the instant something bigger comes by.

Not at all. You appear to be under the mistaken impression the entity whilst in company of the Enterprise was an immediate threat. They had time to try and communicate with it, and it was killed by a premature action initiated by a person with no objectivity in regards to it's existence.

And your proof that it would do anything other than continue to slaughter humans? Oh yea, nothing... How surprising, from you.. I mean, I'm shocked.

The entity obviously realized it could talk with Lore. However, we both know Lore is an artificial lifeform, and the entity may have determined him as capable of communication and sentient without having to applying the same standards to other lifeforms.

Baseless assumption. Seriously, do you have any proof the Entity was not a contemptible killing machine, or are you simply reaching up your ass and praying no one actually saw the episode?

I'm pointing out that it is entirely possible the entity may not have known it was killing sentient lifeforms. It's own concept of what life is is undetermined. Communicating with it would have helped, but unfortunately the chance was lost due to premature action.

How about you back up this assertion instead of blindly stating it and then running behind it for justification?

As to the entity being a contemptible killing machine, I would not label it as such. I don't consider a whale a contemptible killing machine, even though it kills/consumes lifeforms on the scale of millions per day and continues to do so.

And yet you can't give a single reason why we should ignore the fact this thing slaughters intelligent creatures yet we know it can communicate with such beings.

And why are you arguring that killing the entity was the only possible solution?

Actually, I'd argue that eternal imprisonment would also be a solution, but the cost effectiveness and potential threat are too high.

False dilemma. You're assuming you can only either kill it or imprison it. Communication could have resulted in a solution that suited both sides. For example, finding another source of nourishment the entity could utilize.

Evidence this will work: Zip, zilch, zero.

The reason is blindingly simple for anyone with a functional frontal lobe, Robert. It is a species who, without remorse,

Interesting. You have proof the entity was incapable of remorse? Or is this just another baseless assumption pulled out of your ass? I find that interesting because I know people who kill of out necessity but feel remorse nonetheless.

Evidence it felt any remorse for the colony it wiped out, even the children: Zip, zero, zilch.

travels through Warp, scours colonies clean, and moves on. It's like a locust swarm. With no evidence at all that it would stop, the only reasonable thing to do is blow it away before Humanity as a whole is in direct danger.

Well, if you're under the impression that the entity can only be contained or killed, clearly killing it would be the practical solution. Of course, I don't subscribe to your limited interpretation of what might have been accomplished had communication been acheived.

Yet you do not provide a shred of evidence anything else would have worked. If this wasn't so typical of you, I'd go on a rant about how you're a moron who needs to learn how to actually debate. But I've done that with you before, and I don't feel like wasting my breath on an idiot who refuses to learn how to do anything but assert his opinions.

The Entity killed without remorse or hesitation,

Care to prove the entity killed without remorse or hesitation?

No remorse or hesitation was viewed at any time from the Entity. Beyond that you are asking me to prove a negative, a massive logical fallacy. Learn to debate honestly, Walper.

and despite your desperate attempts, you show not one shred of proof it would do any different in future.

You must be incredibly stupid if you think I'm suggesting I would "know" what it would do in the future. My entire arguement has been pointing out the lost chance at communicating with the entity that could have resulted in a solution not requiring it to be killed or imprisoned.

Your entire post is 'well, i have no proof but i'm gonna assert blindly and yell at you for not agreeing'. Yea, real great contribution.

[Darth Wong]

One of the details lost in this wrangling was that it took the shields of the most powerful starship in the Federation to keep this thing at bay. They were holding, but who's to say that anything less would have held up? And how could they confine this thing indefinitely if the most powerful ship in the Federation had to use its combat shielding to keep it from consuming the crew?

[Robert Walper]

One of the details lost in this wrangling was that it took the shields of the most powerful starship in the Federation to keep this thing at bay. They were holding, but who's to say that anything less would have held up? And how could they confine this thing indefinitely if the most powerful ship in the Federation had to use its combat shielding to keep it from consuming the crew?

If the choice was limited simply to either confining or killing the entity, killing it would be the most practical solution, and one I would endorse. I'd only question killing it at that point if something substantial and useful could be gathered by confining it.

However, what I'm disputing is the continued assertion that communication with the entity would have be fruitless, particularily since communication was not established in the first place.

[Isolder74]

really we should split this off into a new thread called cystalin entity in pure Start trek

[SirNitram]

One of the details lost in this wrangling was that it took the shields of the most powerful starship in the Federation to keep this thing at bay. They were holding, but who's to say that anything less would have held up? And how could they confine this thing indefinitely if the most powerful ship in the Federation had to use its combat shielding to keep it from consuming the crew?

If the choice was limited simply to either confining or killing the entity, killing it would be the most practical solution, and one I would endorse. I'd only question killing it at that point if something substantial and useful could be gathered by confining it.

However, what I'm disputing is the continued assertion that communication with the entity would have be fruitless, particularily since communication was not established in the first place.

So show evidence it would have changed it's ways. Can't be that hard, if there is a single shred of evidence in your favor.

[Robert Walper]

You're correct, it wasn't wrong for primitive man to kill tigers in self defense and preservation of their own species. However, the entity situation is significantly different and you know it.

How about you prove this, instead of asserting it.

A tiger is a well known and classified species. The entity in question was virtually a complete unknown. Killing it might not have been necessary.

You're an idiot if you think that's what I've been suggesting or implying. I've stated several times that killing the creature may have been necessary, but the action that lost the chance to communicate with it was premature and unnecessary.

And you keep failing to show why we should assume it will do anything but what it already has.

I'm not demanding we assume it will behave differently, I've been trying to point out repeatedly that communication with the entity could have resulted in a solution other than confinement or killing it.

And your proof that it would do anything other than continue to slaughter humans? Oh yea, nothing... How surprising, from you.. I mean, I'm shocked.

Obviously you're suffering from some sort of mental problem, Nitram. Let me spell it out in big letters for you:

THERE...WAS...AN...OPPORTUNITY...TO..SAFELY...COMMUNICATE...WITH...THE...ENTITY. COMMUNICATING...WITH...THE...ENTITY...MIGHT...HAVE...REALIZED...
A...SOLUTION...THAT...DID...NOT...REQUIRE...EITHER...KILLING...OR...CONFINING...THE...ENTITY.

Now, pay close attention to the term "might". I was using it in the context of "Used to express possibility or probability". Further down I'll help you understand this English term.

I'm pointing out that it is entirely possible the entity may not have known it was killing sentient lifeforms. It's own concept of what life is is undetermined. Communicating with it would have helped, but unfortunately the chance was lost due to premature action.

How about you back up this assertion instead of blindly stating it and then running behind it for justification?

I can't say I'm surprised that you seriously believe more information about the entity would not help further understand it.

And yet you can't give a single reason why we should ignore the fact this thing slaughters intelligent creatures yet we know it can communicate with such beings.

Prove that the entity knew it could communicate with humans. This should be great for a laugh since the entire episode made it clear communication was something not yet achieved.

False dilemma. You're assuming you can only either kill it or imprison it. Communication could have resulted in a solution that suited both sides. For example, finding another source of nourishment the entity could utilize.

Evidence this will work: Zip, zilch, zero.

Apparently your limited intellect is incapable of grasping what I mean when I say words like "could", "possibly", etc. Not that I'm surprised...

Interesting. You have proof the entity was incapable of remorse? Or is this just another baseless assumption pulled out of your ass? I find that interesting because I know people who kill of out necessity but feel remorse nonetheless.

Evidence it felt any remorse for the colony it wiped out, even the children: Zip, zero, zilch.

Evidence it didn't feel remorse for the colony it wiped out, even the children: Zip, zero, zilch.

Of course, this might have been determined by virtue of communicating with it. Although naturally this will also slip easily through your mental grasp.

Well, if you're under the impression that the entity can only be contained or killed, clearly killing it would be the practical solution. Of course, I don't subscribe to your limited interpretation of what might have been accomplished had communication been acheived.

Yet you do not provide a shred of evidence anything else would have worked.

Because nothing else was tried, dumbass. Do you seriously not realize the stupidity of the demands you're making?

If this wasn't so typical of you, I'd go on a rant about how you're a moron who needs to learn how to actually debate. But I've done that with you before, and I don't feel like wasting my breath on an idiot who refuses to learn how to do anything but assert his opinions.

This is quite funny coming from you.

Care to prove the entity killed without remorse or hesitation?

No remorse or hesitation was viewed at any time from the Entity.

Explain how you determined remorse was not present when the concept of remorse is difficult to measure, particularily from an alien lifeform you cannot even communicate with.

Beyond that you are asking me to prove a negative, a massive logical fallacy. Learn to debate honestly, Walper.

Grab a dictionary and learn the meaning of the term "possible", which is all I've been asserting.

You must be incredibly stupid if you think I'm suggesting I would "know" what it would do in the future. My entire arguement has been pointing out the lost chance at communicating with the entity that could have resulted in a solution not requiring it to be killed or imprisoned.

Your entire post is 'well, i have no proof but i'm gonna assert blindly and yell at you for not agreeing'. Yea, real great contribution.

When flipping through that dictionary, look under "P". Words in the dictionary are ordered in alphabetical order. The entire word is spelled "P O S S I B L E".

Naturally, the above directions may be difficult for you to understand, so I'll include a link for your benefit:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0465700.html

When reviewing(and hopefully understanding, though I won't hold my breath) the meaning of this word, be sure to reread how I've been using it. For example "Communicating with the entity could have presented a possible solution not involving killing or imprisoning it."

[Robert Walper]

One of the details lost in this wrangling was that it took the shields of the most powerful starship in the Federation to keep this thing at bay. They were holding, but who's to say that anything less would have held up? And how could they confine this thing indefinitely if the most powerful ship in the Federation had to use its combat shielding to keep it from consuming the crew?

If the choice was limited simply to either confining or killing the entity, killing it would be the most practical solution, and one I would endorse. I'd only question killing it at that point if something substantial and useful could be gathered by confining it.

However, what I'm disputing is the continued assertion that communication with the entity would have be fruitless, particularily since communication was not established in the first place.

So show evidence it would have changed it's ways. Can't be that hard, if there is a single shred of evidence in your favor.

Show evidence it would not have changed it's ways. The entity did not communicate with other beings. Then Lore started communicating with it after which point it started communicating with him. Wow...a change in behavior right there...jeez...that was easy.

[General Zod]

burden of proof fallacy. it falls on your shoulders to show that the entity could have changed its behavior as you made the claim.

[SirNitram]

You're correct, it wasn't wrong for primitive man to kill tigers in self defense and preservation of their own species. However, the entity situation is significantly different and you know it.

How about you prove this, instead of asserting it.

A tiger is a well known and classified species. The entity in question was virtually a complete unknown. Killing it might not have been necessary.

Evidence for this: Zip, Zero, Zilch.

You're an idiot if you think that's what I've been suggesting or implying. I've stated several times that killing the creature may have been necessary, but the action that lost the chance to communicate with it was premature and unnecessary.

And you keep failing to show why we should assume it will do anything but what it already has.

I'm not demanding we assume it will behave differently, I've been trying to point out repeatedly that communication with the entity could have resulted in a solution other than confinement or killing it..

Evidence for this: Zip, Zero, Zilch.

And your proof that it would do anything other than continue to slaughter humans? Oh yea, nothing... How surprising, from you.. I mean, I'm shocked.

Obviously you're suffering from some sort of mental problem, Nitram. Let me spell it out in big letters for you:

Robert, not everyone is like you. Not everyone has a mental problem that prohibits rational thought, making everything devolve into yelling matches.

THERE...WAS...AN...OPPORTUNITY...TO..SAFELY...COMMUNICATE...WITH...THE...ENTITY. COMMUNICATING...WITH...THE...ENTITY...MIGHT...HAVE...REALIZED...
A...SOLUTION...THAT...DID...NOT...REQUIRE...EITHER...KILLING...OR...CONFINING...THE...ENTITY.

Evidence for a change in it's behavior? Zip, Zero, Zilch.

Now, pay close attention to the term "might". I was using it in the context of "Used to express possibility or probability". Further down I'll help you understand this English term.

I understand English, Troll. You apparently do not understanding debating, which requires evidence.

I'm pointing out that it is entirely possible the entity may not have known it was killing sentient lifeforms. It's own concept of what life is is undetermined. Communicating with it would have helped, but unfortunately the chance was lost due to premature action.

How about you back up this assertion instead of blindly stating it and then running behind it for justification?

I can't say I'm surprised that you seriously believe more information about the entity would not help further understand it.

I can't say I'm surprised you're evading the fact you have no evidence for your wild assumptions.

And yet you can't give a single reason why we should ignore the fact this thing slaughters intelligent creatures yet we know it can communicate with such beings.

Prove that the entity knew it could communicate with humans. This should be great for a laugh since the entire episode made it clear communication was something not yet achieved.

It was shown to communicate with Lore. Humans had never initiated contact, doesn't mean the Entity lacked the ability. You must show this for your laughable premise to be true. Of course, you won't.

False dilemma. You're assuming you can only either kill it or imprison it. Communication could have resulted in a solution that suited both sides. For example, finding another source of nourishment the entity could utilize.

Evidence this will work: Zip, zilch, zero.

Apparently your limited intellect is incapable of grasping what I mean when I say words like "could", "possibly", etc. Not that I'm surprised...

No, Robert. Your nonexistant intellect doesn't grasp that debates require evidence, something you lack.

Interesting. You have proof the entity was incapable of remorse? Or is this just another baseless assumption pulled out of your ass? I find that interesting because I know people who kill of out necessity but feel remorse nonetheless.

Evidence it felt any remorse for the colony it wiped out, even the children: Zip, zero, zilch.

Evidence it didn't feel remorse for the colony it wiped out, even the children: Zip, zero, zilch.

Demanding evidence for a negative. Middle school debating groups learn that this is nonsense. Apparently Robert is still struggling through the sixth grade.

Of course, this might have been determined by virtue of communicating with it. Although naturally this will also slip easily through your mental grasp.

Blah blah, you don't understand the basic foundation of debate so it must be my fault. Sure, Walper.

Well, if you're under the impression that the entity can only be contained or killed, clearly killing it would be the practical solution. Of course, I don't subscribe to your limited interpretation of what might have been accomplished had communication been acheived.

Yet you do not provide a shred of evidence anything else would have worked.

Because nothing else was tried, dumbass. Do you seriously not realize the stupidity of the demands you're making?

See, Robert, in a debate you have to provide evidence. If you don't have it, your position is invalid. I realize this is a big idea for you to process after all this time trolling.

If this wasn't so typical of you, I'd go on a rant about how you're a moron who needs to learn how to actually debate. But I've done that with you before, and I don't feel like wasting my breath on an idiot who refuses to learn how to do anything but assert his opinions.

This is quite funny coming from you.

At least I offer evidence for my assertions, something vastly beyond your feeble mental power.

Care to prove the entity killed without remorse or hesitation?

No remorse or hesitation was viewed at any time from the Entity.

Explain how you determined remorse was not present when the concept of remorse is difficult to measure, particularily from an alien lifeform you cannot even communicate with.

It didn't stop and was fully ready to repeat.

Beyond that you are asking me to prove a negative, a massive logical fallacy. Learn to debate honestly, Walper.

Grab a dictionary and learn the meaning of the term "possible", which is all I've been asserting.

Learn the basis of debating, evidence. You need it for your 'possibilities' to be considered valid.

You must be incredibly stupid if you think I'm suggesting I would "know" what it would do in the future. My entire arguement has been pointing out the lost chance at communicating with the entity that could have resulted in a solution not requiring it to be killed or imprisoned.

Your entire post is 'well, i have no proof but i'm gonna assert blindly and yell at you for not agreeing'. Yea, real great contribution.

When flipping through that dictionary, look under "P". Words in the dictionary are ordered in alphabetical order. The entire word is spelled "P O S S I B L E".

E V I D E N C E.

Naturally, the above directions may be difficult for you to understand, so I'll include a link for your benefit:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0465700.html

When reviewing(and hopefully understanding, though I won't hold my breath) the meaning of this word, be sure to reread how I've been using it. For example "Communicating with the entity could have presented a possible solution not involving killing or imprisoning it."

Wow, you're a complete retard AND a troll. Am I surprised? Nope. Show some evidence, Walper. No one wants your wanking all over the thread.

[SirNitram]

Show evidence it would not have changed it's ways. The entity did not communicate with other beings. Then Lore started communicating with it after which point it started communicating with him. Wow...a change in behavior right there...jeez...that was easy.

Ah, of course. I forgot. Your position has no evidence at all to back it up, so you have to attempt a burden of proof fallacy to evade the question entirely.

You know, these debates would be so much less repetitive if you and your fellow trolls could pick positions that had evidence in their favor. But no, that's never enough, you have to reach firmly up your ass, pull out the one situation which has no support at all from the source and then screech like a spanked child when someone calls you on it.

Present evidence in your favor or concede, Walper. This has become a useless repetition of you trying to be witty while running away from the fact your position is completely unsupported.

[Robert Walper]

*snip*

Nitram, your stance has been nothing more than a Argument from Ignorance. It is for that reason I'll will no longer bother trying to debate you. Though of course feel free to claim victory.

[Robert Walper]

burden of proof fallacy. it falls on your shoulders to show that the entity could have changed its behavior as you made the claim.

You're obviously missing my point. Because the entity was killed prematurely, showing it was capable of altering it's behavior in regards to consuming human victims is untestable. We already know it was willing to communicate with one being, Lore, which suggests a change in it's behavoir patterns. My arguement is that the communication attempt on behalf of the Enterprise was sabotaged before this could be determined.

[SirNitram]

*snip*

Nitram, your stance has been nothing more than a Argument from Ignorance. It is for that reason I'll will no longer bother trying to debate you. Though of course feel free to claim victory.

Oh wow. Robert is confronted with a demand that he provide evidence, no evidence in his hot little hands, and he promptly lies to everyone involved. Let's look at what 'Appeal From Ignorance' is really listed as being from this website:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Now let's examined what actually was my position:

The Entity would continue to be a danger because it had shown no signs of changing.

Doesn't look like a False Dilemma to me or any other educated person, but snipping away the demands for evidence makes it easy for Walper to lie his way to 'victory'. It doesn't matter much, though. Everyone can see that he never had any evidence, and he's not simply running away crying.

[consequences]

Evidence that it didn't kill something that could communicate with it: The fact that Lore is still alive(or was after being beamed into the thing). Given its effect on the landscape in the second episode it turned up, it could easily have destroyed him when he was beamed into it, but it did not.

[SirNitram]

Evidence that it didn't kill something that could communicate with it: The fact that Lore is still alive(or was after being beamed into the thing). Given its effect on the landscape in the second episode it turned up, it could easily have destroyed him when he was beamed into it, but it did not.

Finally, someone who can debate rationally!

As to Lore being the evidence against, Lore isn't biological, thus he couldn't really be eaten. Given Lore's actions later in the episode, it also seems he struck a deal with the Entity to be allowed out as long as it signalled for it when he found more food.

[General Zod]

Evidence that it didn't kill something that could communicate with it: The fact that Lore is still alive(or was after being beamed into the thing). Given its effect on the landscape in the second episode it turned up, it could easily have destroyed him when he was beamed into it, but it did not.

lore isn't a living being, so the crystalline entity wouldn't have been able to use him as food.

[consequences]

Evidence that it didn't kill something that could communicate with it: The fact that Lore is still alive(or was after being beamed into the thing). Given its effect on the landscape in the second episode it turned up, it could easily have destroyed him when he was beamed into it, but it did not.

Finally, someone who can debate rationally!

As to Lore being the evidence against, Lore isn't biological, thus he couldn't really be eaten. Given Lore's actions later in the episode, it also seems he struck a deal with the Entity to be allowed out as long as it signalled for it when he found more food.

That in itself is proof that the entity can be dealt with, on a long-term basis. If it was a true unreasoning killer, it would have killed Lore, then checked for edibility, then not killed any further Soong type androids it came across, provided that it didn't have some unknown sense that can detect Android=inedible, or that it hadn't encountered yet another Data precursor(Curse you B4!) and killed it to discover this.
The simple fact that a deal could bve struck however, implies that an accomodation could be reached. Given known Fed capabilities, it would be possible to clone a large number of kittens(or whatever animal doesn't automatically set off your 'can't kill cute' alarm) to provide it with sustenance.

[SirNitram]

That in itself is proof that the entity can be dealt with, on a long-term basis. If it was a true unreasoning killer, it would have killed Lore, then checked for edibility, then not killed any further Soong type androids it came across, provided that it didn't have some unknown sense that can detect Android=inedible, or that it hadn't encountered yet another Data precursor(Curse you B4!) and killed it to discover this.

Given that it moves through Warp, I think it can be assumed it's got the equivalent of sensors.

The simple fact that a deal could bve struck however, implies that an accomodation could be reached. Given known Fed capabilities, it would be possible to clone a large number of kittens(or whatever animal doesn't automatically set off your 'can't kill cute' alarm) to provide it with sustenance.

This assumes that the Federation can get into a position to deal from strength. We have not seen any indication the Entity is really nice on the underneath, so to logically consider such a situation requires the Federation be able to threaten it constantly. It lacks the starships and the power to do so.

[DaveJB]

That in itself is proof that the entity can be dealt with, on a long-term basis. If it was a true unreasoning killer, it would have killed Lore, then checked for edibility, then not killed any further Soong type androids it came across, provided that it didn't have some unknown sense that can detect Android=inedible, or that it hadn't encountered yet another Data precursor(Curse you B4!) and killed it to discover this.
The simple fact that a deal could bve struck however, implies that an accomodation could be reached. Given known Fed capabilities, it would be possible to clone a large number of kittens(or whatever animal doesn't automatically set off your 'can't kill cute' alarm) to provide it with sustenance.

The entity killed and ate people at the same time - it used some kind of beam that (I assume) converted organic matter into energy and then it presumably absorbed the energy. Since Lore has no organic matter to convert into energy, nothing would happen.