Tharkun's thread hijacking attempt

[tharkûn]

Master of Ossus:
You repeatedly insist that other people do provide evidence of negatives in order to disprove your theories and conjectures
I'd almost buy your BS if you had not made this demand:

True, but please demonstrate ... that the Empire would not be looking for such things despite being in a new environment rife with diseases, AND that the Empire would not be able to cure quickly and effectively.


Notice not once, but TWICE you ask for me to prove a negative to you. Funny isn't, its not a logical fallacy when you yourself ask for proof of negatives.

In any case, dumbass, there is a BUNCH of official evidence in SW of toilets, and their existence may be inferred by basic human biological needs, anyway. Further, in Enterprise they had a long discussion about toilets on the ship, but since you ignore almost all evidence, anyway I guess that I should not be especially surprised by your idiotic claims.

Notice a common tactic, I make a specific claim: Deep Space Nine and A New Hope, to make a point. To "refute" this point Master of Ossus talks about completely different medium. The question was not does Enterprise have toilets, nor do are they mentioned in the official literature, but about these two specific sources.

Obviously the answer is yes. Irregardless of wether or not toilets are mentioned anywhere in the Canon the logical answer is that they do exist unless proven otherwise. It's basic common sense.

In any case, during the last debate I saw you involved in, you repeatedly used invalid historical precedents that had little or nothing to do with anything in order to justify your stupid opinion.
The "invalidity" of those examples is open to debate, please don't hijack Mike's thread.

Now, if you had bothered to pay any attention to the debate you vaguely allude to, you will know that I DEFENDED YOU when your opponent said that Imperials were not biologically human. This is because of an even better reason than the one you came up with (since some biological structures appear similar but function differently).
I did not fault you for doing so, I am merely pointing out that every one of my positions is either backed in some form of evidence or it is conceeded. You may disagree with my evidence (much of it comes from real world examples and noting that the more things change, the more they stay the same).

Clearly I understand that this proof of a negative thing does go both ways.
Then why do you ask that I prove a negative?

I cannot force you to prove that SW does not have weapons that can destroy a Galaxy in a fraction of a second, and you cannot force me to disprove the existence of similar weapons in ST.
The only weapon in ST I think might possibly be capable of that is V'ger and perhaps one of the trekkie "gods", in either event anyone interested in the thread that sparked this can read for themselves.

1. Readily available to terrorist factions of SF after the Empire had conquered them, and they had surrendered.
Yes I acknowledged this was asking for positive and was debatable.

2. Would propogate quickly and the Imperials would not be able to stop it.
No you didn't. You said I'd need to demonstrate "that the Empire would not be able to cure quickly and effectively.

Rather than assume the burden of proof, and you attempt to show that the Empire would be able to quickly and effectively cure it, you demanded I prove the oppositite.

3. That said pathogen would selectively target Imperial humans, though you acknowledged that some SF casualties might result, you also came up with some idiotic ideas for how they could easily communicate with everyone else in the AQ that they were to quarantine themselves without the Imperials recognizing what the problem was.
Sigh, I said to leak knowledge to your plants ... as in tell the Imperials directly. Have some rebel working with the occupation forces say, "One of my spies say the dissedents have a released a bioweapon ... I recommend we adopt quaruntine procedures immediately."

4. That said pathogen would be able to infect large numbers of stormtroopers, ignoring canon and official evidence during your justification.
Nope, never said that, pull the quote if you beleive otherwise. I said you infect *1* off duty stormtrooper when he sees a whore, when he goes out for a drink, namely when he is NOT wearing NBC protection. Use a long incubation period vector and let him then transmit your bioagent to others.

Infecting large number of stormtroopers was never something I advocated.

You made the claims, according to Burden of Proof, you must back them up. Please do not continue to debate this issue, Tharkun, as this thread was clearly not intended to devolve into a flame war.
I never made said claims, and I do not want to hijack Mike's thread. I suggest you try Quoting my claims next time, rather than doing it from memory and twisting them beyond recognition.

As for the rest ... this is not thread. I will make a rehash post in the original thread.

Doomriser:
Sigh its an illustrative point. Why is it when I specifically state things like, in ANH, people talk to me about official literature, etc.?

[tharkûn]

Cmdr Wilkens:
This is called observation (evidence) coupled with deduction (logic). What you cannot do is make a deduction without any evidence to supprot your conclusion.
I suggest you look at the actual exchange in question. I cited my evidence, as derived from:
"The Maquis"
"For the Uniform"
"Caretaker"
"Preemptive Strike"
"Repression"
"Extreme Risk"

Star Trek had numerous rebels, indeed the figure I was toying with is far smaller than if we simply count up the total number of feddies observed throughout the series run and the number of rebels seen in the Maquis episodes. If we assume what we see is a representative sample of the federation than the numbers I'm playing with are logically deduceable.

In reply to my "positive evidence" my opponents said, well you have no evidence of resistance on Betazoid. In short they calimed that because we had no evidence one way or other, this abscence of evidence overruled the other examples I cited.

Please note if you want to debate specific claims, please go to Coyote's thread.

Again unture, abscence of evidence simply means you must chalk certain things up as unknowns.
Yep which is all the quote "abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence" means. You do not regard it as proof, merely as unknown, possibly going either way.

Similair situations is caled evidence, however the onus is on you to show that the situaiton presented as precedent is relevant and that the precedent is likely to still be the case (i.e. it has not been "over-ruled.")
Which is exactly what I had been attempting to argue.

Which doesn't change the fact that forcing a person to disprove something you have no evidence to prove is intellectually dishonest.
I never did. I have my evidence, whether or not it is worth what I beleive it is ... that is open to debate.

See here's the problem there is the "negative" in many senses but proving the negative means that you require a person to DISPROVE something which you have not PROVEN to exist (if it doesn't exist then it is just as likely no evidence exists to disprove it). Requiring disproof of a theorem nto already proven is, again, intellectually dishonest.
I suggest you read the thread yourself and make your own judgements there:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=3221

[tharkûn]

In case anyone give's a damn the above were direct replies to the people noted as posted at:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=3476

[jegs2]

In case anyone give's a damn the above were direct replies to the people noted as posted at:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=3476

I've used similar arguments (absence of, well you know the rest...) to argue why Romans/redshirts/garbage collecters, or whoever else would not defeat stormtroopers. Trekkies will invariably bring up the scenes in the movies, where stormtroopers seemingly fall with ease. I point out that not everything is shown on the screen, so analysis is necessary IOT determine total force strength, composition and disposition of all stormtrooper forces in the total fight. What you see on the screen does not compose the entirety of all available forces.

I don't like catch phrases, so I'll stick to something with which I'm familiar: Analysis of military forces. In the absence of proof (which others may or may not later bring up), one must conduct analysis on available information IOT determine a complete OB, MLCOA, MDCOA, etc., etc. Example:

Scouts report the presence of three four-man DRT teams vic grid 123456. Based on the enemy OB, his doctrine from which I create a doctrinal template, and forces available for the fight, I can develop a most likely enemy COA from which our commander can reasonably affect (or even steer) the enemy decision cycle. Throughout the battle, we confirm or deny various courses of action (many can be made).

None of that was absence of information. It was putting together a puzzle from available information based on analysis and battle-tracking.