Walper Defends Murderous Snowflake

[Darth Wong]

*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.

You're full of shit. The appeal to ignorance is "you can't prove it's wrong, therefore it's right". In short, it attempts to prove something solely through the fact that you could not prove it wrong.

Nitram, however, has easily met his end of the burden of proof by showing that the creature naturally feeds off sentient life and consciously conspired with Lore to do the same to the crew of the Enterprise. It is ridiculous to assume that radical change is a default assumption; lack of change in a creature's behaviour is the default, as demonstrated in, well, nature. And conspiring with Lore to kill the crew of the Enterprise is hardly an example of change in its fundamental man-eating behaviour! For you to pretend that his entire argument is predicated solely upon your failure to prove your alternate (and completely unsupported) hypothesis is a grotesque strawman distortion.

[Patrick Degan]

The only thing to be done with dangerous killer animals in the wild is to put them down before they kill any more people. That's how survival works. Dangerous sentient killer animals who know they've eaten people and keep hunting and killing more of them anyway are trebly dangerous. Captain Kirk, a practical man, understood this while Captain Picard, an imbecile, did not. It is Picard's reasoning that was at fault and not Dr. Maar's.

[consequences]

Given that Lore was its main point of contact, it might not have known that the people it was eating were sentient, especially if Lore gave a good enough explanation(hive insects building stuff or some similar).
However, killing the thing was certainly the expedient thing to do, as the Fed flagship can't sit around to contain the thing 24/7.

[Isolder74]

From the episode whan Lore called in the first time it appeared it knew who Lore was and what Humans were. Lore called them creatures and he conspired with the thing to drop the shields in order for it to get to eat the Enterprise crew. Its smarter than alot of you are giving it credit for.

[Robert Walper]

From the episode whan Lore called in the first time it appeared it knew who Lore was and what Humans were. Lore called them creatures and he conspired with the thing to drop the shields in order for it to get to eat the Enterprise crew. Its smarter than alot of you are giving it credit for.

However, there is yet to be evidence showing the entity knew humans were sentient lifeforms.

Your specific line "Lore called them creatures" suggests Lore was not getting into specifics about what humans were. For all we know the entity may have perceived humans onboard the Enterprise as nothing more than parasites onboard a artificial organism. And the entity was communicating with an artificial organism, therefore it's own experience may have suggested the only "lifeforms" capable of communication and intelligent thought are artificial in nature.

[General Zod]

shortly before the crystalline entity was destroyed the Enterprise crew had attempted to make communication with it, and was going fairly smoothly until the one scientist wound up killing it.

this shows that it can be reasoned with by others to a degree, whether or not they're organic. it's possible it simply didn't think humans were sentient as they had no method of communication available to them.

[Robert Walper]

shortly before the crystalline entity was destroyed the Enterprise crew had attempted to make communication with it, and was going fairly smoothly until the one scientist wound up killing it.

this shows that it can be reasoned with by others to a degree, whether or not they're organic. it's possible it simply didn't think humans were sentient as they had no method of communication available to them.

That's essentially what've I've been arguing the whole time.

[SirNitram]

shortly before the crystalline entity was destroyed the Enterprise crew had attempted to make communication with it, and was going fairly smoothly until the one scientist wound up killing it.

this shows that it can be reasoned with by others to a degree, whether or not they're organic. it's possible it simply didn't think humans were sentient as they had no method of communication available to them.

That's essentially what've I've been arguing the whole time.

And the rest have simply asked for evidence, and you've evaded it again and again.

[Robert Walper]

shortly before the crystalline entity was destroyed the Enterprise crew had attempted to make communication with it, and was going fairly smoothly until the one scientist wound up killing it.

this shows that it can be reasoned with by others to a degree, whether or not they're organic. it's possible it simply didn't think humans were sentient as they had no method of communication available to them.

That's essentially what've I've been arguing the whole time.

And the rest have simply asked for evidence, and you've evaded it again and again.

No, SirNitram. When I say we don't know something, I don't feel I have to "prove" it. If you "know" the entity realized humans were sentient lifeforms, by all means present your evidence.

[SirNitram]

No, SirNitram. When I say we don't know something, I don't feel I have to "prove" it. If you "know" the entity realized humans were sentient lifeforms, by all means present your evidence.

Typical cry of a Trektard who has lost a debate, desperately try and hand responsibility off to the opposition, like you are somehow the wronged innocence. Your position has precisely as much support as the idea that the Entity was made of pixie dust.

[Robert Walper]

No, SirNitram. When I say we don't know something, I don't feel I have to "prove" it. If you "know" the entity realized humans were sentient lifeforms, by all means present your evidence.

Typical cry of a Trektard who has lost a debate, desperately try and hand responsibility off to the opposition, like you are somehow the wronged innocence. Your position has precisely as much support as the idea that the Entity was made of pixie dust.

I rest my case.

[SirNitram]

No, SirNitram. When I say we don't know something, I don't feel I have to "prove" it. If you "know" the entity realized humans were sentient lifeforms, by all means present your evidence.

Typical cry of a Trektard who has lost a debate, desperately try and hand responsibility off to the opposition, like you are somehow the wronged innocence. Your position has precisely as much support as the idea that the Entity was made of pixie dust.

I rest my case.

That you are completely ignorant of how to debate? Yea, that's pretty well shown by this thread, kiddo.

[Robert Walper]

Typical cry of a Trektard who has lost a debate, desperately try and hand responsibility off to the opposition, like you are somehow the wronged innocence. Your position has precisely as much support as the idea that the Entity was made of pixie dust.

I rest my case.

That you are completely ignorant of how to debate? Yea, that's pretty well shown by this thread, kiddo.

I claim we don't know if the entity recognized humans as sentient lifeforms. You dispute this?

[SirNitram]

I claim we don't know if the entity recognized humans as sentient lifeforms. You dispute this?

I demand you show evidence. Is this simple sentence beyond your reading comprehension, or do you simply not understand that the nature of debate is that you must back up your assertions?

[Darth Wong]

Robert, let me explain the problem with your logic. You are arguing that the entity was too fucking stupid to recognize that creatures which construct cities and spacecraft might be sentient, even when they make a point of hunting it down over great distances after it kills some of them.

At the same time, you argue that they should not have killed it because it was clearly an intelligent form of life and could be willing to make a deal. This is a huge and rather obvious "stolen concept" fallacy; you are borrowing part of your opponent's argument to use where convenient, even when it is incompatible with your central argument.

[Robert Walper]

I claim we don't know if the entity recognized humans as sentient lifeforms. You dispute this?

I demand you show evidence. Is this simple sentence beyond your reading comprehension, or do you simply not understand that the nature of debate is that you must back up your assertions?

Now this is a laugh! You're demanding I present evidence that we do not know if the entity recognized humans as sentient lifeforms?

Nitram, present evidence one way or the other! Do not bitch at me about presenting evidence when I say we do not know!

[SirNitram]

I claim we don't know if the entity recognized humans as sentient lifeforms. You dispute this?

I demand you show evidence. Is this simple sentence beyond your reading comprehension, or do you simply not understand that the nature of debate is that you must back up your assertions?

Now this is a laugh! You're demanding I present evidence that we do not know if the entity recognized humans as sentient lifeforms?

Once again, one of our trolls reminds us that stupid people will laugh at anything.

Nitram, present evidence one way or the other! Do not bitch at me about presenting evidence when I say we do not know!

'I don't have to support my baseless assumption! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! You're committing the fallacy, not me! WAAAAAAAAH! BIG MEANIE!'

I'll repeat this again, you pathetic little cumstain. You want the Entity to be intelligent enough to communicate with Lore and negotiate with the Enterprise, yet so insensate that it cannot notice the buildings and starships and communication of it's prey.

If you want to seriously stand on the notion of that, you must back it up, not scream and cry and bitch and whine when someone demands you, gasp, actually debate honestly.

[Robert Walper]

Robert, let me explain the problem with your logic. You are arguing that the entity was too fucking stupid to recognize that creatures which construct cities and spacecraft might be sentient,

Insects construct "cities" and other unique structures utilizing resources. This does not make them sentient. As to constructing spacecraft, how would the entity know humans built them? The entity is obviously aware there are such things as artificial organisms by virtue of Lore.

even when they make a point of hunting it down over great distances after it kills some of them.

Um...Mike, as I recall, the entity sought out the Enterprise after it emitted the signals they attempted to use to communicate with it. Besides, why would it be necessary for the entity to assume that the human lifeforms onboard the Enteprise are of any relation or concerned for the humans it had consumed elsewhere?

At the same time, you argue that they should not have killed it because it was clearly an intelligent form of life and could be willing to make a deal.

It clearly possessed enough intelligence for Lore to communicate with it. However, Lore is an artificial organism. The entity has no reason to assume that just because Lore was capable of sentient communication that humans must be as well.

This is a huge and rather obvious "stolen concept" fallacy; you are borrowing part of your opponent's argument to use where convenient, even when it is incompatible with your central argument.

I'm pointing out unknowns and then others demand I submit evidence to prove they are unknown? I don't follow.

[Robert Walper]

I'll repeat this again, you pathetic little cumstain. You want the Entity to be intelligent enough to communicate with Lore and negotiate with the Enterprise, yet so insensate that it cannot notice the buildings and starships and communication of it's prey.

You're viewpoint seems based upon the assumption "the entity recognizes humans as sentient lifeforms that built the technology" when in fact the the only sentient lifeform it has ever been known to communicate with was an artificial one.

[SirNitram]

I'll repeat this again, you pathetic little cumstain. You want the Entity to be intelligent enough to communicate with Lore and negotiate with the Enterprise, yet so insensate that it cannot notice the buildings and starships and communication of it's prey.

You're viewpoint seems based upon the assumption "the entity recognizes humans as sentient lifeforms that built the technology" when in fact the the only sentient lifeform it has ever been known to communicate with was an artificial one.

And you immediately presume this indicates 'it does not recignize the others are sentients' as opposed to 'it is more intelligent than a brick, it just doesn't give a shit'. Of course, you refuse to back this up(Of course, you're lying through your teeth when you say you are 'pointing out unknowns: This thread clearly shows you were trying to convince people it was immoral to attack the Entity. You just won't admit it, because you're an arrogant moron.).

[Ghost Rider]

I'll repeat this again, you pathetic little cumstain. You want the Entity to be intelligent enough to communicate with Lore and negotiate with the Enterprise, yet so insensate that it cannot notice the buildings and starships and communication of it's prey.

You're viewpoint seems based upon the assumption "the entity recognizes humans as sentient lifeforms that built the technology" when in fact the the only sentient lifeform it has ever been known to communicate with was an artificial one.

Amazing that this intelligent being discusses it's plans with an artifical life form that acts, talks, moves and looks like what again?

So please...show proof it knows Lore is not a product of these insects given his physical characteristics as well language capabilites.

[Robert Walper]

You're viewpoint seems based upon the assumption "the entity recognizes humans as sentient lifeforms that built the technology" when in fact the the only sentient lifeform it has ever been known to communicate with was an artificial one.

And you immediately presume this indicates 'it does not recignize the others are sentients' as opposed to 'it is more intelligent than a brick, it just doesn't give a shit'.

You're correct in your statement about my belief that the entity did not recognize humans as sentient lifeforms. I giving the entity the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, you refuse to back this up(Of course, you're lying through your teeth when you say you are 'pointing out unknowns: This thread clearly shows you were trying to convince people it was immoral to attack the Entity. You just won't admit it, because you're an arrogant moron.).

In my opinion, it was immoral to kill the entity prematurely while communication was being attempted and success seemed likely. Had communication failed or the entity became a imminent threat I would've suggested killing it myself.

[Robert Walper]

I'll repeat this again, you pathetic little cumstain. You want the Entity to be intelligent enough to communicate with Lore and negotiate with the Enterprise, yet so insensate that it cannot notice the buildings and starships and communication of it's prey.

You're viewpoint seems based upon the assumption "the entity recognizes humans as sentient lifeforms that built the technology" when in fact the the only sentient lifeform it has ever been known to communicate with was an artificial one.

Amazing that this intelligent being discusses it's plans with an artifical life form that acts, talks, moves and looks like what again?

I take we have good reason to believe the entity has studied Lore's similarities to humans, and even has the capability to do so?

So please...show proof it knows Lore is not a product of these insects given his physical characteristics as well language capabilites.

When did I suggest the entity would know one way or the other that Lore is a product of human construction?

[SirNitram]

You're viewpoint seems based upon the assumption "the entity recognizes humans as sentient lifeforms that built the technology" when in fact the the only sentient lifeform it has ever been known to communicate with was an artificial one.

And you immediately presume this indicates 'it does not recignize the others are sentients' as opposed to 'it is more intelligent than a brick, it just doesn't give a shit'.

You're correct in your statement about my belief that the entity did not recognize humans as sentient lifeforms. I giving the entity the benefit of the doubt.

This isn't a legal proceeding. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, you must follow the rules of honest debate. Is this simple concept so completely beyond your feeble mental grasp?

Of course, you refuse to back this up(Of course, you're lying through your teeth when you say you are 'pointing out unknowns: This thread clearly shows you were trying to convince people it was immoral to attack the Entity. You just won't admit it, because you're an arrogant moron.).

In my opinion, it was immoral to kill the entity prematurely while communication was being attempted and success seemed likely. Had communication failed or the entity became a imminent threat I would've suggested killing it myself.

So you find it immoral to presume the Entity had the reasoning capabilities of a moderately intelligent person. Of course.

[Robert Walper]

You're correct in your statement about my belief that the entity did not recognize humans as sentient lifeforms. I giving the entity the benefit of the doubt.

This isn't a legal proceeding. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, you must follow the rules of honest debate. Is this simple concept so completely beyond your feeble mental grasp?

I've suggested the entity may not have known humans were sentient lifeforms. Please explain why this speculation is, by your viewpoint, not possible.

In my opinion, it was immoral to kill the entity prematurely while communication was being attempted and success seemed likely. Had communication failed or the entity became a imminent threat I would've suggested killing it myself.

So you find it immoral to presume the Entity had the reasoning capabilities of a moderately intelligent person. Of course.

So you're suggesting the entity would be thinking from a human perspective with human experience and knowledge?