Why do a lot of people think the federation can win?

[Darth Wong]

Anti-Saxtonism is really just a symptom of the wider cause, which is that they will look for any excuse, no matter how fallacious, to ignore things they don't like. Again, this goes back to the fact that hardcore Trekkies treat it like a religion rather than a piece of entertainment. Their god has to beat up your god. That's why you see rabid Trekkies saying that they could beat even the most uber-wanked sci-fi universes like The Culture or some other such wanktastic force: forces that would crush the entire SW galaxy.

[Big Phil]

Anti-Saxtonism is really just a symptom of the wider cause, which is that they will look for any excuse, no matter how fallacious, to ignore things they don't like. Again, this goes back to the fact that hardcore Trekkies treat it like a religion rather than a piece of entertainment. Their god has to beat up your god. That's why you see rabid Trekkies saying that they could beat even the most uber-wanked sci-fi universes like The Culture or some other such wanktastic force: forces that would crush the entire SW galaxy.

Does Saxton pay attention to or even know about the issues Trekkies have with him?

[SirNitram]

Anti-Saxtonism is really just a symptom of the wider cause, which is that they will look for any excuse, no matter how fallacious, to ignore things they don't like. Again, this goes back to the fact that hardcore Trekkies treat it like a religion rather than a piece of entertainment. Their god has to beat up your god. That's why you see rabid Trekkies saying that they could beat even the most uber-wanked sci-fi universes like The Culture or some other such wanktastic force: forces that would crush the entire SW galaxy.

Does Saxton pay attention to or even know about the issues Trekkies have with him?

I beleive it once acheived the level of death threats sent towards him. I know they send him lots of hate-mail. But he doesn't concern himself with such matters. I beleive his online attitude was once described as vaguely Vulcan-like(Original flavour, not hyper-emotional wrecks ten seconds from breakdown that B&B gave us).

[Darth Wong]

Anti-Saxtonism is really just a symptom of the wider cause, which is that they will look for any excuse, no matter how fallacious, to ignore things they don't like. Again, this goes back to the fact that hardcore Trekkies treat it like a religion rather than a piece of entertainment. Their god has to beat up your god. That's why you see rabid Trekkies saying that they could beat even the most uber-wanked sci-fi universes like The Culture or some other such wanktastic force: forces that would crush the entire SW galaxy.

Does Saxton pay attention to or even know about the issues Trekkies have with him?

He knows some Trekkies dislike him. He also knows that some SW fans dislike him, particularly all of the minimalists. I can tell you that he is far more interested in what his SW detractors say than what any ST detractors say. He is only barely aware of ST detractors in terms of their actual names and arguments, but he is quite familiar with certain SW trolls.

[Mange]

Anti-Saxtonism is really just a symptom of the wider cause, which is that they will look for any excuse, no matter how fallacious, to ignore things they don't like. Again, this goes back to the fact that hardcore Trekkies treat it like a religion rather than a piece of entertainment. Their god has to beat up your god. That's why you see rabid Trekkies saying that they could beat even the most uber-wanked sci-fi universes like The Culture or some other such wanktastic force: forces that would crush the entire SW galaxy.

Does Saxton pay attention to or even know about the issues Trekkies have with him?

I beleive it once acheived the level of death threats sent towards him. I know they send him lots of hate-mail. But he doesn't concern himself with such matters. I beleive his online attitude was once described as vaguely Vulcan-like(Original flavour, not hyper-emotional wrecks ten seconds from breakdown that B&B gave us).

Has Dr. Saxton recieved death threats?

[Lord Poe]

Has Dr. Saxton recieved death threats?

Not that I'm aware of.

[fusion]

Wasn't there something with Dark Star, plotting to kill him, or something like that.

[Darth Wong]

Wasn't there something with Dark Star, plotting to kill him, or something like that.

No, you've got it backwards. Darkstar never made a death threat against anyone to my knowledge, but he is always accusing everyone else of trying to kill him. Faced with a bleak life of no consequence or relationships, he is desperately trying to concoct paranoid fantasies in which he assumes a larger-than-life significance and people plot against him.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Bounty's link for Jason_T and his wonderful argument was to Darkstar's website, right? He claims that Curtis Saxton is a Pro Wars vs. debater - I'm not sufficiently familiar with the debate to know if this is correct or not, but my understanding and reading of Saxton's website is that he's never made any effort to compare Star Wars with Star Trek, and that he was doing the quantification simply for his degree (and his own entertainment). Am I missing something?

Yes. An agenda. By trying to link Saxon to the vs debate and claiming that he's pro-Wars the rabid Trektards somehow think they get to ignore his numbers, regarless of the facts that there's nothing wrong with them and that they're perfectly in line with what we see in the movies (which is what those numbers are mainly based on in the first place-surprise).

I think the most rabid ones will ignore his numbers anyway, no matter that their fallacies are pointed out. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even know what fallacies were; I certainly didn't until I encountered this debate.

[rhoenix]

I think the most rabid ones will ignore his numbers anyway, no matter that their fallacies are pointed out. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even know what fallacies were; I certainly didn't until I encountered this debate.

Since debates have nearly reached an art form here, checking out the Logical Fallacies thread should be enlightening for you. The fine art of calling people on bullshit, and the proper terminology for the same is very helpful.

As for the people here, as long as you put forth the effort to learn and in general, put knowledge before ego, you'll do just fine. I'm not suggesting that the newer members walk on eggshells to avoid getting torched, I'm suggesting that learning the ways of debating as well as research would serve you well not only here, but elsewhere as well.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with debating is that people get accustomed to the kind of debate that is done in politics, where implication and accusation are considered a perfectly acceptable substitute for logic and evidence. You could make a drinking game out of spotting logic fallacies in a typical political debate (from all sides), and you'd be hammered in 10 minutes.

People absorb the kinds of arguments typically used in those debates and then they think they should also work for science-related debates, such as evolution vs creation. It goes without saying that they also try to use them in SW vs ST debates. Attack your enemy's "bias", attack his motives, attack his choice of acquaintances, attack his personal history, attack his style and presentation, do anything but refute his logic and evidence. It's disgusting but it's also par for the course in politics, which unfortunately serves as the general population's education in debate technique. To the average person, it's a perfectly valid rebuttal to dismiss someone's argument because he uses profanity.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I never thought about it like that, but you're absolutely right, it all makes sense now. I'll be sure to check out the fallacies thread, I'd got to the point where I need to know such stuff, pity I never took advantage of the debating society at uni in my first year; by the time I joined I was in my final year and didn't have time for it.

[rhoenix]

The problem with debating is that people get accustomed to the kind of debate that is done in politics, where implication and accusation are considered a perfectly acceptable substitute for logic and evidence. You could make a drinking game out of spotting logic fallacies in a typical political debate (from all sides), and you'd be hammered in 10 minutes.

My reply to your post is technically a thread hijack, but it reminded me starkly of what I've learned from the debates here in the short time I've been here.

For me, first coming here, reading some of the debates, and then studying the Logical Fallacies threads, and then re-reading examples in other threads was rather thought-provoking. I've been able to call someone on an Appeal to Popularity in real life recently, and name precisely the part of the other person's view that upheld this fallacy. However, the ability to cut through bullshit and cut right to the heart of the argument was invaluable, particularly in my little anecdotal case.

People absorb the kinds of arguments typically used in those debates and then they think they should also work for science-related debates, such as evolution vs creation. It goes without saying that they also try to use them in SW vs ST debates. Attack your enemy's "bias", attack his motives, attack his choice of acquaintances, attack his personal history, attack his style and presentation, do anything but refute his logic and evidence. It's disgusting but it's also par for the course in politics, which unfortunately serves as the general population's education in debate technique.

Sadly, yes. I got into a debate with a fundie shortly before I started working from home; amusingly enough, it was about evolution. The person in question kept running around the point with kids being happier in Christian schools, and then about how the Founding Fathers of America were devout Christians, so he's just upholding their wants. He was a preacher, which made me blink.

I calmly trotted out each point he was making, including the bit about the Founding Fathers being Christian, and gave him several links to back up my argument (creationtheory.org, talkorigins.org, and pandasthumb.org were amongst the links), and then asked him to come up with scientific evidence to back up his points.

That was when he threw up the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy, saying that everyone knows scientists just "do guesswork in white coats."

Being able to counter his points on both philosophical and scientific levels was gratifying, to me.

In any case, much of the same behavior here in the above anecdote I've also seen from people who fervently believe that the Star Trek universe can handle anything, just from the feel-good tone of the show. I liked the varying series, up until Voyager - I think it was a good franchise until Berman stopped hiding his contempt for the intelligence of the show's viewers. However, I still understand and accept that, despite the allure of both semi-quantified universes, SW vs. ST would be more a savage beating, and less a heroic struggle.