Grade James T Kirk

[Patrick Degan]

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away.

I was setting the conditions for a logical argument in which I set a rule that luck would not validate decision making. Mike just made me conclude Luck does not validate decision making, and now you are saying it does in Kirk's case. Do you even know what you are arguing anymore?

I AM NOT SAYING IT VALIDATES KIRK'S DECISIONMAKING, YOU DISHONEST SACK OF SHIT, I'M SAYING IT'S THE ONLY THING OPERATING TO SHIELD HIM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS DECISIONS! THAT IS NOT VALIDATION, ASSWIPE! You are now OUTRIGHT LYING about my position on this and you will not get away with it.

You really imagine vague generalities about "complete knowledge" covers up the fact that nu-Kirk is making choices from little to no knowledge of what he's leaping into so carelessly?

No its setting ground rules for agreement on what principles should be influential in asessing a characters judgement, this is not a proof to demonstrate Kirk is logical, it is to prove the need for an objective measure, because finite knowledge is a factor to be considered in evaluating quality of judgement ona neutral scale.

In case it's escaped your notice, dishonest one, everybody else in this thread has been providing objective criteria for evaluating nu-Kirk's decisionmaking and where it falls down and you have simply deliberately ignored it and think you can keep ignoring it forever. The principles are those of simple observation. We can see that he is operating from little to no knowledge of either the situation he's heedlessly leaping into, or the consequences of his own actions. Exactly how many times must this be said and in how many different ways? Or will we now have to start using words of two syllables or less for your benefit?

Which is what nu-Kirk is doing except for the luck factor which has been written into this movie insulating him from the consequences of his bad choices.

Well thats the purpose of a logic model Dagan, to identify exactly where my assumptions differ from yours.

No, that's your effort to duck and weave all over this thread to avoid the consequences of defending a fundamentally broken argument.

Yes you are, liar.

You're being unreasonable.

Sayeth the builder of this thread's Wall of Ignorance.

No, moron. I am pointing out why your notion that subjective criteria is valid as an evaluation tool for a fictional universe is invalid. You keep putting up your Special Pleading Fallacy as a defence for your broken argument.

The logic model is my evidence that I am not presenting a special pleading fallacy. First I made the argument that objective measure without adjustment for context IS in fact treating fictional characters differently from real life people. I drew paralells to using biased measures against other cultures and comking up with skewed results.

Translation: "it's a fictional universe with it's own rules, therefore Kirk's actions work". That is Special Pleading, asswipe.

I presented evidence of this understanding in real world psychology by pointing out a scale that measures subjective criteria within objective diagnostic criteria.I even gave up and walked away, acknowledging that you weren't agreeing with any of my evidence and therefore it must be I who was misrepresenting it. Now I am responding under duress by presenting a rudeimentary logical proof to demosntrate adequate jutification for my premise.

If you say so, Gracie...

I keep defending what you ascribe as a special pleading argument and you keep responding with... rhetoric.

No, dishonest one, I have replied with solid rebuttals as to why your argument is broken and now you're down to outright denial.

Semantics whoring now. Your position degenerates along predictable lines.

More rhetoric, no counter argument.

Translation: LALALALALALALALALALAL I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA... Keep pretending that you're actually making a valid rebuttal of anything with your denials. And that was a counter-argument, asswipe: you tried playing semantical games to say one argument was invalid while the other was not and the only difference was a trivial one of terminology.

Sayeth the endlessly dishonest little shit who's already committed a bucketful of logical fallacies in the course of this thread and now is trying to cover his ass with word games and presuming to discuss critical reasoning skills. That's comedy.

MORE rhetoric.

More bullshit from you. How unsurprising.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, looks like there's not much room for me in the discussion. I'm not interested in clusterbombing Tom with obscenities over his debating tactics, and no one else seems all that interested in discussing the poll topic.

[Ghost Rider]

Well, looks like there's not much room for me in the discussion. I'm not interested in clusterbombing Tom with obscenities over his debating tactics, and no one else seems all that interested in discussing the poll topic.

Thank you for another useless Spam +1 post.

Care to see where this goes, if you keep thinking you're witty or profound?

[Themightytom]

How is Good Luck Super Powers different from God watching out for you?

For one, intelligent design would suggest a universe that does not neccesarily function rationally, whereas "good luck superpowers" suggests that Kirk's universe functions irrationally exclusively for him. In a rationalo univers, such a characteristic would ultiamtely be subject to rational undersanding. Superman's flight can be defined for example ebcause it exists within a rational context. Jesus ascending to the heavens would not have a rational explanation.

Except that "God" is irrationally pulling strings for Kirk. That is the same as luck to anyone in universe without knowledge of "God/JJ", which would be uh... everyone. Basically you are saying that Kirk only succeeds because JJ Abrahms wishes it.

Think about that for a minute.

"luck" was a descriptor for "Superpowers" not a reference to an encompassing phenomenon. At least that was my interpretation of Mike's original statement. You're right, belief in luck and belief in God are the same in that they support a belief in a supernatural force that governs outcome.

Out of universe Kirk DOES only succeed because J.J. Abrahms wishes him to, because not only does Abrahms govern the fictional universe but he also dictates Kirk's actions. In universe, Kirk response to the conditions so part of his success is due to his participation.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think you have any idea how fed up I am with your bullshit by now. Do you realize that by your idiotic criteria, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Kirk to make a bad decision, because he's the hero and he'll have to succeed due to genre convention? Do you understand this? According to your logic, ANY decision he makes must be a good one, since it always works out for him in the end.

According to your idiotic logic, Kirk could wake up and decide to eat his own feces, and it would be a fantastic decision because it's bound to work out well. It will turn out that there is a microbe in his feces which protects him from a biowarfare weapon that he is exposed to later in the film or something.

What the fuck is the point of asking people to grade Captain Kirk, when you have already decided in your mind that the only possible grade is A+++, no matter what he says or does?

[Themightytom]

I don't think you have any idea how fed up I am with your bullshit by now. Do you realize that by your idiotic criteria, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Kirk to make a bad decision, because he's the hero and he'll have to succeed due to genre convention? Do you understand this? According to your logic, ANY decision he makes must be a good one, since it always works out for him in the end.

Sorry Mike I am not voluntarily bullshitting you. Treating fictional characters as irrational products of an irrational world makes complete sense to me I am well aware that I am not articulating this effectively.

I am also aware this is because there is resistance to treating fictional characters in a seemingly irrational manner. I have asserted that treating irrational characters irrationally is in fact rational.

It occurs to me that this concept might have a mathematical precedent, if you multiply two negative integers you ALWAYS create a positive product because you are describing a positive pattern of negatives. If you add or subtract sets of negative numbers that is not always so. Does it not stand to reason that pattern can be rational for patterns and not for individual cases?

This is consistent with the Fallacy of composition in which individual examples do not project the properties of the whole. Kirk's individual decisions can be good or bad, yet overall he can still be functional.

I concede that it is not impossible for Kirk to make a bad decision if I have been making that argument it is an unintentional implication of my original argument and i apologize for it. Kirk can make good decisions or bad ones regardless of the overall pattern of results. I have been arguing that he is functional in his environment and that any fictional character's mental state should be considered within the context of his environment.

What the fuck is the point of asking people to grade Captain Kirk, when you have already decided in your mind that the only possible grade is A+++, no matter what he says or does?[/

Well I graded him F actually because its a no win scenario and by definition he fails no matter what he does.
At first glance that would appear to sidestep evaluation of his decision making, but it really doesn't. Kirk violated ethical standards to accomplish his goals, which demonstrates that Kirk's has a flexible perception of morality, but it doesn't establish a pattern.

My argument does not rely on Kirk having "good luck" You and others have ascribed his success to luck (IU) and writers fiat.

That's the only logical explanation, fucktard.

I'm not trying to explain his success, I am trying to justify measuring it in context to compensate for using a rational standard against n irrational situation. My ultimate argument is that he does not have a crippling character flaw.

I have expressed concern in the past about my ability to make an argument for a situation I do not have acccess to intimate details for, but I will make an attempt anyway. In describing this situation I will concede that the degree of favorable probability Kirk experiences is unlikely in the real world, but obviously this is not luck, it is intelligent design. Kirk's universe has a God in the form of J.J. Abrahms and he has designed events to favor Kirk at every opportunity.

That IS writer's fiat, you goddamned sophistic bullshitting liar. J.J. Abrams is not a deity in this imaginary Star Trek universe; he is a fucking writer who sits in a chair and taps out words on a goddamned computer screen.

Ok first of all you replaced the word God with Deity. I Immediately concede that Abrahms is not an object of worship in the Star Trek universe. I was pointing out that Abrahms functions as a God in that he creates a fictional universe and dictates events. I will call it writer's fiat if you prefer, the term refers to the same concept.

Are you fucking insane? Seriously, are you completely out of your gourd? Have you lost the capacity to recognize that Star Trek is in fact a work of fiction? How can anyone who's not completely insane declare that JJ Abrams' writing decisions are a form of divine intervention in the Star Trek universe and not writer's fiat?

[/quote]

I didn't offer that contradiction I just used a term that was conceptually similiar to me which was apparently a verbal land mine. incidently I would like to note in case I am accused of this in the future, neither Abrahms nor Star Trek has divine properties O,o

Writer's Fiat works just as well to describe how Kirk's universe is dictated.

EDIT: I fixed an extra quote

[Themightytom]

I AM NOT SAYING IT VALIDATES KIRK'S DECISIONMAKING, YOU DISHONEST SACK OF SHIT, I'M SAYING IT'S THE ONLY THING OPERATING TO SHIELD HIM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS DECISIONS! THAT IS NOT VALIDATION, ASSWIPE! You are now OUTRIGHT LYING about my position on this and you will not get away with it.

Uh no, you DEFINITELY said it...

Luck neither proves nor disproves the quality of decision making, it is an extraneous factor.

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away.

You responded "It does" directly after I said it doesn't. You responded to a general statement of logic and directly applied it to Kirk's decision-making. You added the qualifier "When it is the only thing keeping nu-kirk out of prison or the morgue. luck does not qualify decision making, it is an extranneous factor in decision making.

Luck can intefere with outcome, introducing variability, which is why repetitive occurrence has more validity than individual cases.

In case it's escaped your notice, dishonest one, everybody else in this thread has been providing objective criteria for evaluating nu-Kirk's decisionmaking and where it falls down and you have simply deliberately ignored it and think you can keep ignoring it forever. The principles are those of simple observation.

Observation is objective criteria? You offer personal interpretations of events, predictions of cosnequences not depicted and no quantifiable standard of measurement. That is not objective.

We can see that he is operating from little to no knowledge of either the situation he's heedlessly leaping into, or the consequences of his own actions.

Compared to what? Without an objkective standard...nothing, so your observations ahve little meaning.

No, that's your effort to duck and weave all over this thread to avoid the consequences of defending a fundamentally broken argument.

rhetoric

Sayeth the builder of this thread's Wall of Ignorance.

rhetoric

Translation: "it's a fictional universe with it's own rules, therefore Kirk's actions work". That is Special Pleading, asswipe.

Not if the rule for evaluation is "Evaluate in context"

I presented evidence of this understanding in real world psychology by pointing out a scale that measures subjective criteria within objective diagnostic criteria.I even gave up and walked away, acknowledging that you weren't agreeing with any of my evidence and therefore it must be I who was misrepresenting it. Now I am responding under duress by presenting a rudeimentary logical proof to demosntrate adequate jutification for my premise.

If you say so, Gracie...

Either a concession that I have presented evidence or more rhetoric.

No, dishonest one, I have replied with solid rebuttals as to why your argument is broken and now you're down to outright denial.

A rebuttal with no evidence is "I'm right and you're wrong"

Translation: LALALALALALALALALALAL I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA... Keep pretending that you're actually making a valid rebuttal of anything with your denials. And that was a counter-argument, asswipe: you tried playing semantical games to say one argument was invalid while the other was not and the only difference was a trivial one of terminology.

temper tantrum/ rhetoric...

[Simon_Jester]

Luck neither proves nor disproves the quality of decision making, it is an extraneous factor.

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue... Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him...

... luck does not qualify decision making, it is an extranneous factor in decision making.

Luck can intefere with outcome, introducing variability, which is why repetitive occurrence has more validity than individual cases.

Ah, but Kirk consistently acts in ways that would get him thrown into the brig in a conventional military. We see him do so at least three times in what appears to be less than a week of screen time. He was a disrespectful bad boy when he went into the Academy, and he doesn't appear to have reformed much in his time there.

So he goes into a training scenario with obvious contempt for it (and cheats), he barges onto the bridge and starts shouting at the old captain, he provokes two violent confrontations on the bridge with the new captain...

In three of the four cases, some extraneous factor saves him from suffering serious consequences. In the case of the training scenario, he was saved by an attack that forced everyone to go running off without actually assigning him a punishment. When he barged onto the bridge to warn Captain Pike, they were caught in the middle of a space battle so soon that Pike never got round to giving him the chewing-out he so richly deserved (assuming Pike ever planned to do so). In the second confrontation with Spock, a Starfleet regulation saves him and he again appears to get away with conduct prejudicial to discipline.

Only in his first confrontation with Spock do we see him getting punished in a way roughly consistent with his behavior. Even then, the punishment is seriously flawed; Kirk should have gone to the brig aboard the ship and not been marooned on Delta Vega.
________

So when grading Kirk's character, I'm forced to say that his attitude is so bad that it's a crippling character defect. It's as if he had fallen asleep in class every time anyone used the words "chain of command." On some occasions, he succeeds in spite of the defect... by all appearances, by luck.

But we have no guarantee that luck will be with him next time, because luck is nothing if not fickle. And if he doesn't get lucky next time, he's likely to make a hash of the situation. He may even perform worse than a less inspired but better disciplined captain would in the same situation, because he'll ignore SOP and fail to come up with a better alternative.
________

If we are to evaluate Kirk as a man, we must ask whether his success was due to his own virtues, or in spite of his own vices, or both. Kirk's virtues did help him somewhat, but his vices also hurt him a great deal, and could easily have hurt him (and the Federation) much more.

[Themightytom]

Ah, but Kirk consistently acts in ways that would get him thrown into the brig in a conventional military. We see him do so at least three times in what appears to be less than a week of screen time. He was a disrespectful bad boy when he went into the Academy, and he doesn't appear to have reformed much in his time there.

That is evaluating his functionality relative to real world consequences not those depicted in the movie.

In three of the four cases, some extraneous factor saves him from suffering serious consequences. In the case of the training scenario, he was saved by an attack that forced everyone to go running off without actually assigning him a punishment

He WAS suspended until the board of inquiry made up their mind, but we don't KNOW the consequences would have been serious. We could project what might happen through analysis of the way kirk was treated and through anectdotal evidence presented by other characters. I can only recall vaguely a comment McCoy said to the effect of "The board will probably clear you" or something, and I believe that Kirk ws not restrained in anyway as would be expected of someone facing criminal charges. Until I see the movie again I really can't speak to this other than tos ay we don't know that the consequences would be serious.

When he barged onto the bridge to warn Captain Pike, they were caught in the middle of a space battle so soon that Pike never got round to giving him the chewing-out he so richly deserved (assuming Pike ever planned to do so).

He DID get around to rewarding him by promoting him to first officer. Which lends some credibility to the above theory that the consequences Kirk faced for cheating weren't going to be severe. kirk wouldn't promote someone he knew was about to go to prison would he? Than again he just promoted a stowaway. I propose that if Kirk practiced bad descion-making in demanding pike's attention, it was not over rided by luck, but rather WORSE ddecision making on pike's part. That was a conditional statement on the assumption that it was a bad decision though, I think the situation was urgent enough Kirk ws right to barge in and demand attention, as they very narrowly avoided flying into a trap. I think Pike acknowledged the valid aspects of Kirk's judgement by making him acting first officer, while recognizing the reckless aspect off it by making him subordinate to Spock.

In the second confrontation with Spock, a Starfleet regulation saves him and he again appears to get away with conduct prejudicial to discipline.

No the Starfleet regulation didn't "Save" him, honestly, he would avhe gotten his ass kicked (more) if he had misread Spock's personality. The Starfleet regulation was strategy for overcoming the obstacle. Either way it wasn't luck that created the starfleet obstacle.

Only in his first confrontation with Spock do we see him getting punished in a way roughly consistent with his behavior. Even then, the punishment is seriously flawed; Kirk should have gone to the brig aboard the ship and not been marooned on Delta Vega.

You consider shooting him out an escape pod to a hostile world with predators roaming around to be consistent with arguming with a commanding officer? That lacks internal consistency, as if that were a starfleet policy Kirk would ahve been clapped in irons for cheating the KM if not executed on the spot. Externally, does the UN throw unruly soldiers overboard?

The rest is your opinion and I have enough of my own to defend without challenging yours.

[Darth Wong]

I concede that it is not impossible for Kirk to make a bad decision if I have been making that argument it is an unintentional implication of my original argument and i apologize for it. Kirk can make good decisions or bad ones regardless of the overall pattern of results. I have been arguing that he is functional in his environment and that any fictional character's mental state should be considered within the context of his environment.

This is why people are getting impatient with you. You massively contradict yourself at every turn, and then you accuse people of misunderstanding you.

First: you must choose whether Kirk's decisions can be bad even if the results turn out OK. You have articulated both positions, and I'm not accepting this behaviour any more. Decide. Either it is possible for Kirk to make bad decisions even if the results turn out OK (in which case you are conceding that virtually your entire argument up to this point is bogus) or it is not, in which case you must accept the feces-eating example.

Second: you must acknowledge that if your argument leads to an absurd outcome (such as the impossibility of Kirk making a bad decision), then perhaps there is something wrong with your argument. Instead, you acknowledge that this might be an outcome of your argument, but you argue that it does not reflect poorly on your argument because it is not an intentional outcome. This is not how it works, fucktard. The fact is that you have been arguing vociferously that if Kirk's actions lead to success in his genre (which they always will because he's the good guy), then he must be making good decisions. You can't salvage that argument while simultaneously disavowing its logical conclusion, which is that it is impossible for Kirk to make a bad decision since he always wins.

[Simon_Jester]

That is evaluating his functionality relative to real world consequences not those depicted in the movie.

But the movie Starfleet clearly has regulations against things like cheating on a test and disrespecting a superior officer. The consequences exist in the movie (as we see when Kirk gets marooned after shouting at his captain). The only reason we don't see more of them is that events outside Kirk's control happen to interfere with other people's attempt to bring him back under control. And since Kirk had nothing to do with making those events happen, the fact that those events did suspend or cancel out the consequences of Kirk's actions has nothing to do with whether those actions were right or wrong.

If an action is stupid and it works, it's not stupid. But if it's stupid and it "works" only in the sense that you get away with it due to circumstances beyond your control, it's just as stupid as if you failed. I wasn't being smart in that situation. I can't take credit for randomness, nor can I shield myself from blame by using randomness as a defense.
________

I propose that if Kirk practiced bad descion-making in demanding pike's attention, it was not over rided by luck, but rather WORSE ddecision making on pike's part.

Which is itself a form of luck- Pike is not the kind of man we expect to make bad decisions on a regular basis. If he makes a bad decision in your favor, it's luck on your part.

In the second confrontation with Spock, a Starfleet regulation saves him and he again appears to get away with conduct prejudicial to discipline.

No the Starfleet regulation didn't "Save" him, honestly, he would avhe gotten his ass kicked (more) if he had misread Spock's personality. The Starfleet regulation was strategy for overcoming the obstacle. Either way it wasn't luck that created the starfleet obstacle.

Ah, but the regulation shouldn't save him from conduct prejudicial to discipline. While Spock's fit of rage does give Kirk command of the ship, Kirk had no right to goad Spock into a fit of rage in the first place by insulting an officer who was both captain of his ship and superior to him in rank. Arguably, it qualified as a form of mutiny- a deliberate attempt to overthrow one's commanding officer.

Only in his first confrontation with Spock do we see him getting punished in a way roughly consistent with his behavior. Even then, the punishment is seriously flawed; Kirk should have gone to the brig aboard the ship and not been marooned on Delta Vega.

You consider shooting him out an escape pod to a hostile world with predators roaming around to be consistent with arguming with a commanding officer? That lacks internal consistency, as if that were a starfleet policy Kirk would ahve been clapped in irons for cheating the KM if not executed on the spot. Externally, does the UN throw unruly soldiers overboard?

I said "roughly" consistent. Kirk is relieved of command and rendered unable to interfere with the operations of the ship. Spock does it in the wrong way. It is not a just or appropriate punishment, and Spock would be hard pressed to justify it to a board of inquiry. But Kirk was not left to die; he was deliberately left very close to a remote Federation outpost that could rescue him.

[Themightytom]

First: you must choose whether Kirk's decisions can be bad even if the results turn out OK. You have articulated both positions, and I'm not accepting this behaviour any more. Decide. Either it is possible for Kirk to make bad decisions even if the results turn out OK (in which case you are conceding that virtually your entire argument up to this point is bogus) or it is not, in which case you must accept the feces-eating example.

I concede that Kirk can make bad decision and that the results can turn out ok.
I really think that is a worthless concession because it is qualified by "Good" "bad" and "ok. I would prefer the statement

I concede that Kirk can make an unwise or irrational decision, and the results turn out positive.
If that statement is acceptable. If I ever see an objective measure against which decision-making in a fictional character can be measured rationally I will... think about and not type it anywehre near this forum, I said earlier I was trying to defend an irrational universe through rational means and that I was doomed to fail, and then I tried to develop a logic model which doesn't adequately account for luck or writer's fiat.

Second: you must acknowledge that if your argument leads to an absurd outcome (such as the impossibility of Kirk making a bad decision), then perhaps there is something wrong with your argument.

If my argument LEADS to an absurd outcome, than there is something wrong with my argument, but regular use of the inductive fallacy doesn't mean that just because Kirk can makes a bad decision in the movie he's a raving lunatic. There is something wrong with my conclusion, it was pointed out Sunday, I can't account for it so I give up trying.

Where did I make that assertion?

The fact is that you have been arguing vociferously that if Kirk's actions lead to success in his genre (which they always will because he's the good guy), then he must be making good decisions. You can't salvage that argument while simultaneously disavowing its logical conclusion, which is that it is impossible for Kirk to make a bad decision since he always wins.

That is not a fact, my argument has routinely been that Kirk does not have a crippling character flaw. I argued that the context of Kirk's or any fictional character's actions must be considered by using a global asessment of functioning, reasoning that while the decisions good or bad may not sufficiently reflect decision-making quality their functionality would be an accurate indicator. THIS argument I concede because it has been pointed out

I think this also demonstrates the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of argument 3. A choice may "function" for reasons unrelated to the judgment behind it, thus the first part of the above argument and the following corollaries are logically invalid. For example, in this case it can be argued that Kirk's luck allowed his choices to function despite nonfunctional judgment.

...and my argument collapses, because without a logic model to support functionality as the ultimate indicator of quality decision making there is no objective measure and Dagan's "Watch and leap to conclusions" strategy is the only one available.

[Darth Wong]

I concede that Kirk can make an unwise or irrational decision, and the results turn out positive.

If that statement is acceptable.

Fair enough. So we're right back to square one: Kirk made some incredibly reckless decisions without thinking them through, so he scores poorly as an officer. The whole point of officers is that they make important decisions, hopefully in an intelligent manner.

If I ever see an objective measure against which decision-making in a fictional character can be measured rationally I will... think about and not type it anywehre near this forum, I said earlier I was trying to defend an irrational universe through rational means and that I was doomed to fail, and then I tried to develop a logic model which doesn't adequately account for luck or writer's fiat.

What "logic model"? You never made the slightest attempt to develop anything resembling a "logic model". You merely made declarative statements of your opinion, with no supporting logic other than various excuses to ignore logic.

Don't try to elevate your bullshit into something loftier than it is. To say that a universe is irrational is an idiotic way to evade the logical consequences of character actions, because an irrational universe defies any analysis whatsoever. The only thing you can say about an irrational universe is "I don't know". Anything more than that, and you are implicitly accepting that it obeys some rules.

If we declare that logic does not apply because it's an irrational universe, then I might as well declare that Kirk has two vaginas in his ass and he uses them to recharge the warp engines. Why not? That makes no sense whatsoever, but ... it's an irrational universe! So you can't prove me wrong, nyah nyah nyah nyah!!!

[Themightytom]

What "logic model"? You never made the slightest attempt to develop anything resembling a "logic model". You merely made declarative statements of your opinion, with no supporting logic other than various excuses to ignore logic.

A logic model is also called a logical proof. It is a series of statements that follow one another to a logical conclusion. I posted it Tuesday night. if one of the statments is inturrupted the model is invalid. i couldn't account for all of the points between Argument 1 and Argument 3.

Don't try to elevate your bullshit into something loftier than it is. To say that a universe is irrational is an idiotic way to evade the logical consequences of character actions, because an irrational universe defies any analysis whatsoever. The only thing you can say about an irrational universe is "I don't know". Anything more than that, and you are implicitly accepting that it obeys some rules.

Yup, I was contradicting myself, I see that.

If we declare that logic does not apply because it's an irrational universe, then I might as well declare that Kirk has two vaginas in his ass and he uses them to recharge the warp engines. Why not? That makes no sense whatsoever, but ... it's an irrational universe! So you can't prove me wrong, nyah nyah nyah nyah!!!

Right, I see that, I was proceeding ffrom the assumption that an irrational universe could still be predictable, but as you say the universe would then be a rational one.

[Patrick Degan]

I AM NOT SAYING IT VALIDATES KIRK'S DECISIONMAKING, YOU DISHONEST SACK OF SHIT, I'M SAYING IT'S THE ONLY THING OPERATING TO SHIELD HIM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS DECISIONS! THAT IS NOT VALIDATION, ASSWIPE! You are now OUTRIGHT LYING about my position on this and you will not get away with it.

Uh no, you DEFINITELY said it...

I said no such thing, liar. I'll make this very simple for you: either produce a quote from me saying that luck validated Kirk's assholery and idiocy, or withdraw the statement, or stand revealed for the dishonest little sack of shit you are.

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away.

You responded "It does" directly after I said it doesn't. You responded to a general statement of logic and directly applied it to Kirk's decision-making. You added the qualifier "When it is the only thing keeping nu-kirk out of prison or the morgue. luck does not qualify decision making, it is an extranneous factor in decision making.

Fuck you, shit-sack. The only way you get a "validation" out of that statement is by deliberately misrepresenting my words and taking them out of the overall context of the argument.

Context-restoration in progress:

Now, the movie's world is not an "irrational world", it is simply a stupidly written one and nu-Kirk succeeds only by the sort of pure contrivance you can expect from hack writers who didn't think things through at the keyboard. However, even in that context, let's examine nu-Kirk actions: he makes a joke of Starfleet's KM test, heedless of consequences for drawing an academic charge of cheating upon himself and thereby endangering his entire future career, which shows him to be as immature as the brat who drove his stepfather's Corvette into the mining pit and later the stupid punk who started a barroom brawl with four Starfleet cadets just to wave his dick at them. When he objects to AcnCapt. Spock's intention to follow Capt. Pike's last order to rendezvous with the fleet in the Laurentian system, Kirk attacks his guards on the bridge, making himself a mutineer. Again, not the actions of a mature, stable personality but a dysfunctional little twit with self-control problems. That he succeeds in grabbing command of the Enterprise through plot-contrivance does not help his case any, as he again resorts to the same sort of dick-waving behaviour which had constantly gotten him in trouble in the earlier portions of the movie.

The upshot is that, even in the wholly artificial and contrived world of this movie, nu-Kirk is essentially an asshole punk who does not think through his actions nor considers consequence. He succeeds purely through writers' fiat but his actions are still those of an immature brat instead of a rationally functioning adult.

Unfortunately, the movie shows that Kirk is getting by on incredibly contrived luck when otherwise he should have would up expelled, in the brig, or dead.

You keep trying to justify nu-Kirk's alleged good judgement simply because he managed to come out ahead when his every action demonstrably shows very poor judgement for half the movie and, in anything other than a ridiculously contrived situation, should have landed him on his ass or gotten him killed.

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away.

the luck factor which has been written into this movie insulating him from the consequences of his bad choices.

That first quote in the above passage was from a post you did not even bother to address at all. It's plain as text that you have cherry-picked one sentence and have hung your defence upon it by ignoring context and you continue to do it. And I will make you eat this until you either concede, or this thread gets HOSed, or a moderator finally decides your entertainment value has expired.

Luck can intefere with outcome, introducing variability, which is why repetitive occurrence has more validity than individual cases.

Luck is immaterial to whether a course of decisionmaking is good or bad, shit-sack. It is especially immaterial to the question of nu-Kirk's demonstrable idiocy when he makes one bad decision after another after another after another and escapes the consequences by luck, i.e. pure writers' fiat. That he gets incredibly, stupidly lucky DOES NOT MEAN HIS DECISIONMAKING IS CORRECT, SHIT-SACK. DOES THAT START TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO YOU?

In case it's escaped your notice, dishonest one, everybody else in this thread has been providing objective criteria for evaluating nu-Kirk's decisionmaking and where it falls down and you have simply deliberately ignored it and think you can keep ignoring it forever. The principles are those of simple observation.

Observation is objective criteria? You offer personal interpretations of events, predictions of cosnequences not depicted and no quantifiable standard of measurement. That is not objective.

Wrong again, liar. Observation weighs far more heavily than hearsay or opinion and can be confirmed by multiple observers looking at the same material and evaluating a clear chain of cause and effect. nu-Kirk acts like an asshole and starts a barroom brawl, one of many repeat offenses —as alluded to by Capt. Pike. nu-Kirk not only openly cheats on an academy simulation but openly shows contempt for the instructors running the sim and draws an academic suspension. nu-Kirk, failing to get his way, attacks two guards on the bridge of the Enterprise and sets himself up for a charge of mutiny. That is what we actually see in the fucking movie, asswipe. It is YOU who is offering nothing but personal interpretations and dishonest bulfuckery on top of it to try to rescue a fundamentally broken argument.

We can see that he is operating from little to no knowledge of either the situation he's heedlessly leaping into, or the consequences of his own actions.

Compared to what? Without an objkective standard...nothing, so your observations ahve little meaning.

And we're right back to your little Special Pleading Fallacy once again, aren't we, shit-sack?

No, that's your effort to duck and weave all over this thread to avoid the consequences of defending a fundamentally broken argument.

rhetoric

Fact.

Sayeth the builder of this thread's Wall of Ignorance.

rhetoric

Fact.

Translation: "it's a fictional universe with it's own rules, therefore Kirk's actions work". That is Special Pleading, asswipe.

Not if the rule for evaluation is "Evaluate in context"

Sayeth the liar who lifted one part of my argument wholly out of context to twist it's meaning.

I presented evidence of this understanding in real world psychology by pointing out a scale that measures subjective criteria within objective diagnostic criteria.I even gave up and walked away, acknowledging that you weren't agreeing with any of my evidence and therefore it must be I who was misrepresenting it. Now I am responding under duress by presenting a rudeimentary logical proof to demosntrate adequate jutification for my premise.

If you say so, Gracie...

Either a concession that I have presented evidence or more rhetoric.

I am not responsible for your fantasies, shit-sack.

No, dishonest one, I have replied with solid rebuttals as to why your argument is broken and now you're down to outright denial.

A rebuttal with no evidence is "I'm right and you're wrong"

You mean the way you've been doing through half this thread. Well, since you're determined to keep up this dishonest dance of yours:

Now, the movie's world is not an "irrational world", it is simply a stupidly written one and nu-Kirk succeeds only by the sort of pure contrivance you can expect from hack writers who didn't think things through at the keyboard. However, even in that context, let's examine nu-Kirk actions: he makes a joke of Starfleet's KM test, heedless of consequences for drawing an academic charge of cheating upon himself and thereby endangering his entire future career, which shows him to be as immature as the brat who drove his stepfather's Corvette into the mining pit and later the stupid punk who started a barroom brawl with four Starfleet cadets just to wave his dick at them. When he objects to AcnCapt. Spock's intention to follow Capt. Pike's last order to rendezvous with the fleet in the Laurentian system, Kirk attacks his guards on the bridge, making himself a mutineer. Again, not the actions of a mature, stable personality but a dysfunctional little twit with self-control problems. That he succeeds in grabbing command of the Enterprise through plot-contrivance does not help his case any, as he again resorts to the same sort of dick-waving behaviour which had constantly gotten him in trouble in the earlier portions of the movie.

The upshot is that, even in the wholly artificial and contrived world of this movie, nu-Kirk is essentially an asshole punk who does not think through his actions nor considers consequence. He succeeds purely through writers' fiat but his actions are still those of an immature brat instead of a rationally functioning adult.

Unfortunately, the movie shows that Kirk is getting by on incredibly contrived luck when otherwise he should have would up expelled, in the brig, or dead.

You keep trying to justify nu-Kirk's alleged good judgement simply because he managed to come out ahead when his every action demonstrably shows very poor judgement for half the movie and, in anything other than a ridiculously contrived situation, should have landed him on his ass or gotten him killed.

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away.

the luck factor which has been written into this movie insulating him from the consequences of his bad choices.

That first quote in the above passage was from a post you did not even bother to address at all. It's plain as text that you have cherry-picked one sentence and have hung your defence upon it by ignoring context and you continue to do it, and you continue to ignore evidence from the movie which is inconvenient to you. And I will make you eat this until you either concede, or this thread gets HOSed, or a moderator finally decides your entertainment value has expired.

Translation: LALALALALALALALALALAL I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA... Keep pretending that you're actually making a valid rebuttal of anything with your denials. And that was a counter-argument, asswipe: you tried playing semantical games to say one argument was invalid while the other was not and the only difference was a trivial one of terminology.

temper tantrum/ rhetoric...

Fact.

[Themightytom]

I AM NOT SAYING IT VALIDATES KIRK'S DECISIONMAKING, YOU DISHONEST SACK OF SHIT, I'M SAYING IT'S THE ONLY THING OPERATING TO SHIELD HIM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS DECISIONS! THAT IS NOT VALIDATION, ASSWIPE! You are now OUTRIGHT LYING about my position on this and you will not get away with it.

Uh no, you DEFINITELY said it...

I said no such thing, liar. I'll make this very simple for you: either produce a quote from me saying that luck validated Kirk's assholery and idiocy, or withdraw the statement, or stand revealed for the dishonest little sack of shit you are.

Yes you did and I already provided that quote in my last post to you. here it is again.

Luck neither proves nor disproves the quality of decision making, it is an extraneous factor.

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decision-making should be landing him and you continuously try to hand wave that inconvenient fact away.

You responded "It does" directly after I said it doesn't. You responded to a general statement of logic and directly applied it to Kirk's decision-making. You added the qualifier "When it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue. luck does not qualify decision making, it is an extraneous factor in decision making. [/quote]

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decision-making should be landing him and you continuously try to hand wave that inconvenient fact away.

You responded "It does" directly after I said it doesn't. You responded to a general statement of logic and directly applied it to Kirk's decision-making. You added the qualifier "When it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue. luck does not qualify decision making, it is an extraneous factor in decision making.

Then you rewrite to restore context? Whatever, that’s as dishonest as it gets. I already conceded the original argument, namely the logic model you were trying to debunk. Someone else did that for you while you were busy tripping over your own words.

Fuck you, shit-sack. The only way you get a "validation" out of that statement is by deliberately misrepresenting my words and taking them out of the overall context of the argument.

Who’s deliberately misrepresenting? You made a comment in direct reference to, and immediately following my comment that luck doesn't validate decision making, because you were so caught up in debating ANY point I offered, you were no longer bother to consider them. Sure, fine get frustrated but don't blame me when you become nonsensical.

You keep trying to justify nu-Kirk's alleged good judgment simply because he managed to come out ahead when his every action demonstrably shows very poor judgment for half the movie and, in anything other than a ridiculously contrived situation, should have landed him on his ass or gotten him killed.

I already conceded this point to mike, I agree I WAS trying to state that Kirk's functional condition could be measured to more accurately gauge his success or failure than by measuring singular episodes. My bad, that’s only how we do it in the real world, (Already posted the GAF so don't bother asking for evidence of this assertion). it doesn't matter though. in a fictional universe writer's fiat, "luck" or the ghost of Christmas past can consistently interfere with results so I concede the functional scale doesn't work on fictional characters.

That first quote in the above passage was from a post you did not even bother to address at all. It's plain as text that you have cherry-picked one sentence and have hung your defense upon it by ignoring context and you continue to do it. And I will make you eat this until you either concede, or this thread gets HOSed, or a moderator finally decides your entertainment value has expired.

Did I hurt your feelings? my bad. I didn't respond to your post because

a. You referenced events in the movie I had previously admitted I couldn't speak to without a rewatch.
b. You compared these events to a completely different fictional universe??
c. You never once directly addressed me in that entire post, so I assumed you were addressing the thread at large for personal entertainment value.
d. Mike Wong. you were completely eclipsed by his post. I realize its weak but he DOES own the site.

None of these JUSTIFY my missing your post, I will concede that if you ask me to, I was jsut clarifying how I missed it. I'm not even being a dick either I really do apologize.

Luck can interfere with outcome, introducing variability, which is why repetitive occurrence has more validity than individual cases.

Luck is immaterial to whether a course of decision-making is good or bad, shit-sack. It is especially immaterial to the question of nu-Kirk's demonstrable idiocy when he makes one bad decision after another after another after another and escapes the consequences by luck, i.e. pure writers' fiat. That he gets incredibly, stupidly lucky DOES NOT MEAN HIS DECISIONMAKING IS CORRECT, SHIT-SACK. DOES THAT START TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO YOU?

Luck is an extraneous variable in the now defunct logical proof. We agree on this? lets not rehash it if we both think luck does not validate decision making.

Wrong again, liar. Observation weighs far more heavily than hearsay or opinion and can be confirmed by multiple observers looking at the same material and evaluating a clear chain of cause and effect. nu-Kirk acts like an asshole and starts a barroom brawl, one of many repeat offenses —as alluded to by Capt. Pike. nu-Kirk not only openly cheats on an academy simulation but openly shows contempt for the instructors running the sim and draws an academic suspension. nu-Kirk, failing to get his way, attacks two guards on the bridge of the Enterprise and sets himself up for a charge of mutiny. That is what we actually see in the fucking movie, asswipe. It is YOU who is offering nothing but personal interpretations and dishonest bulfuckery on top of it to try to rescue a fundamentally broken argument.

Wow that’s groundbreaking, if only someone would start an opinion poll to gather cumulative data on interpretations of an event in the movie... Oh wait. I DID. Consistent conclusions from observation has higher validity on which to base assumptions as long as

-The observers aren't introducing bias by discussing their observations which each other. Um you're in a discussion forum discussing your observations with others...

-You have a standardized method of measurement (Like asking everybody to choose the best answer out of predetermined choices). if you want to try that for every event you would like to present as evidence, go for it, it’s a ridiculous waste of time, and at the end day is still subject to inductive reasoning fallacy, as well as several forms of experimental bias.
Which is why it would have been preferable to identify a single factor which would indicate.
I give up on that, my proposal that global functioning could stand as a measure did not hold up under scrutiny.

=There isn't a better way to do it. I proposed that there was, and my argument was defeated. We are now stuck with rediculously tedius cse by case argument which still amounts ultimately to a weak case.

And we're right back to your little Special Pleading Fallacy once again, aren't we, shit-sack?

You DO know it is only a fallacy if special treatment can't be justified right? otherwise it is appropriate discrimination. I presented real world evidence that this method is used by psychologists with preference.

Sayeth the liar who lifted one part of my argument wholly out of context to twist it's meaning.

You lifted your own comments in order to "restore" context. The context in which you meant them, apparently, not the context in which you presented them.

Which you immediately do AGAIN following the quote above but I'm not rehashing an identical statement within a post.

Translation: LALALALALALALALALALAL I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA... Keep pretending that you're actually making a valid rebuttal of anything with your denials. And that was a counter-argument, asswipe: you tried playing semantical games to say one argument was invalid while the other was not and the only difference was a trivial one of terminology.

temper tantrum/ rhetoric...

Fact.[/quote]

I'm just leaving that one up because you demonstrate epic petulance,

[Patrick Degan]

I'll make this very simple for you: either produce a quote from me saying that luck validated Kirk's assholery and idiocy, or withdraw the statement, or stand revealed for the dishonest little sack of shit you are.

Yes you did and I already provided that quote in my last post to you. here it is again.

So, you actually think repeating your out-of-context lie about my argument actually makes it valid?

Then you rewrite to restore context? Whatever, that’s as dishonest as it gets. I already conceded the original argument, namely the logic model you were trying to debunk. Someone else did that for you while you were busy tripping over your own words.

Fuck you, shit–sack. I grow tired of your endless dishonesty about my arguments and even after it's been demonstrated how you lifted the one statement out-of-context, you still arrogantly pretend that you can get away with it.

The only way you get a "validation" out of that statement is by deliberately misrepresenting my words and taking them out of the overall context of the argument.

Who’s deliberately misrepresenting? You made a comment in direct reference to, and immediately following my comment that luck doesn't validate decision making, because you were so caught up in debating ANY point I offered, you were no longer bother to consider them.

Which you deliberately lifted out-of-context, have deliberately lied about and continue to lie about it.

Sure, fine get frustrated but don't blame me when you become nonsensical.

Once again, I am not responsible for your fantasies, you smarmy little asshole.

You keep trying to justify nu-Kirk's alleged good judgment simply because he managed to come out ahead when his every action demonstrably shows very poor judgment for half the movie and, in anything other than a ridiculously contrived situation, should have landed him on his ass or gotten him killed.

I already conceded this point to mike, I agree I WAS trying to state that Kirk's functional condition could be measured to more accurately gauge his success or failure than by measuring singular episodes. My bad, that’s only how we do it in the real world, (Already posted the GAF so don't bother asking for evidence of this assertion). it doesn't matter though. in a fictional universe writer's fiat, "luck" or the ghost of Christmas past can consistently interfere with results so I concede the functional scale doesn't work on fictional characters.

Your "concession" has been like your other "concessions", inasmuch as you make them but then go back and keep arguing a half-assed defence of a broken argument instead of just simply shutting the fuck up. That's not concession, that's you trying to evade a roadblock.

That first quote in the above passage was from a post you did not even bother to address at all. It's plain as text that you have cherry-picked one sentence and have hung your defense upon it by ignoring context and you continue to do it. And I will make you eat this until you either concede, or this thread gets HOSed, or a moderator finally decides your entertainment value has expired.

Did I hurt your feelings? my bad. I didn't respond to your post because

a. You referenced events in the movie I had previously admitted I couldn't speak to without a rewatch.
b. You compared these events to a completely different fictional universe??
c. You never once directly addressed me in that entire post, so I assumed you were addressing the thread at large for personal entertainment value.
d. Mike Wong. you were completely eclipsed by his post. I realize its weak but he DOES own the site.

None of these JUSTIFY my missing your post, I will concede that if you ask me to, I was jsut clarifying how I missed it. I'm not even being a dick either I really do apologize.

You'll pardon me if I fail to see any sincerity in this "apology". The post in question had bearing on the very arguments you were putting forth, and encapsulated the rebuttal points you had and continue to try to handwave away. The plain fact is that you evidently read or at least saw it, and proceeded to ignore the arguments therein. Now you'll try to dismiss it by making this a matter of "hurt feelings" instead of the plain fact that you evaded a series of rebuttals.

Luck can interfere with outcome, introducing variability, which is why repetitive occurrence has more validity than individual cases.

Luck is immaterial to whether a course of decision-making is good or bad, shit-sack. It is especially immaterial to the question of nu-Kirk's demonstrable idiocy when he makes one bad decision after another after another after another and escapes the consequences by luck, i.e. pure writers' fiat. That he gets incredibly, stupidly lucky DOES NOT MEAN HIS DECISIONMAKING IS CORRECT, SHIT-SACK. DOES THAT START TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO YOU?

Luck is an extraneous variable in the now defunct logical proof. We agree on this? lets not rehash it if we both think luck does not validate decision making.

Then you are conceding that you took my one statement out-of-context, yes?

Wrong again, liar. Observation weighs far more heavily than hearsay or opinion and can be confirmed by multiple observers looking at the same material and evaluating a clear chain of cause and effect. nu-Kirk acts like an asshole and starts a barroom brawl, one of many repeat offenses —as alluded to by Capt. Pike. nu-Kirk not only openly cheats on an academy simulation but openly shows contempt for the instructors running the sim and draws an academic suspension. nu-Kirk, failing to get his way, attacks two guards on the bridge of the Enterprise and sets himself up for a charge of mutiny. That is what we actually see in the fucking movie, asswipe. It is YOU who is offering nothing but personal interpretations and dishonest bulfuckery on top of it to try to rescue a fundamentally broken argument.

Wow that’s groundbreaking, if only someone would start an opinion poll to gather cumulative data on interpretations of an event in the movie... Oh wait. I DID. Consistent conclusions from observation has higher validity on which to base assumptions as long as

-The observers aren't introducing bias by discussing their observations which each other. Um you're in a discussion forum discussing your observations with others...

-You have a standardized method of measurement (Like asking everybody to choose the best answer out of predetermined choices). if you want to try that for every event you would like to present as evidence, go for it, it’s a ridiculous waste of time, and at the end day is still subject to inductive reasoning fallacy, as well as several forms of experimental bias.
Which is why it would have been preferable to identify a single factor which would indicate.
I give up on that, my proposal that global functioning could stand as a measure did not hold up under scrutiny.

=There isn't a better way to do it. I proposed that there was, and my argument was defeated. We are now stuck with rediculously tedius cse by case argument which still amounts ultimately to a weak case.

This is not a matter of determining truth by opinion-survey, no matter how much you think it is. Nor is any sort of inductive fallacy at work here: we've got all the information presented in the movie, so there is no limited sampling of information leading to a hasty generalisation, nor is any one incident being taken as exclusionary to all others and therefore is not an unrepresentative sample. Nor is any one incident of nu-Kirk's idiocy sufficently different from another to draw a false analogy from a "seeming" parallel. Nor is evidence being excluded (except by you). So no. No inductive fallacies which rebut the central observation that nu-Kirk is demonstrably an immature asshole who consistently makes and made wrong decisions and only succeeds by writers' fiat i.e. "luck".

And we're right back to your little Special Pleading Fallacy once again, aren't we, shit-sack?

You DO know it is only a fallacy if special treatment can't be justified right? otherwise it is appropriate discrimination. I presented real world evidence that this method is used by psychologists with preference.

Sorry, but there is no relevant difference which invalidates your use of a Special Pleading Fallacy in this thread. And "it's a fictional character in a fictional universe" doesn't count on that score.

Sayeth the liar who lifted one part of my argument wholly out of context to twist it's meaning.

You lifted your own comments in order to "restore" context. The context in which you meant them, apparently, not the context in which you presented them.

I thought so —no intention whatsoever of admitting that you lied about my argument by quoting me out-of-context. How unsurprising.

Translation: LALALALALALALALALALAL I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA... Keep pretending that you're actually making a valid rebuttal of anything with your denials. And that was a counter-argument, asswipe: you tried playing semantical games to say one argument was invalid while the other was not and the only difference was a trivial one of terminology.

temper tantrum/ rhetoric...

Fact.

I'm just leaving that one up because you demonstrate epic petulance,

And you demonstrate epic dishonesty and smarminess.

[Themightytom]

Which you deliberately lifted out-of-context, have deliberately lied about and continue to lie about it.

No, the context was intuitively obvious to even a casual observer.

Your "concession" has been like your other "concessions", inasmuch as you make them but then go back and keep arguing a half-assed defence of a broken argument instead of just simply shutting the fuck up. That's not concession, that's you trying to evade a roadblock.

Nope I conceded the argument.

You'll pardon me if I fail to see any sincerity in this "apology". The post in question had bearing on the very arguments you were putting forth, and encapsulated the rebuttal points you had and continue to try to handwave away. The plain fact is that you evidently read or at least saw it, and proceeded to ignore the arguments therein. Now you'll try to dismiss it by making this a matter of "hurt feelings" instead of the plain fact that you evaded a series of rebuttals.

No, I acknowledge I did not realize the significance of your post and did not offer rebuttals.

Luck is an extraneous variable in the now defunct logical proof. We agree on this? lets not rehash it if we both think luck does not validate decision making.

Then you are conceding that you took my one statement out-of-context, yes?

No I still think you fired off an argument without realizing it contradicted everything else you'd been saying/ I concede that we agree on the issue.

This is not a matter of determining truth by opinion-survey, no matter how much you think it is. Nor is any sort of inductive fallacy at work here: we've got all the information presented in the movie, so there is no limited sampling of information leading to a hasty generalisation, nor is any one incident being taken as exclusionary to all others and therefore is not an unrepresentative sample.

I already conceded the GAF doesn't work on a fictional character so I concede the inductive fallacy.

And we're right back to your little Special Pleading Fallacy once again, aren't we, shit-sack?

You DO know it is only a fallacy if special treatment can't be justified right? otherwise it is appropriate discrimination. I presented real world evidence that this method is used by psychologists with preference.

Sorry, but there is no relevant difference which invalidates your use of a Special Pleading Fallacy in this thread. And "it's a fictional character in a fictional universe" doesn't count on that score.

Right and thas why I conceded it. The entire argument to justify special pleading whas that in irrational world deserves irrational treatment, which was already debunked by Mike.

I thought so —no intention whatsoever of admitting that you lied about my argument by quoting me out-of-context. How unsurprising.

I didn't lie about your argument, you put your statement RIGHT after one of my own, and referred to my statement, lunking them and then employed MY statment as evidence of your statment.

[Patrick Degan]

Which you deliberately lifted out-of-context, have deliberately lied about and continue to lie about it.

No, the context was intuitively obvious to even a casual observer.

Yes it is —unfortunately for you. Because there is no honest way to say that "It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away." = "Kirk's decisionmaking is valid due to his extraordinary good luck".

Even in the terms of the immediate exchange, there is no endorsement on my part of the idea that luck = validation of bad decisions. Especially as I'm critical of the whole notion. As evidenced:

1) Luck does not qualify decisions. Therefore luck should not be the measure by which we evaluate decisions.

2) Unfortunately, the movie shows that Kirk is getting by on incredibly contrived luck when otherwise he should have would up expelled, in the brig, or dead.

3) Consistent function of outcome reflects consistent quality of choice.

4) In a word, bullshit. Once more, you keep trying to justify nu-Kirk's alleged good judgement simply because he managed to come out ahead when his every action demonstrably shows very poor judgement for half the movie and, in anything other than a ridiculously contrived situation, should have landed him on his ass or gotten him killed.

5) Luck neither proves nor disproves the quality of decision making, it is an extraneous factor.

6) It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away.

7) A choice functions according to judgment. If choice functions, judgment functions. Judgment can be accessed through function

8 ) And this argument fails because when judgment is flawed, choices are flawed and the outcome is similarly flawed. And this leads back to why Argument 2 fails.

9) That argument is perfectly valid! It suggests that flawed judgement will produce dysfunctional results.

10) Which is what nu-Kirk is doing except for the luck factor which has been written into this movie insulating him from the consequences of his bad choices.

Now, in that chain of argument, I am making clear that I find the notion of nu-Kirk's incredible luck validating his incredible stupidity to be rank bullshit. YOU, on the other hand, tossed out the entire exchange except for that one sentence you cherry-picked and clearly parsed out the first two words as your "proof" that I'm saying something I am not saying.

You then say you're not defending the "luck factor" in this movie. Except in answer to Mike, you then offer this hilarious little gem:

I have expressed concern in the past about my ability to make an argument for a situation I do not have acccess to intimate details for, but I will make an attempt anyway. In describing this situation I will concede that the degree of favorable probability Kirk experiences is unlikely in the real world, but obviously this is not luck, it is intelligent design. Kirk's universe has a God in the form of J.J. Abrahms and he has designed events to favor Kirk at every opportunity. This results in an irrational sequence of events that validate irrrational behavior with regular and repeated success.

And that's you trying to argue both sides of the issue and shifting between them whenever convenient. So which was your position, exactly? This:

Luck does not qualify decisions. Therefore luck should not be the measure by which we evaluate decisions.

Or this:

In describing this situation I will concede that the degree of favorable probability Kirk experiences is unlikely in the real world, but obviously this is not luck, it is intelligent design. Kirk's universe has a God in the form of J.J. Abrahms and he has designed events to favor Kirk at every opportunity. This results in an irrational sequence of events that validate irrrational behavior with regular and repeated success.

To which Havok pointed out:

Except that "God" is irrationally pulling strings for Kirk. That is the same as luck to anyone in universe without knowledge of "God/JJ", which would be uh... everyone. Basically you are saying that Kirk only succeeds because JJ Abrahms wishes it.

Which essentially makes the "it's not luck but ID" position functionally no different from "luck", which you did indeed attempt to use as validation for nu-Kirk's decisionmaking.

Your "concession" has been like your other "concessions", inasmuch as you make them but then go back and keep arguing a half-assed defence of a broken argument instead of just simply shutting the fuck up. That's not concession, that's you trying to evade a roadblock.

Nope I conceded the argument.

And then proceeded to defend it —or your mode of argument— after the fact anyway. That is not how "concession" works.

You'll pardon me if I fail to see any sincerity in this "apology". The post in question had bearing on the very arguments you were putting forth, and encapsulated the rebuttal points you had and continue to try to handwave away. The plain fact is that you evidently read or at least saw it, and proceeded to ignore the arguments therein. Now you'll try to dismiss it by making this a matter of "hurt feelings" instead of the plain fact that you evaded a series of rebuttals.

No, I acknowledge I did not realize the significance of your post and did not offer rebuttals.

Since the post in question was directly relevant to every argument you were making, I find that one hard to digest.

Luck is an extraneous variable in the now defunct logical proof. We agree on this? lets not rehash it if we both think luck does not validate decision making.

Then you are conceding that you took my one statement out-of-context, yes?

No I still think you fired off an argument without realizing it contradicted everything else you'd been saying/ I concede that we agree on the issue.

Still trying to have it both ways, aren't you?

I thought so —no intention whatsoever of admitting that you lied about my argument by quoting me out-of-context. How unsurprising.

I didn't lie about your argument, you put your statement RIGHT after one of my own, and referred to my statement, lunking them and then employed MY statment as evidence of your statment.

No, my statement was but one rebuttal of one point in your overall argument, which you were supporting by the luck factor validating nu-Kirk's decisions because they resulted in consistent success. That is, until you then said luck was extraneous to evade rebuttal on that line. Until you then went on to invoke Intelligent Design on the part of the "God" of the nu-Trekverse producing consistent success for nu-Kirk in defiance of all rational probability. Which, really, is no different from invoking "luck" as explanation.

[Prannon]

Just to add my two cents and then step out again, I wanna make two points. First, Star Trek is made for an audience, and thus has to appeal to them and entertain them. Part of being entertained is judging the material and finding it worthy. The typical people who judge Star Trek's merits are not going to judge it by the writers' standards, but rather by their own standards, which are often very different. Despite this, the writer can usually help the audience decide why prism to judge the material by. For example, if I'm watching Looney Toons, the animators and writers of that material are going to make it clear to me that I shouldn't take it too seriously, so I shouldn't judge it on real world merits. If I'm watching 12 Angry Men on the other hand, the writers and actors are trying to act as realistic as possible and they make it clear to me that I should judge it on more realistic merits.

Now, let's suppose that the Star Trek universe functions differently than the real world, such that Kirk's bad decisions are actually good decisions because things function differently there. The writers would have to make it apparent to me somehow that I shouldn't take the material too seriously such that I would hold Kirk's bad decisions against him. However, nuStar Trek takes itself deadly serious whenever Kirk makes decisions. The audience isn't laughing in any of those moments. Furthermore, for most of the movie people are acting like real people and trying to be convincing at it. The whole tone of the movie suggests that the audience is supposed to take it seriously most of the time.

So, given the tone of the film and the writer's intent that implies, I choose to judge Kirk on more realistic merits. Those merits tell me that Kirk was very lucky that he never suffered serious consequences as a result of his ass-hatery and bad decision making. Consider, he cheated on the KM test, he was smuggled on board of Enterprise when he wasn't supposed to be there, as a cadet he directly and violently challenged the orders of a superior officer, almost got eaten, and beamed aboard an enemy ship virtually alone with no knowledge of its structure or crew compliments. He was almost killed something like...three times. Each time some sort of deus ex machina or writer's fiat came to his rescue, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't much like the guy for his attitude and behavior. In this sense, the writers' failed to entertain me because they failed to live up to the serious, realistic tone they created. They created an unlikeable character who doesn't suffer for his actions.

This concludes my contribution. I return you to your regular programming of vitriol.

[Themightytom]

Yes it is —unfortunately for you. Because there is no honest way to say that "It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away." = "Kirk's decisionmaking is valid due to his extraordinary good luck".

I challenged your statement because it DIDN’T make sense, I was trying to develop a logic model that would apply to all fictional characters, because I had previously asserted I did not want to defend an interpretation of Kirk after only one viewing of the movie. You offered a rebuttal to a statement in which I argued “luck doesn’t validate decision-making” and you put it in the context of a movie where it had been previously argued, that Kirk was a lucky son of a bitch. You were clearly arguing that Luck was a factor in determining the outcome of a choice, but your statement was false.
How do you even justify making an argument if you agreed with the statement? What were you referring to when you said “it does”

If someone cleaned your rhetoric out of your original statement you would be saying “it does because that’s the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue and that’s where his prison making should land him”"You essentially stated “Kirk’s decisions brought him luck.” Which is why I argued.

Even in the terms of the immediate exchange, there is no endorsement on my part of the idea that luck = validation of bad decisions. Especially as I'm critical of the whole notion. As evidenced:

You have presented a larger body off evidence that you are critical of my logic, if you are going to fall back on "This act was out of character for me" maybe you reconsider how you characterize yourself. Your posts are one third argument and two thirds ad hominem rhetoric. You would absolutely argue a point regardless of agreement, if you thought it helped discredit other of my arguments, as is evidenced by your frequent referral of me as "Little Tommy".

Not that any of that is unacceptable on this site, but it speaks to your style and intent.

Luck does not qualify decisions. Therefore luck should not be the measure by which we evaluate decisions.

2) Unfortunately, the movie shows that Kirk is getting by on incredibly contrived luck when otherwise he should have would up expelled, in the brig, or dead.

I made a neutral statement with no reference to Star Trek as part of a conccession on hwo to treat fictional characters. You applied the Star Trek argument and INTRODUCED luck as a factor in evaluating decisions.

3) Consistent function of outcome reflects consistent quality of choice.

4) In a word, bullshit. Once more, you keep trying to justify nu-Kirk's alleged good judgement simply because he managed to come out ahead when his every action demonstrably shows very poor judgement for half the movie and, in anything other than a ridiculously contrived situation, should have landed him on his ass or gotten him killed.

As it turns out this argument WAS bullshit and one I conceded. You could have saved us both a lot of trouble if you had just argued "Function doesn't reflect quality of choice, because other factors may influence functionality at time of measure." Instead you accused me of continuing to try to assert Kirk's judgement was sound when I had already abandoned that argument and was trying to proceed from a logical proof.

5) Luck neither proves nor disproves the quality of decision making, it is an extraneous factor.

6) It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away.

lest you accuse me of taking the argument in question out of context, let me recap before addressing it. In the first exchange you introduced luck as a factor in decision making, Then accused me of trying justify Kirk's actions rather than come up with a logical model for evlaluating behavior. Here I have tried as neutrally as possible to state that luck should not be a factor in evaluating decision-making, and you replied "IT does" and proceeded to outline circumstances in which "It did."

It is completely legitimate for me to interpret your statement as purely argumentative, and it was apropriae for me to point out that luck should not validate decision- making. I have conceded that luck can influence the outcome of decision making, but ti does not validate it.

7) A choice functions according to judgment. If choice functions, judgment functions. Judgment can be accessed through function

8 ) And this argument fails because when judgment is flawed, choices are flawed and the outcome is similarly flawed. And this leads back to why Argument 2 fails.

9) That argument is perfectly valid! It suggests that flawed judgement will produce dysfunctional results.

10) Which is what nu-Kirk is doing except for the luck factor which has been written into this movie insulating him from the consequences of his bad choices.

[/quote]

In point three you accused my argument of failing and then presented evidence that supports my argument. Then you backpedaled to point out that Kirk's results were biased by a luck factor. I conceded that point. I didn't toss out the entire chain but another poster made a more direct argument was impossible to refute.

In my quote to Mike:

I have expressed concern in the past about my ability to make an argument for a situation I do not have acccess to intimate details for, but I will make an attempt anyway. In describing this situation I will concede that the degree of favorable probability Kirk experiences is unlikely in the real world, but obviously this is not luck, it is intelligent design. Kirk's universe has a God in the form of J.J. Abrahms and he has designed events to favor Kirk at every opportunity. This results in an irrational sequence of events that validate irrrational behavior with regular and repeated success.

Wow great evidence. That was actually where I was arguing intelligent design (Which Mike identified as writer's fiat) validated decision making. Which I conceded anyway. Writer's fiat was in fact influencing the functional outcome, biasing it to a degree that it could ne be a measure of decision-making.

Luck is just a combination of circumstances, its not a supernatural intelligence. Regardless of how it "Appears" to individuals in universe, there IS an "intelligent design" or "Writer's fiat" aspect to Star Trek.The reason luck doesn't validate decision making is because it is not a predictable factor, so no true decision-making can be made based on it.

I was pointing out that if one discerns a pattern and makes choices based on it, that is part off the decision making process, as opposed to hoping for good luck when luck is a pattnernless phenomanon.

Except that "God" is irrationally pulling strings for Kirk. That is the same as luck to anyone in universe without knowledge of "God/JJ", which would be uh... everyone. Basically you are saying that Kirk only succeeds because JJ Abrahms wishes it.

Your "restoring context" again. Havok wasn't replying to the comment you claim. the actual exchange was

How is Good Luck Super Powers different from God watching out for you?

For one, intelligent design would suggest a universe that does not neccesarily function rationally, whereas "good luck superpowers" suggests that Kirk's universe functions irrationally exclusively for him. In a rationalo univers, such a characteristic would ultiamtely be subject to rational undersanding. Superman's flight can be defined for example ebcause it exists within a rational context. Jesus ascending to the heavens would not have a rational explanation.

Except that "God" is irrationally pulling strings for Kirk. That is the same as luck to anyone in universe without knowledge of "God/JJ", which would be uh... everyone. Basically you are saying that Kirk only succeeds because JJ Abrahms wishes it.

Think about that for a minute.

"luck" was a descriptor for "Superpowers" not a reference to an encompassing phenomenon. At least that was my interpretation of Mike's original statement. You're right, belief in luck and belief in God are the same in that they support a belief in a supernatural force that governs outcome.

Out of universe Kirk DOES only succeed because J.J. Abrahms wishes him to, because not only does Abrahms govern the fictional universe but he also dictates Kirk's actions. In universe, Kirk response to the conditions so part of his success is due to his participation.

Which essentially makes the "it's not luck but ID" position functionally no different from "luck", which you did indeed attempt to use as validation for nu-Kirk's decisionmaking.

WHich actually DOESN'T make them "no different". Superpowers are a kinown quantity that can be observed and predicted. Even intelligent design should have predictable qualities, Luck? Ther eis no predictability to luck, therefore it does not validate decision making.

Still trying to have it both ways, aren't you?

No you attempted to shift the debate from being over what you said, to what you were arguing, which is an argument that is defunct. I am only compelled to defend my statements at this point, not to resurrect an argument I already lost.

No, my statement was but one rebuttal of one point in your overall argument, which you were supporting by the luck factor validating nu-Kirk's decisions because they resulted in consistent success. That is, until you then said luck was extraneous to evade rebuttal on that line. Until you then went on to invoke Intelligent Design on the part of the "God" of the nu-Trekverse producing consistent success for nu-Kirk in defiance of all rational probability. Which, really, is no different from invoking "luck" as explanation.

Well that one rebuttal was poorly concieved and badly delivered.
The argument that I am wrong about what yous said, because I was wrong about how to evaluate fictional characters is a "you too" fallacy. As I have conceded those points I don't see a point in resurrecting them continually beyond defending my response to your original statement.

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decision-making should be landing him and you continuously try to hand wave that inconvenient fact away.

You can keep picking apart megaposts Degan but I already presented tthe evidence defending my statement, and I'm not going to keep circling unless a mod requires me to. This is completely off topic.

[Patrick Degan]

Yes it is —unfortunately for you. Because there is no honest way to say that "It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away." = "Kirk's decisionmaking is valid due to his extraordinary good luck".

I challenged your statement because it DIDN’T make sense, I was trying to develop a logic model that would apply to all fictional characters, because I had previously asserted I did not want to defend an interpretation of Kirk after only one viewing of the movie. You offered a rebuttal to a statement in which I argued “luck doesn’t validate decision-making” and you put it in the context of a movie where it had been previously argued, that Kirk was a lucky son of a bitch. You were clearly arguing that Luck was a factor in determining the outcome of a choice, but your statement was false.
How do you even justify making an argument if you agreed with the statement? What were you referring to when you said “it does”

If someone cleaned your rhetoric out of your original statement you would be saying “it does because that’s the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue and that’s where his prison making should land him”"You essentially stated “Kirk’s decisions brought him luck.” Which is why I argued.

One more time: I did not state that nu-Kirk's decisions brought him luck and you are again dishonestly quoting me out of context on this. I was not stating that luck was a factor in his choices and I was clearly critical of that entire angle in Kirk's story in this movie. So just kindly stop the bullshit parade here because you are clearly lying. Just stop it right now.

Even in the terms of the immediate exchange, there is no endorsement on my part of the idea that luck = validation of bad decisions. Especially as I'm critical of the whole notion. As evidenced:

You have presented a larger body off evidence that you are critical of my logic, if you are going to fall back on "This act was out of character for me" maybe you reconsider how you characterize yourself. Your posts are one third argument and two thirds ad hominem rhetoric. You would absolutely argue a point regardless of agreement, if you thought it helped discredit other of my arguments, as is evidenced by your frequent referral of me as "Little Tommy".

No, asswipe, it is not "ad-hominem" if I point out the reasons why your arguments fail than if I simply say they fail because you're a dishonest little prick and fail to justify anything past that point. Do get your fallacies right if you're going to invoke them.

Not that any of that is unacceptable on this site, but it speaks to your style and intent.

Style over Substance Fallacy.

Luck does not qualify decisions. Therefore luck should not be the measure by which we evaluate decisions.

2) Unfortunately, the movie shows that Kirk is getting by on incredibly contrived luck when otherwise he should have would up expelled, in the brig, or dead.

I made a neutral statement with no reference to Star Trek as part of a conccession on hwo to treat fictional characters. You applied the Star Trek argument and INTRODUCED luck as a factor in evaluating decisions.

Wrong again. Will I have to keep quoting your own words back to you repeatedly?

When you said THIS:

The "writer's fiat" is an out of universe explanation of why all of those plot elements were conveniently located. in universe, they were there, he took advantage of them when everyone else cruised right by.

And THIS:

My definition of success is accomplishing the intended result. Even in the real world, intelligence isn't the only way to be successful. It Really Isn't.

AND THIS:

the crux of my argument is what criteria constitutes successful. Your definition of successful seems entirely contingent on intelligent decisions, because despite the fact that my argument has revolved completely around success or failure defining functionality, you keep throwing in "Smart" and "Stupid" "Idiot" and "Genius"

AND THIS:

My problem isn't acknowledging those tendencies, its in claiming they are a crippling character flaw. They work fine for him and they don't cause him any distress and he's even in a field where getting people killed following his plans isn't even a bad thing. His universe is irrational, taking that irrationality into account when assessing him is the only way to be accurate.

AND ESPECIALLY THIS:

My argument does not rely on Kirk having "good luck" You and others have ascribed his success to luck (IU) and writers fiat. I have expressed concern in the past about my ability to make an argument for a situation I do not have acccess to intimate details for, but I will make an attempt anyway. In describing this situation I will concede that the degree of favorable probability Kirk experiences is unlikely in the real world, but obviously this is not luck, it is intelligent design. Kirk's universe has a God in the form of J.J. Abrahms and he has designed events to favor Kirk at every opportunity. This results in an irrational sequence of events that validate irrrational behavior with regular and repeated success.:

My argument is that a fictional character does not demonstrate a pattern of irrational behavior when he or she reacts to a consistent factor that while, unrealistic in our universe is real in theirs. In Kirk's situation his characteristic is that he is regularly given improbably resources that permit him to redefine hopeless situations.

—YOU WERE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU HANDWAVE, ENDORSING THE IDEA OF LUCK VALIDATING NU-KIRK'S IDIOT DECISIONS and that last one in which you simply repackage "luck" as "intelligent design on the part of the "God" of the NuTrekverse" to evade the concession on luck you had pulled out of you earlier by Mike does not hide the crux of your argument. This is you again trying to have things both ways and shifting your defence with the breeze.

3) Consistent function of outcome reflects consistent quality of choice.

4) In a word, bullshit. Once more, you keep trying to justify nu-Kirk's alleged good judgement simply because he managed to come out ahead when his every action demonstrably shows very poor judgement for half the movie and, in anything other than a ridiculously contrived situation, should have landed him on his ass or gotten him killed.

As it turns out this argument WAS bullshit and one I conceded. You could have saved us both a lot of trouble if you had just argued "Function doesn't reflect quality of choice, because other factors may influence functionality at time of measure." Instead you accused me of continuing to try to assert Kirk's judgement was sound when I had already abandoned that argument and was trying to proceed from a logical proof.

And yet you continue to defend your flawed argument instead of just letting it drop, continue to misquote me, and continue your evasions when you keep getting your own words thrown back in your face. You can't have it both ways.

5) Luck neither proves nor disproves the quality of decision making, it is an extraneous factor.

6) It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decisionmaking should be landing him and you continuously try to handwave that inconvenient fact away.

lest you accuse me of taking the argument in question out of context, let me recap before addressing it. In the first exchange you introduced luck as a factor in decision making,

Lie.

Then accused me of trying justify Kirk's actions rather than come up with a logical model for evlaluating behavior. Here I have tried as neutrally as possible to state that luck should not be a factor in evaluating decision-making, and you replied "IT does" and proceeded to outline circumstances in which "It did."

A formulation you get only by misrepresentation and ignoring context deliberately to do so. To quote your own fucking words back to you once again —when you said THIS:

The "writer's fiat" is an out of universe explanation of why all of those plot elements were conveniently located. in universe, they were there, he took advantage of them when everyone else cruised right by.

And THIS:

My definition of success is accomplishing the intended result. Even in the real world, intelligence isn't the only way to be successful. It Really Isn't.

AND THIS:

the crux of my argument is what criteria constitutes successful. Your definition of successful seems entirely contingent on intelligent decisions, because despite the fact that my argument has revolved completely around success or failure defining functionality, you keep throwing in "Smart" and "Stupid" "Idiot" and "Genius"

AND THIS:

My problem isn't acknowledging those tendencies, its in claiming they are a crippling character flaw. They work fine for him and they don't cause him any distress and he's even in a field where getting people killed following his plans isn't even a bad thing. His universe is irrational, taking that irrationality into account when assessing him is the only way to be accurate.

AND ESPECIALLY THIS:

My argument does not rely on Kirk having "good luck" You and others have ascribed his success to luck (IU) and writers fiat. I have expressed concern in the past about my ability to make an argument for a situation I do not have acccess to intimate details for, but I will make an attempt anyway. In describing this situation I will concede that the degree of favorable probability Kirk experiences is unlikely in the real world, but obviously this is not luck, it is intelligent design. Kirk's universe has a God in the form of J.J. Abrahms and he has designed events to favor Kirk at every opportunity. This results in an irrational sequence of events that validate irrrational behavior with regular and repeated success.:

My argument is that a fictional character does not demonstrate a pattern of irrational behavior when he or she reacts to a consistent factor that while, unrealistic in our universe is real in theirs. In Kirk's situation his characteristic is that he is regularly given improbably resources that permit him to redefine hopeless situations.

—YOU WERE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU HANDWAVE, ENDORSING THE IDEA OF LUCK VALIDATING NU-KIRK'S IDIOT DECISIONS and that last one in which you simply repackage "luck" as "intelligent design on the part of the "God" of the NuTrekverse" to evade the concession on luck you had pulled out of you earlier by Mike does not hide the crux of your argument. This is you again trying to have things both ways and shifting your defence with the breeze.

It is completely legitimate for me to interpret your statement as purely argumentative, and it was apropriae for me to point out that luck should not validate decision- making. I have conceded that luck can influence the outcome of decision making, but ti does not validate it.

And once more, this is you attempting to have things both ways and ever shifting your defence as convenient. Because, by picking the success=validation route, rejecting that we consider qualities such as intelligence or lack thereof, and then invoking the "God" of the NuTrekverse intervening with "Intelligent Design" to render improbable outcomes practicable, you were arguing validation-by-luck. Strip away every last bit of philosophical and psychology-textbook bullshit you've put up as a smokescreen and that's what it comes down to.

7) A choice functions according to judgment. If choice functions, judgment functions. Judgment can be accessed through function

8 ) And this argument fails because when judgment is flawed, choices are flawed and the outcome is similarly flawed. And this leads back to why Argument 2 fails.

9) That argument is perfectly valid! It suggests that flawed judgement will produce dysfunctional results.

10) Which is what nu-Kirk is doing except for the luck factor which has been written into this movie insulating him from the consequences of his bad choices.

In point three you accused my argument of failing and then presented evidence that supports my argument.

Uh huh. In what parallel universe? Certainly not in this one.

Then you backpedaled to point out that Kirk's results were biased by a luck factor. I conceded that point. I didn't toss out the entire chain but another poster made a more direct argument was impossible to refute.

And then you repackaged "luck" as "Intelligent Design by the "God" of the NuTrekverse" to evade your earlier concession and restate the same broken argument.

In my quote to Mike:

I have expressed concern in the past about my ability to make an argument for a situation I do not have acccess to intimate details for, but I will make an attempt anyway. In describing this situation I will concede that the degree of favorable probability Kirk experiences is unlikely in the real world, but obviously this is not luck, it is intelligent design. Kirk's universe has a God in the form of J.J. Abrahms and he has designed events to favor Kirk at every opportunity. This results in an irrational sequence of events that validate irrrational behavior with regular and repeated success.

Wow great evidence. That was actually where I was arguing intelligent design (Which Mike identified as writer's fiat) validated decision making. Which I conceded anyway. Writer's fiat was in fact influencing the functional outcome, biasing it to a degree that it could ne be a measure of decision-making.

Really, how long do you think you can actually keep this up? "An irrational sequence of events which validates irrational behaviour with regular and repeated success" is limned down to "luck fixes things". Saying it validates irrational behaviour IS SAYING "luck validates nu-Kirk's idiot decisions".

Luck is just a combination of circumstances, its not a supernatural intelligence. Regardless of how it "Appears" to individuals in universe, there IS an "intelligent design" or "Writer's fiat" aspect to Star Trek.The reason luck doesn't validate decision making is because it is not a predictable factor, so no true decision-making can be made based on it.

Translation from Tommy-Speak: "nu-Kirk's idiot decisions aren't validate by unpredictable lucky circumstances, they're validated by unpredictable Writers Fiat". Exactly what is the functional difference here between one and the other?

I was pointing out that if one discerns a pattern and makes choices based on it, that is part off the decision making process, as opposed to hoping for good luck when luck is a pattnernless phenomanon.

You will, here and now, demonstrate the chain of logical reasoning employed by nu-Kirk IN THE MOVIE to discern this pattern of favourable improbability by which he found his advantages, bullshitter. Quote the scenes. Let's have the dialogue from those scenes. Evidence from the movie that this is what nu-Kirk is in fact doing.

I'm waiting...

Except that "God" is irrationally pulling strings for Kirk. That is the same as luck to anyone in universe without knowledge of "God/JJ", which would be uh... everyone. Basically you are saying that Kirk only succeeds because JJ Abrahms wishes it.

Your "restoring context" again. Havok wasn't replying to the comment you claim. the actual exchange was

How is Good Luck Super Powers different from God watching out for you?

For one, intelligent design would suggest a universe that does not neccesarily function rationally, whereas "good luck superpowers" suggests that Kirk's universe functions irrationally exclusively for him. In a rationalo univers, such a characteristic would ultiamtely be subject to rational undersanding. Superman's flight can be defined for example ebcause it exists within a rational context. Jesus ascending to the heavens would not have a rational explanation.

Except that "God" is irrationally pulling strings for Kirk. That is the same as luck to anyone in universe without knowledge of "God/JJ", which would be uh... everyone. Basically you are saying that Kirk only succeeds because JJ Abrahms wishes it.

And this is not Havok calling you out on your repackaged luck argument... how, exactly?

Think about that for a minute.

"luck" was a descriptor for "Superpowers" not a reference to an encompassing phenomenon. At least that was my interpretation of Mike's original statement. You're right, belief in luck and belief in God are the same in that they support a belief in a supernatural force that governs outcome.

Out of universe Kirk DOES only succeed because J.J. Abrahms wishes him to, because not only does Abrahms govern the fictional universe but he also dictates Kirk's actions. In universe, Kirk response to the conditions so part of his success is due to his participation.

A difference which makes no difference IS no difference —no matter how much you desperately need to believe otherwise. And as for this:

In universe, Kirk response to the conditions so part of his success is due to his participation.

—I will reiterate: demonstrate the chain of logical reasoning employed by nu-Kirk IN THE MOVIE to discern this pattern of favourable improbability by which he found his advantages. Quote the scenes. Let's have the dialogue from those scenes. Evidence from the movie that this is what nu-Kirk is in fact doing.

Which essentially makes the "it's not luck but ID" position functionally no different from "luck", which you did indeed attempt to use as validation for nu-Kirk's decisionmaking.

WHich actually DOESN'T make them "no different". Superpowers are a kinown quantity that can be observed and predicted. Even intelligent design should have predictable qualities, Luck? Ther eis no predictability to luck, therefore it does not validate decision making.

Then I presume you can demonstrate the chain of logical reasoning employed by nu-Kirk IN THE MOVIE to discern this pattern of favourable improbability by which he found his advantages. Quote the scenes. Let's have the dialogue from those scenes. Evidence from the movie that this is what nu-Kirk is in fact doing.

Still trying to have it both ways, aren't you?

No you attempted to shift the debate from being over what you said, to what you were arguing, which is an argument that is defunct. I am only compelled to defend my statements at this point, not to resurrect an argument I already lost.

By defending your statements, you are resurrecting your broken argument. Once again, you give a show of concession, but then continue arguing past the concession point instead of simply admitting defeat and letting the arguments die.

No, my statement was but one rebuttal of one point in your overall argument, which you were supporting by the luck factor validating nu-Kirk's decisions because they resulted in consistent success. That is, until you then said luck was extraneous to evade rebuttal on that line. Until you then went on to invoke Intelligent Design on the part of the "God" of the nu-Trekverse producing consistent success for nu-Kirk in defiance of all rational probability. Which, really, is no different from invoking "luck" as explanation.

Well that one rebuttal was poorly concieved and badly delivered.

In your "opinion", that is...

The argument that I am wrong about what yous said, because I was wrong about how to evaluate fictional characters is a "you too" fallacy.

Again, learn to get your fallacies right if you're going to invoke them. A Tu-Quoque Fallacy is not pointing out your misrepresentations on top of the errors of your argument, it is saying that both parties have committed the same (or similar) error/wrong and that one therefore has no right to say anything about the other.

It does when it is the only thing keeping nu-Kirk out of prison or the morgue, you endlessly dishonest piece of shit. Because that's where his decision-making should be landing him and you continuously try to hand wave that inconvenient fact away.

You can keep picking apart megaposts Degan but I already presented tthe evidence defending my statement, and I'm not going to keep circling unless a mod requires me to. This is completely off topic.

Sorry, but continual misrepresentation of an opponent's position in an argument is not off-topic. In fact, it is likely to remain on-topic for as long as you continue to do so.

[Themightytom]

One more time: I did not state that nu-Kirk's decisions brought him luck and you are again dishonestly quoting me out of context on this. I was not stating that luck was a factor in his choices and I was clearly critical of that entire angle in Kirk's story in this movie. So just kindly stop the bullshit parade here because you are clearly lying. Just stop it right now.

I have demosntrated the context over and over again, and you have both reordered quotes and then reinterpreted them to adjust the context. I'm not lying, you said what you said. Every time you accuse me of lying I obviously have to produce evidence that I didn't. If you are unhappy with the situation stop calling me a liar.

No, asswipe, it is not "ad-hominem" if I point out the reasons why your arguments fail than if I simply say they fail because you're a dishonest little prick and fail to justify anything past that point. Do get your fallacies right if you're going to invoke them.

You are a complete moron. I said "Ad-Hominem Rhetoric" I did not accuse of a logical fallacy, i accused you of pretty much ranting against me every chance you got. This indicates an investment of personal dis-like, which supports a possible reason you said what you said. You proposed that your statement should be taken in a larger context, I responded if it were to be taken in a larger context it should be the context that you were arguing against me, and not the argument I presented.

Not that any of that is unacceptable on this site, but it speaks to your style and intent.

Style over Substance Fallacy.

I am certianly NOT ignoring content in favor of style, you pointed out that the direct content of your comment should be discarded in favor of context. I was supporting my assertion that your statment was not rationally composed to counter the logical proof I proposed, but rather was a continuation of your previous argument which you connected to my argument as part of a larger argument that I was simply "wrong" no matter what I said.
I have already established content of my evidence and you intiated the "restoration" of their context.

Is it your assertion that your frequent accusations that I am a dishonest liar, are part of your "style" and non-reflective of your judgement?

If it is simply a matter of style, I would see no reason to continue defending myself, but have pointed out multiple examples of what I considered "rhetoric" and you have contested them, indicating that when you accuse me of lying, you are in fact making a formal argument that I lied in a specific instance. In that case I am bound by board policy to answer your claim am I not?

Luck does not qualify decisions. Therefore luck should not be the measure by which we evaluate decisions.

2) Unfortunately, the movie shows that Kirk is getting by on incredibly contrived luck when otherwise he should have would up expelled, in the brig, or dead.

I made a neutral statement with no reference to Star Trek as part of a conccession on hwo to treat fictional characters. You applied the Star Trek argument and INTRODUCED luck as a factor in evaluating decisions.

Wrong again. Will I have to keep quoting your own words back to you repeatedly?

Wrong again regarding what? I made a neutral statement with no reference to Star Trek

Luck does not qualify decisions. Therefore luck should not be the measure by which we evaluate decisions.

Go ahead and highlight the reference to Star Trek in the statment which YOU responded to, by referencing Star trek.

—YOU WERE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU HANDWAVE, ENDORSING THE IDEA OF LUCK VALIDATING NU-KIRK'S IDIOT DECISIONS and that last one in which you simply repackage "luck" as "intelligent design on the part of the "God" of the NuTrekverse" to evade the concession on luck you had pulled out of you earlier by Mike does not hide the crux of your argument. This is you again trying to have things both ways and shifting your defence with the breeze.

I already conceded that entire argument...

And yet you continue to defend your flawed argument instead of just letting it drop, continue to misquote me, and continue your evasions when you keep getting your own words thrown back in your face. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not defending the flawed argument, I only defended myself against your accusation that I was a liar. this speaks to the statement at the last post that this is off topic, because we really are arguing about what you posted, not about Star trek.

Lie.

baseless accusation.

A formulation you get only by misrepresentation and ignoring context deliberately to do so. To quote your own fucking words back to you once again —when you said THIS:

In developing an objective logic model, I HAVE to ignore complex. Maybe you don't grasp the concpt of a logical proof. it should be true for ALL situations, thats exactly why it failed.

Admittedly if you didn't REALIZE I as dropping the context of the previous arguments when you made your statement you could have carried a completely different meaning into your statement. i don't know HOW you can make such an error when i prefaced the original logic model with:

I would like to simplify the statement to its elemental form removing inherent value jugements to an objective form and reframe my argument in a logical format. The meataphors being tossed about are KILLING me because there are too many inherent variables.
If I am missing something rediculous it should be clearly evident.:

Then you backpedaled to point out that Kirk's results were biased by a luck factor. I conceded that point. I didn't toss out the entire chain but another poster made a more direct argument was impossible to refute.

And then you repackaged "luck" as "Intelligent Design by the "God" of the NuTrekverse" to evade your earlier concession and restate the same broken argument.

I already conceded that argument.

In my quote to Mike:

Really, how long do you think you can actually keep this up? "An irrational sequence of events which validates irrational behaviour with regular and repeated success" is limned down to "luck fixes things". Saying it validates irrational behaviour IS SAYING "luck validates nu-Kirk's idiot decisions".

You are still trying to argue a point I conceded.

Translation from Tommy-Speak: "nu-Kirk's idiot decisions aren't validate by unpredictable lucky circumstances, they're validated by unpredictable Writers Fiat". Exactly what is the functional difference here between one and the other?

A better question is what does that have to do with whether you argued with the statement "Luck does not validate decision making" and attempted to provide evidence that it did.

You will, here and now, demonstrate the chain of logical reasoning employed by nu-Kirk IN THE MOVIE to discern this pattern of favourable improbability by which he found his advantages, bullshitter. Quote the scenes. Let's have the dialogue from those scenes. Evidence from the movie that this is what nu-Kirk is in fact doing.

I'm waiting...

Of course I won't. I already conceded the argument. Twice actually. I didn't agree with your asessment but witjhout a DVD or script I am left with no evidence.

Except that "God" is irrationally pulling strings for Kirk. That is the same as luck to anyone in universe without knowledge of "God/JJ", which would be uh... everyone. Basically you are saying that Kirk only succeeds because JJ Abrahms wishes it.

Your "restoring context" again. Havok wasn't replying to the comment you claim. the actual exchange was

How is Good Luck Super Powers different from God watching out for you?

For one, intelligent design would suggest a universe that does not neccesarily function rationally, whereas "good luck superpowers" suggests that Kirk's universe functions irrationally exclusively for him. In a rationalo univers, such a characteristic would ultiamtely be subject to rational undersanding. Superman's flight can be defined for example ebcause it exists within a rational context. Jesus ascending to the heavens would not have a rational explanation.

Except that "God" is irrationally pulling strings for Kirk. That is the same as luck to anyone in universe without knowledge of "God/JJ", which would be uh... everyone. Basically you are saying that Kirk only succeeds because JJ Abrahms wishes it.

And this is not Havok calling you out on your repackaged luck argument... how, exactly?

He was comparing superpowers to a universal constant. Either way its irrelevant, I ultimately conceded the argument and it does not alter the content nor the context of the statement you accused me of lying about.

It illustrate you are capable of shifting context and content as evidenced by your placement of havok's response to a different quote as part of your ongoing "Context restoration". If I were to introduce that as evidence that your assertion that I am a liar is false because you are a liar, that would be an ad-hominem fallacy. There is in fact evidence that you are doing it by accident as you frequently duplicate entire strings of text in a single post. this speaks to the ever growing complexity of these posts. I will not accuse you of lying deliberately of course because I REALLLY don't want to particpate in 8 more pages of your off topic moral masturbation.

Think about that for a minute.

"luck" was a descriptor for "Superpowers" not a reference to an encompassing phenomenon. At least that was my interpretation of Mike's original statement. You're right, belief in luck and belief in God are the same in that they support a belief in a supernatural force that governs outcome.

Out of universe Kirk DOES only succeed because J.J. Abrahms wishes him to, because not only does Abrahms govern the fictional universe but he also dictates Kirk's actions. In universe, Kirk response to the conditions so part of his success is due to his participation.

A difference which makes no difference IS no difference —no matter how much you desperately need to believe otherwise. And as for this:

So its not that you don't SEE my point you just dispute it. Why did you JUST ask...

And this is not Havok calling you out on your repackaged luck argument... how, exactly?

...rather than read the damn answer?

In universe, Kirk response to the conditions so part of his success is due to his participation.

—I will reiterate: demonstrate the chain of logical reasoning employed by nu-Kirk IN THE MOVIE to discern this pattern of favourable improbability by which he found his advantages. Quote the scenes. Let's have the dialogue from those scenes. Evidence from the movie that this is what nu-Kirk is in fact doing.

Nope, nothing has changed, I conceded the argument already. baord policy states if I don't have evidence i conccede and shut up. Which I would love to do if you would stop resurrecting the argument.

Then I presume you can demonstrate the chain of logical reasoning employed by nu-Kirk IN THE MOVIE to discern this pattern of favourable improbability by which he found his advantages. Quote the scenes. Let's have the dialogue from those scenes. Evidence from the movie that this is what nu-Kirk is in fact doing.

I already conceded the argument Patrick.

By defending your statements, you are resurrecting your broken argument. Once again, you give a show of concession, but then continue arguing past the concession point instead of simply admitting defeat and letting the arguments die.

You are resurrecting the broken argument in order to demonstrate "Context" for your statement to restore its meaning.

In your "opinion", that is...

As a minimum baseline.

The argument that I am wrong about what yous said, because I was wrong about how to evaluate fictional characters is a "you too" fallacy.

Again, learn to get your fallacies right if you're going to invoke them. A Tu-Quoque Fallacy is not pointing out your misrepresentations on top of the errors of your argument, it is saying that both parties have committed the same (or similar) error/wrong and that one therefore has no right to say anything about the other.

You asserted that I am a liar, and then trotted out an argument based on context. In doing so you really couldn't help but point out flaws in the argument that I made which you cahracterize as intentionally dishonest. Your opinion of my other arguments is not evidence that I intentionally misrepresented what you said. I could regularly lie like a rug and not be lying about your statement, but you continually make reference to a pattern of dishonesty on my part as though it disproves my evidence that I was not lying.

Sorry, but continual misrepresentation of an opponent's position in an argument is not off-topic. In fact, it is likely to remain on-topic for as long as you continue to do so.

It will apparently also remain "on-topic", for as long as you continue to accuse me of doing so, since, barring a direct order from a Mod, or the owner of the Forum, I would be neither representing, nor misrepresenting your argument if you concluded the argument at my concession, or even beyond that when I presented evidence supporting my response.

[Simon_Jester]

So, given the tone of the film and the writer's intent that implies, I choose to judge Kirk on more realistic merits. Those merits tell me that Kirk was very lucky that he never suffered serious consequences as a result of his ass-hatery and bad decision making... He was almost killed something like...three times. Each time some sort of deus ex machina or writer's fiat came to his rescue, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't much like the guy for his attitude and behavior. In this sense, the writers' failed to entertain me because they failed to live up to the serious, realistic tone they created. They created an unlikeable character who doesn't suffer for his actions.

Agreed. This version of Kirk has a bit too much Wesley and not enough "real Kirk" in him. I speculate that the difference can be explained by this Kirk being allowed to devolve into a juvenile delinquent before joining Starfleet.

I also speculate that (unlike modern militaries), Abrams' version of Starfleet is not very good at converting irresponsible, erratic youths into competent soldiers or officers. This is a serious weakness on Starfleet's part, and one that would serve it poorly in large scale wars.
_______

On an unrelated note: it seems to me that anything that reveals the Kobiyashi Maru as a "failure is the only option" test would greatly reduce its educational value. Good Starfleet command track officers should be competitive and vigorous. Putting someone with that kind of mindset in a test they know in advance that they'll never win is quite likely to make them react badly, and possibly
"rebel" by throwing the test.

As a test that no one has ever won but that you might win if you're good enough, it works. As a test that cannot be won even in theory, it doesn't work so well. Incidentally, that's why I'd be inclined to let the incident go if Kirk had "passed" the test in some more subtle way (as in the original, instead of the new Kirk). I don't want the secret of the test's natural unwinnability to get out, even if that means letting Kirk get away with reprogramming the scenario.

Indeed, letting him get away with it would enhance the scenario if he had done it subtly, because then future cadets could tell themselves that the test was (in theory) winnable if you were good enough. Which would force them to come to terms with the fact that they're not perfect, as a test they know to be rigged would not.

Of course, I wouldn't let the new-movie Kirk go for this, because (as I said before), he not only hacked the test, but also acted in a way that showed contempt for the test and for the school as a whole. It even seems likely that he intentionally tried to force a confrontation with the board of inquiry, confronting them rather than accepting discipline. And that is a very bad sign in the character of such a junior officer.

[Joe Momma]

On an unrelated note: it seems to me that anything that reveals the Kobiyashi Maru as a "failure is the only option" test would greatly reduce its educational value. Good Starfleet command track officers should be competitive and vigorous. Putting someone with that kind of mindset in a test they know in advance that they'll never win is quite likely to make them react badly, and possibly
"rebel" by throwing the test.

It also seems to defeat the given purpose of the test. As you noted, learning that they're not perfect is an important lesson for students, particularly the overachieving types that seem to be typical of Starfleet academy. If they're put in a test where they know that they cannot win and their instructors do not expect them to win so there's no necessary consequence of failure, then doesn't that seriously weaken it as a test of character?

Indeed, letting him get away with it would enhance the scenario if he had done it subtly, because then future cadets could tell themselves that the test was (in theory) winnable if you were good enough. Which would force them to come to terms with the fact that they're not perfect, as a test they know to be rigged would not.

Exactly -- knowing that it's the rigged test turns the focus outward to the artificial constraints of the test rather than inward to the qualities of the students themselves.

Practically speaking, keeping the absolute no-win aspect of the scenario secret might itself be nigh-impossible to do, given the way student and faculty gossip flows in academic settings. If the test is an absolute no-win scenario, then word will almost certainly get out eventually. OTOH, in the original timeline Saavik seemed surprised by both the no-win nature of the test and Kirk's means of getting around it. Perhaps Starfleet handled it with more subtlety in the original timeline, in a manner similar to the one you suggested.

Another means of approaching that would be to make the no-win element a randomly selected variable. It's reasonable to assume that cadets go through an entire battery of simulation tests during their training, which should be quite difficult by the end of the curriculum. One of these could be selected without notice to be a no-win scenario. That would at least force them to consider that their failure in the current test is due to their own faults rather than a preprogrammed consequence, as they would not know at the moment whether they were facing a very tough scenario or a flat-out unbeatable one. That's not as good a solution as keeping the appearance that the test is in theory beatable, but it might be the most reasonable alternative after Starfleet went public (so to speak) in discussing that part of the test.

Of course, I wouldn't let the new-movie Kirk go for this, because (as I said before), he not only hacked the test, but also acted in a way that showed contempt for the test and for the school as a whole.

I wonder if bringing up some of the above items in his defense might have made Kirk's approach seem more reasonable. He could have argued that his cheating win was as meaningless as the test's cheating win as far as imparting the intended lesson. That could have allowed for a commendation for original thinking as in the original timeline, paired with a reprimand for the way that Kirk went about it.