Grade James T Kirk

[Joe Momma]

Come to think of it, Starfleet did something similar to this to Wesley Crusher during his academy application in "Coming of Age". They presented him with a scenario (which at the time appeared to be an actual accident and not a simulation) that forced him to leave a person behind to die in order to rescue another. This scenario was chosen specifically because it was similar to the situation that led to the death of Wesley's father, forcing him to face his greatest fear.

[Patrick Degan]

Since most of Tom's latest posting simply repeats itself, I'll address the most salient points:

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.

Unfortunately, your "evidence" consists of making the same broken-record, out-of-context reading of my words and deliberately ignoring the very sequence of argument which demonstrates context, hence the appelation. If you are unhappy with the situation, stop trying to justify your alleged "reasoning" in doing so. It's that simple.

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.

You did realise, did you not, that since we were in fact talking about a Star Trek movie, that naturally it would be the main object of the argument and whether or not nu-Kirk's decisionmaking was valid, which you attempted to assert despite the manifest stupidity of his choices? And in point of fact, luck was injected into this discussion back on page two, about ten posts before I even weighed in on the exchange.

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.

"Logical proof"? Face it —your "logic model" failed before you even attempted to cobble it together because it was based on a wholly absurd premise to begin with. And no, ignoring context does not render an accurate logic model of anything. In fact, that was one of the reasons why it was a failure from the jump.

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.:

You mean those "value judgements" like "smart", "intelligent", and "genius" in your attempt to redefine the measure of success so as to obviate against the evident conclusion that Cadet James T. Kirk was an imbecile and an asshole who continues to breathe only because he got incredibly, stupidly lucky? Oh, that's right, you were talking about "success" not being based on actually making intelligent choices, weren't you?

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.

Um nope, you were making a new argument: that nu-Kirk is analysing the patterns of a supposedly "patternless phenomenon" and basing his decisions on that analysis.

And you say you can't prove your position without the script or a DVD of the movie, eh? What's the matter? You didn't actually see the film? Or can't remember what actually happened in it? You're on a thread populated with people who can almost quote the fucking thing back to you and certainly can remember what the situations were, what the characters did, where they failed, where the movie fell down, etc... You're saying you can't defend your position with what you know of the movie you allegedly went out and saw and others in this thread went out and saw?

Here's a simple one: at least point out which part of nu-Kirk getting his idiot ass tossed off the Enterprise was based upon any line of analysis indicating that the patterns of the universe would lead to his meeting a critical figure on one particular planet in the galaxy the ship just happened to be passing by.

(Havok) 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.

No, I duplicate certain quotes because you just keep tossing out the exact same rebuttals, point after point after point after point. And where it's demonstrated that you were restating arguments with just different terminology after offering a "concession", you proceeded to deny at length what you actually said. You have been endlessly evasive on just about every point of argument in this thread.

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.

Translation: it's not fair to constantly be slammed for ignoring the actual context of somebody else's words because you wanted to twist your way out of a rhetorical cul-de-sac.

And here's a clue for you: by "concession", that means you actually cease attempting to justify after-the-fact the arguments you have supposedly abandoned.

[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.

Unfortunately, your "evidence" consists of making the same broken-record, out-of-context reading of my words and deliberately ignoring the very sequence of argument which demonstrates context, hence the appelation. If you are unhappy with the situation, stop trying to justify your alleged "reasoning" in doing so. It's that simple.

I already demonstrated my reasoning. You followed my quote saying "Luck doesn't" with a comment of your own saying "It does". Its that simple

You did realise, did you not, that since we were in fact talking about a Star Trek movie, that naturally it would be the main object of the argument and whether or not nu-Kirk's decisionmaking was valid, which you attempted to assert despite the manifest stupidity of his choices? And in point of fact, luck was injected into this discussion back on page two, about ten posts before I even weighed in on the exchange.

That context was removed when I conceded the argument and offered a new logical proof in order to justify that an objective measure could be used to evlaute fictional characters WITH A DISCLAIMER that I was offering the argument in its elemental form. You establish context BEFORE making a statement by prefacing your argument, or even during Degan by reframing your argument, not AFTER as it suits you.

I said this when I conceded to mike, and started a new logical proof. It seems you will take context in priority to direct statments when it suits you. "Restoring context with priority over what youa ctually stated is akin to defending the statment "The sky si green" with "But by sky i have been talking about leaves that a person in a rainforest might think is the sky if they were leagally blind!" I suppose your context is plausible, but it is not what you stated directly in the argument and that does not invalidate my response at the time.

"Logical proof"? Face it —your "logic model" failed before you even attempted to cobble it together because it was based on a wholly absurd premise to begin with. And no, ignoring context does not render an accurate logic model of anything. In fact, that was one of the reasons why it was a failure from the jump.

I faced that when I conceded...

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.:

You mean those "value judgements" like "smart", "intelligent", and "genius" in your attempt to redefine the measure of success so as to obviate against the evident conclusion that Cadet James T. Kirk was an imbecile and an asshole who continues to breathe only because he got incredibly, stupidly lucky? Oh, that's right, you were talking about "success" not being based on actually making intelligent choices, weren't you?

Why is this argument relevant...

Um nope, you were making a new argument: that nu-Kirk is analysing the patterns of a supposedly "patternless phenomenon" and basing his decisions on that analysis.

No that folded with the "You don't treat fictional cahracters differently" argument.

And you say you can't prove your position without the script or a DVD of the movie, eh? What's the matter? You didn't actually see the film? Or can't remember what actually happened in it? You're on a thread populated with people who can almost quote the fucking thing back to you and certainly can remember what the situations were, what the characters did, where they failed, where the movie fell down, etc... You're saying you can't defend your position with what you know of the movie you allegedly went out and saw and others in this thread went out and saw?

wha... you want me to make a claim based on memory and hope everyone ELSE will help me back it up?? Do you see the opinion poll? I don't think there are lots of people who will do that..

Here's a simple one: at least point out which part of nu-Kirk getting his idiot ass tossed off the Enterprise was based upon any line of analysis indicating that the patterns of the universe would lead to his meeting a critical figure on one particular planet in the galaxy the ship just happened to be passing by.

What so we can end up at "luck doesn't validate decision-making" again? I already conceded Kirk can make a bad decision and achieve positive results/ if you want to debate WHY he made that bad decision, sure but You haven't been so hot on reading disclaimers. If I attempted that argument you will ULTIMATELY accuse me of trying to validae kirk's decision-making.

(Havok) 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.

No, I duplicate certain quotes because you just keep tossing out the exact same rebuttals, point after point after point after point. And where it's demonstrated that you were restating arguments with just different terminology after offering a "concession", you proceeded to deny at length what you actually said. You have been endlessly evasive on just about every point of argument in this thread.

What bearing does that assertion have on this argument other than a "You too fallacy" when i assert I did not lie?

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.

Translation: it's not fair to constantly be slammed for ignoring the actual context of somebody else's words because you wanted to twist your way out of a rhetorical cul-de-sac

And here's a clue for you: by "concession", that means you actually cease attempting to justify after-the-fact the arguments you have supposedly abandoned.

So above, where you continually challenge me to justify a conceded argument you are goading me into retracting my concession to prove a you-too argument that I must have lied about the one statement because I "lie about everything else"?

You know, I will concede I did not take your statement in the context it was intended, but I will not conccede that I took your statement out of the context it was offered. It's interpretation is completely straightforward.

[Patrick Degan]

You know, I will concede I did not take your statement in the context it was intended, but I will not conccede that I took your statement out of the context it was offered. It's interpretation is completely straightforward.

Yeah, sure, right, whatever...

[Simon_Jester]

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?

Exactly. The only thing you can test for is their ability to die gallantly... and even that is undermined by the fact that they know there isn't even a nominal consequence for "dying" in the impossible test that "kills" everyone.
_______

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.

Yes. Or they might have "reverse rigged" the test on a few occasions, allowing especially talented students to win it as a way of preserving the secret.
_______

Another means of approaching that would be to make the no-win element a randomly selected variable... One of these [tests] 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...

I like it.

[Patrick Degan]

Come to think of it, Starfleet did something similar to this to Wesley Crusher during his academy application in "Coming of Age". They presented him with a scenario (which at the time appeared to be an actual accident and not a simulation) that forced him to leave a person behind to die in order to rescue another. This scenario was chosen specifically because it was similar to the situation that led to the death of Wesley's father, forcing him to face his greatest fear.

This actually was a far more credible character-test for a cadet in that it presents him with a dilemma he does not know in advance has been rigged and has no real consequences.

[Joe Momma]

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.

Yes. Or they might have "reverse rigged" the test on a few occasions, allowing especially talented students to win it as a way of preserving the secret.

They're not canon, but several of the novels and comics have featured people beating the Kobayashi Maru scenario in later years (the TOS post-movie era and the TNG era) in various creative ways. Such events could be explained by reverse rigging if the test is still generally intended to be unbeatable.

Come to think of it, Starfleet did something similar to this to Wesley Crusher during his academy application in "Coming of Age". They presented him with a scenario (which at the time appeared to be an actual accident and not a simulation) that forced him to leave a person behind to die in order to rescue another. This scenario was chosen specifically because it was similar to the situation that led to the death of Wesley's father, forcing him to face his greatest fear.

This actually was a far more credible character-test for a cadet in that it presents him with a dilemma he does not know in advance has been rigged and has no real consequences.

And it was tailored to hit a personal psychological weak point at that. It's interesting that the TNG-era Starfleet presented what is arguably a more telling test of character than the KM just to get admission to the academy -- Wesley wasn't even a cadet at that point.

Since I'm here, I guess I should also throw in my 2 cents on the original subject of the thread. I've already mentioned some ways that the KM cheat could have been handled better and with those revisions I think the A/D choices would have both fit. As is, since he seemed to be fucking with the simulator just to pull a prank I'd probably just go with D but not much more than a formal reprimand. It was a fairly obvious prank rather than a full-blown attempt at cheating (I can't imagine he seriously expected anyone to think he just magically beat the test and he'd taken it honestly twice already) and didn't have any consequences more serious than wasting some of the instructors' time. Nothing to encourage (especially the dickish attitude he was displaying, which could have more serious consequences and did later in the movie*), but probably not worthy of a serious penalty such as expulsion.

(*Though it may be outside the scope of the OP, the attitude is a serious problem and one I think the movie played up too strongly. Perhaps most tellingly in the case of the fight that broke out when he was ordered off of the bridge. Assaulting fellow officers is a serious offense and there was no way that it could have had a successful outcome even if he'd won the fight. What the fuck was he expecting to happen, he'd punch Spock's lights out and everybody would accept him as acting captain? As it was, he was only saved by the Rube Goldbergian series of events that led him to that particular spot on Delta Vega and then back to the Enterprise.

Like the KM scenario, this is another example of where a little rewrite could have made Kirk much more reasonable. For example, perhaps Spock could have preemptively nerve-pinched Kirk when he got shirty and then dropped him off on Delta Vega. Events could have proceeded from there and instead of Kirk weakening his legal and ethical position with the fistfight, Spock's overreaction to Kirk's objections could have served as further evidence of his emotional compromise.)

[Simon_Jester]

Come to think of it, Starfleet did something similar to this to Wesley Crusher during his academy application in "Coming of Age". They presented him with a scenario (which at the time appeared to be an actual accident and not a simulation) that forced him to leave a person behind to die in order to rescue another. This scenario was chosen specifically because it was similar to the situation that led to the death of Wesley's father, forcing him to face his greatest fear.

This actually was a far more credible character-test for a cadet in that it presents him with a dilemma he does not know in advance has been rigged and has no real consequences.

That was more or less my point. As long as the students don't know that it's impossible to win the Kobiyashi Maru scenario even in theory, it works for its intended purpose. The scenario remains realistic- like a real captain, you go in expecting to live, learn that you're going to fail and die, and you can be tested on how you respond to the failure.

But a truly unwinnable scenario that everyone knows is unwinnable promotes fatalism and irresponsibility among the cadets.
_____

Also, I agree with Joe Momma about how the movie could have been improved by a subtle rewrite.