Grade James T Kirk

[Darth Wong]

What the hell??
you said

we can't even say that a fictional wife-beater is an abusive personality, because it's fiction and we can't apply real-life psychology to fictional characters.

How is that not circular?

It's not circular because "abusive personality" only equals "wife beater" if you make certain assumptions about psychology, you stupid twat. You "accidentally" rewrote that in your reply to say "if he's a wife beater, then he's a wife beater", which is obviously circular. But the original statement was that a wife beater could be assumed to have an abusive personality, which is not circular.

Are there other reasons to beat a wife? I willa dmit I made some assumptions, if one of them is wrong, than I apologize, but could you point them out isntead of just telling me I'm dishonest and not elaborating?

You tell me if there are other reasons to beat a wife; you're the one saying that anything is possible in a fictional universe and we can't apply real-life psychology to it.

I assumed that you were implying that a fictional person was beating their wife because of an abusive personality and claiming my logic wouldn't permit that asessment.

I assumed you were excluding a person who beat their wife for cultural reasons from the example, as introducing a fictional culture as a rationale for beating a wife seemed unlikely given your distaste for acknowledging a unique fictional unvierse in the first place.

Given the above assumption, you describe a character who is depicted as having an abusive personality, and I submit that that characterization, is in the context of the fictional setting dysfunctional by innate nature.

So you made assumptions based on ... real-life. But you keep claiming that you cannot use real-life as a basis for deciding anything about fictional worlds, remember?

Previously I argued that if a person is depicted as successful in their environment, than they don't have a crippling character flaw.

And that idea was demolished with the lottery example.

So what the fuck is your problem with declaring Captain Kirk to be reckless and impulsive because he rushes into dangerous situations with no plan?

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.

See the lottery example again, fuckwad. According to your logic, a compulsive gambling personality is not a crippling character flaw as long as the person actually wins the lottery in the end, even if it's just luck.

You have never successfully answered this example, you lying fuck. You just ignore it, evade it, pretend it's somehow completely different, etc. I am getting really sick and tired of going around in circles with you on this. Either explain why good luck validates bad decision-making or concede that it doesn't. And don't pull this endless shell game of moving back and forth between fiction and real-life and pretending that arguments which apply to one don't apply to the other; if your logic is sound, then the real-life lottery example is just as good as the lucky fictional character example.

[Themightytom]

It's not circular because "abusive personality" only equals "wife beater" if you make certain assumptions about psychology, you stupid twat. You "accidentally" rewrote that in your reply to say "if he's a wife beater, then he's a wife beater", which is obviously circular. But the original statement was that a wife beater could be assumed to have an abusive personality, which is not circular.

Than no, a wife beater should not be assumed to have an abusive personality.Other wise brad Pitt would be innacurately asessed in Mr. and Mrs. Smith because he physically assaults her. Batman has an abusive personality because he appears to beat up Catwoman? This is a giant red herring, I can't really even mention the practices of other cultures without seeming to validate the practice of wife beating or to discriminate against cultures so I will stick to the fictional example of Worf and Jadzia. There ARE real world cultures which support wife beating but luckily globalization is taking hold and these cultures when viewed in the context of a larger culture are censured in a variety of ways and alter their practices to the exent that their norms are influenced.

So you made assumptions based on ... real-life. But you keep claiming that you cannot use real-life as a basis for deciding anything about fictional worlds, remember?

I was WRONG wasn't I? I misunderstood your intentions and inaccurately asessed the situation.

And that idea was demolished with the lottery example.

No it wasn't! Your original example included an isntance of consistent failure, supporting the systematic, rather than the incidental model. One Kobiyashia Maru cheat does not equal a "crippling character flaw" Regular failure and the refusal to learn from it, does. That consistent failure would as a consequence affect factors measured by the GAF. kirk wasn't failing every time he did something reckless he was succeeding! based on his pattern of success his method was validated.

I concede that the original example, a man who invests $50 a week for decades and wins at the end is NOT validated, but that is because the result is not consistently replciated, the procedure is. Your original example was more about the lucidity of an investment planner ADVISING that man to invest $50 a week, I concede that is not rational advice, however successful it is, because it takes failure as a given and gambles on success. it also doesn't mean that investor is automatically an idiot, it just means he gave bad advice.

See the lottery example again, fuckwad. According to your logic, a compulsive gambling personality is not a crippling character flaw as long as the person actually wins the lottery in the end, even if it's just luck.

...what am I supposed to do here Mike, seriously. Compulsive gambling is recognized as indicative of a mental illness. you aren't a compulsive gambler until you establish an irrational pattern of behavior. Gambling is also a vice. Describing a compulsive gambler is pre-defining a character to be both dysfunctional and "flawed" I can't even assume their is a cultural purpose for gambling because you sued the word compulsive. The pattern of behavior is not validated by the win, if he loses more than he wins.

You have never successfully answered this example, you lying fuck. You just ignore it, evade it, pretend it's somehow completely different, etc. I am getting really sick and tired of going around in circles with you on this. Either explain why good luck validates bad decision-making or concede that it doesn't. And don't pull this endless shell game of moving back and forth between fiction and real-life and pretending that arguments which apply to one don't apply to the other; if your logic is sound, then the real-life lottery example is just as good as the lucky fictional character example.

I'm not ignoring your warnings Mike, I am trying to ignore who is issuing them so that it does not affect the presentation of my argument.

I concede that good luck does not validate bad decision making. My understanding of that statement to avoid any confusion, is that you are saying a pattern of good luck does not validate a pattern of bad decisions.

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.:

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

Argument 2
Knowledge is not complete
In the absence of complete knowledge, Judgement is neccesary.
The application of judgement is a choice.
A choice causes an outcome

Argument 3

A choice functions according to judgement.
If choice functions, judgement functions.
Judgement can be asessed through function

Consistent function of outcome reflects consistent quality of choice.

[Patrick Degan]

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

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.

Argument 2
Knowledge is not complete
In the absence of complete knowledge, Judgement is neccesary.
The application of judgement is a choice.
A choice causes an outcome

Unfortunately, this argument breaks down because making a choice from lack of knowledge is poor judgement. This really should not have to be explained.

Argument 3

A choice functions according to judgement.
If choice functions, judgement functions.
Judgement can be asessed through function

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

Consistent function of outcome reflects consistent quality of choice.

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.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

[Themightytom]

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

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.

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

Argument 2
Knowledge is not complete
In the absence of complete knowledge, Judgment is necessary.
The application of judgment is a choice.
A choice causes an outcome

Unfortunately, this argument breaks down because making a choice from lack of knowledge is poor judgment. This really should not have to be explained.

I said "complete knowledge" in order to acknowledge variables. It is a logic model that assumes there is a finite limit to the knowledge that one can have.

Argument 3

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

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.

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

Consistent function of outcome reflects consistent quality of choice.

In a word, bullshit. Once more, 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.

No, I am not justifying Kirk's judgment; I am trying to replicate the logic model used to justify an objective function scale because Mike does not follow my reasoning. YOU still haven't offered anything but your opinions to challenge my example of a subjective scale as part of an objective diagnostic. You are a complete dumbass and are ignoring its very existence so that you can substitute your opinion of events for any real evidence of your claims. You can't even evaluate a logic model because you're so wrapped up in a preconceived opinion you are unable to evaluate objectively.

Every time you use "Good" and "Bad" as qualifiers you make it obvious you are not applying Kirk's actions to an objective scale. They are points on a scale of morality which is a highly subjective concept. That is why functional versus dysfunctional is better scale because it includes observable benchmarks less subject to opinion.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

...and you keep substituting pithy rhetoric for critical reasoning.

[consequences]

Right, let's start with the premise that yes, he was a disrespectful dick, and should be reprimanded.

However, Starfleet Academy(and Starfleet in general) seems to be more than a little lax in the regulations department to begin with. Cupcake and company were caught in the act of beating the shit out of a civilian, the son of a Starfleet hero no less, while in uniform, by a field grade officer, and Kowalski still managed to rate assignment to the Enterprise. This could easily be a crash and burn offense at a modern military academy. Spock directs himself to be removed from command, and doesn't place himself directly into the custody of ship security after he attacks Kirk.

Also, the Kobayashi Maru in the movie was bullshit on far too many levels to be taken seriously. It's a simulation. It's a simulation that common knowledge holds is unwinnable. It's an unwinnable simulation that you're allowed to retake multiple times(another distinct unlikelihood in modern military training, where you generally get a second shot at most). This is a personal feeling that has no bearing on Starfleet disciplinary procedures and academic behavioral standards, but on that personal level, with all logic stripped away, I can only sympathize with Kirk(at least up to the point where he continues to be a cock about it).

However, I still like Mackenzie Calhoun's performance the best out of all the various times it's been shown on screen or in print.Spoiler

When the Klingons decloaked, he shot the freighter, and the explosion wiped them out.

[Stark]

Man, I knew the wank novels were dumb, but that's like... the worst possible outcome. The freighter crew is dead, you've violated the neutral zone and killed Klingon warships. War is inevitable and you achieved nothing.

[consequences]

Man, I knew the wank novels were dumb, but that's like... the worst possible outcome. The freighter crew is dead, you've violated the neutral zone and killed Klingon warships. War is inevitable and you achieved nothing.

The reasoning is as follows: Blatant trap, the crew are already dead or will soon wish they were, impossible situation to win conventionally.

Decisive action would also be far more likely to earn the Klingons respect than running. Or are we all forgetting the reason behind the war in Yesterday's Enterprise? Then there's the question of who is going to tell their superiors what happened if all of the ones there are dead.

Of course, I screwed up in my recollection, it was actually the Romulans in that iteration which makes all analysis of Klingon behavior an exceedingly moot point, my bad.

With Romulans, the reasoning behind avoiding a war gets more a lot more tenuous, relying on the fact that the area in question was under dispute(established in the book prior to entering the Neutral Zone), and the fact that Romulans tend to be cowardly little shites when openly confronted from anything resembling a position of strength.


But don't let me get in the way of the infinite permutations of your hatred of the universe and everything in it.

[Crazedwraith]

It was Romulans in Calhoun's time. Basically he says he did it; just because he could. And could think up a bullshit explanation to justify it to the examiners. And basically he did it to piss of Shelby, who'd helped design that year's simulation.

Still your explanation for Klingons is pretty much bullshit. They got pissed in Yesterday's Enterprise becuase their so called ally ran out of them in the middle of a battle and let their civvies get massacred rather than fighting the good fight. The same logic doesn't apply when your opponents right from the beginning of the sim.

Still Peter David's dedication for that novel was pure awesome.

To the brave crew and passengers of The Kobayashi Maru.... sucks to be you

[consequences]

It was Romulans in Calhoun's time. Basically he says he did it; just because he could. And could think up a bullshit explanation to justify it to the examiners. And basically he did it to piss of Shelby, who'd helped design that year's simulation.

Or, maybe, as the former rebellion leading warlord, his motivations were exactly what he said they were. His ruminations two chapters later while headed to his quarters certainly don't have any 'haha, I certainly showed that earther woman her place beneath me, and I sold a line of bullshit to the examiners too haha!' vibe to them.

Still your explanation for Klingons is pretty much bullshit. They got pissed in Yesterday's Enterprise becuase their so called ally ran out of them in the middle of a battle and let their civvies get massacred rather than fighting the good fight. The same logic doesn't apply when your opponents right from the beginning of the sim.

Got any proof that they were remotely allies at that point? Peace doesn't automatically equal alliance. Regardless, running from your opposition certainly isn't going to do a damned thing to convince the Klingons that the Federation wouldn't serve as a wonderfully weak target for conquest.

Still Peter David's dedication for that novel was pure awesome.

To the brave crew and passengers of The Kobayashi Maru.... sucks to be you

True.

[Darth Wong]

Themightytom, prove that Kirk actually has "good luck" superpowers, since it is clear now that your argument obviously relies on that assumption.

For that matter, prove that such "good luck" superpowers exist in Star Trek. The fact that a particular character is remarkably fortunate does not mean he has "good luck" superpowers, asshole. By that logic, Adolf Hitler had "good luck" superpowers too. Do you know how many assassination attempts he survived, often by sheer luck?

[Ryushikaze]

He's totally missed the point. Would Frodo be delusional if he said 'fuck you guys' and just tried to walk to Mordor alone? What if by some freakish miracle one in a trillion alternate Frodos made it? Would that make Frodo a tactical genius? Is his plan stupid?

But that is what he did. Granted, at the end of Fellowship than the start, but he did. In one way, his plan was good, but only because be was so unimportant so nearly no one gave him heed and he had a smoke screen, and even then he executed his plan horribly.

As for Kirk having "good luck" superpowers, extra dialogue in the novel lampshades this, and suggests it might be some sort of self correction in the universe. Kirk acts like an idiot, but so do several other folks, all leading to the serendipity of the movie.

[Crazedwraith]

Or, maybe, as the former rebellion leading warlord, his motivations were exactly what he said they were. His ruminations two chapters later while headed to his quarters certainly don't have any 'haha, I certainly showed that earther woman her place beneath me, and I sold a line of bullshit to the examiners too haha!' vibe to them.

I'll admit It's been a while since I read Stone And Anvil but I do recall a passage were Mac says almost exactly that. Not the Shelby bit so much as the "I Did it because I could" He couches it more in terms of him being a savage and liking blowing shit up and destroying his enemies and so forth.

[Patrick Degan]

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

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.

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.

Argument 2
Knowledge is not complete
In the absence of complete knowledge, Judgment is necessary.
The application of judgment is a choice.
A choice causes an outcome

Unfortunately, this argument breaks down because making a choice from lack of knowledge is poor judgment. This really should not have to be explained.

I said "complete knowledge" in order to acknowledge variables. It is a logic model that assumes there is a finite limit to the knowledge that one can have.

More handwaving. 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?

Argument 3

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

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.

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

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.

Consistent function of outcome reflects consistent quality of choice.

In a word, bullshit. Once more, 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.

No, I am not justifying Kirk's judgment;

Yes you are, liar.

I am trying to replicate the logic model used to justify an objective function scale because Mike does not follow my reasoning. YOU still haven't offered anything but your opinions to challenge my example of a subjective scale as part of an objective diagnostic. You are a complete dumbass and are ignoring its very existence so that you can substitute your opinion of events for any real evidence of your claims. You can't even evaluate a logic model because you're so wrapped up in a preconceived opinion you are unable to evaluate objectively.

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.

Every time you use "Good" and "Bad" as qualifiers you make it obvious you are not applying Kirk's actions to an objective scale. They are points on a scale of morality which is a highly subjective concept. That is why functional versus dysfunctional is better scale because it includes observable benchmarks less subject to opinion.

Semantics whoring now. Your position degenerates along predictable lines.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

...and you keep substituting pithy rhetoric for critical reasoning.

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.

[Joe Momma]

Argument 3

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[Simon_Jester]

My vote is "D," with a caveat:

In the recent movie, Kirk not only cheated to pass the scenario, but did so in a way that displayed contempt for both the test itself and his superior officers. That is the truly important point, in my opinion. While new-movie-Kirk has the raw materials to make a competent, or even a good officer, he desperately needs to have the BS slapped out of him before he can realize his potential. Until then, his actions will produce good or ill largely at random, while steadily undermining the discipline and professionalism of anyone influenced by his example.

A certain amount of arrogance is excusable. The level required to show contempt for officers far senior to oneself, and far more accomplished than oneself, is not.

But (here's the caveat) in a scenario more like the older movie, where Kirk's reprogramming was more subtle, I'd be inclined to let the incident pass without comment and go for "no grade." But also no commendation, though I might slip a note into his personnel file mentioning his resourcefulness. In that case, he did not display contempt for his instructors, and so his ethics lapse was more forgivable in my eyes.

[Themightytom]

Themightytom, prove that Kirk actually has "good luck" superpowers, since it is clear now that your argument obviously relies on that assumption.

For that matter, prove that such "good luck" superpowers exist in Star Trek. The fact that a particular character is remarkably fortunate does not mean he has "good luck" superpowers, asshole. By that logic, Adolf Hitler had "good luck" superpowers too. Do you know how many assassination attempts he survived, often by sheer luck?

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.

Winning the Kobiyashi Maru "should" be hopeless. Kirk identifies a means of getting security codes so that he can hack the simulator. he wins the unwinnable test. I don't know enough here about how Kirk happened to have the skills and resources to hack a computer system whose security is allgedly beyond him.

Kirk has clearly been caught cheating, and he faces an opponent who is CULUTRALLY programmed to present a rational and compelling argument to support rules against cheating. Spock is unable to do this, and further more, convenient timing of an emergency interupts the proceeding, staying the judgement of Kirk's actions ffor the duration off tthe movie, during which he completely redefines his status from delinquent cadet to galactic hero, making it significantly more difficult for the academy to rule against him.

Kirk is prohibited from participating in the emergency as he is suspended. McCoy helps him cheat by smuggling hismelf on board the Enterprise. he again accomplishes the seemingly impossible using not only contacts this time but an implausible combination of a medical bay with prepared medication next to the landing bay, and a surprisingly successful argument by McCoy when challenged by another officer.

Upon discovery Kirk SHOULD have been confined to quarter or sent to the brig, instead he makes a compelling enough argument regarding current eevents that pike makes him first officer, using disparate intellignece that ulhura "Happened" to mention to her room mate that he "happened" to be in the room for after she "Happened" to be the only one who intercepted and undersstood the message in yet another completely implausible situation.

Kirk blows up an orbital paltform and falls to his doom and is plucked out of an impossible to beam out dive, ebcause Checkov the Child prodigy "Happens" to be on baord and "Happens" to be able to do this task.

Next Kirk challenges Spock and while seeming to fail, Spock happens to dispense unorthodox punnishment by firing him to a planet wher ehe "happens" to be chased by two seperate animals directly into the path of future Spock who "happens" to ahve been improbably stranded there. Spock happens to have all the information, technical knowledge and skills, to enable Kirk to return and achieve victory of the seemingly unjwinnable situation with young Spock.

Then Kirk uses the intel gained and skills of his crew to complete an unlikely victory against the Narada a ship that is demonstrably greater in fire power which has proven nigh unstoppable.

While Kirk's confidence and repetition of his "never give up, there's always a way" approach is irrational in the contexxt off the real world, taken as a pattern within its own, it is NOT irrational to continue following a strategy that is routinely succcessful.

[Havok]

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

[Themightytom]

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 said "complete knowledge" in order to acknowledge variables. It is a logic model that assumes there is a finite limit to the knowledge that one can have.

More handwaving. 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.

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.

Yes you are, liar.

You're being unreasonable.

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 amde 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.

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.

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

Semantics whoring now. Your position degenerates along predictable lines.

More rhetoric, no counter argument.

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.

[/quote]

MORE rhetoric.

[Stark]

Man the best part here is he's obviously got his big sister to post for him now; his general posting style is barely literate and witness his transformation!

[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.

[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.

[Themightytom]

Man the best part here is he's obviously got his big sister to post for him now; his general posting style is barely literate and witness his transformation!

Woah easy buddy I'm legally blind. looking at a bright screen and then an unlit keyboard requires my eyes to readjust so typically I touch type (Admittedly ineffectively). This was pointed out to me in a post two or three weeks ago and I run everything through word now. I have to play my A game especially when I am arguing an unfavorable position with the Owner Of The Site.

Yeah no, I won’t be telling anyone in my family I have written thousands of words on the topic of “How fictional characters should be effectively evaluated for mental illness.” I am definitely reminded that if you furbish an argument in this forum you better be ready to go all-in in terms of time and effort no matter how trivial the subject matter.

[Themightytom]

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.

You're right, that is a weakness in the premise but it is accounted for by repeated measure. More instances of functional success lend more credibility to the judgement of the character in question. In real life you don't use the GAF once, you use it in an ongoing manner, sometimes weekly. You constantly repeat the measure to account for that variability. For luck to influence Kirk's success under repeated measure, it would have to be a constant factor. luck should NOT be cosntant, so it would point to a universe that is irrational.

[Havok]

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.

[Darth Wong]

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 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.

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?