Since most of Tom's latest posting simply repeats itself, I'll address the most salient points:
Themightytom wrote:Patrick Degan wrote: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.
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.