Graeme Dice wrote:Patrick Degan wrote:Shall I have to quote Card's own text to you again? No devices on Bugger ships for transmitting or receiving signals "of any kind".
Yet they still managed to make it to Earth, twice. Suspension of disbelief trumps any and all arguments you might care to make that the Buggers weren't capable of astronomical navigation.
That isn't quite the issue, as Card provides no alternate mechanism to explain the Buggers alternative to radio engineering. The debate has moved on to ThatMoronFromThatPlace's refusal to acknowledge evidence which is inconvenient to him. Something you'd be aware of if you hadn't disappeared for several days.
I have no need to edit arguments that you're desperately trying to strawmander.
You're a bald-faced liar.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Here's the quotes that illustrate that you are clearly claiming that without radio communication, it's impossible to develop other uses for the electromagnetic spectrum:
"Because the discovery of radio is BASIC: it actually precedes the invention of things like radar and computers and microwave emitters. The very first usage of the discovery is for communications purposes. But if you don't have that to start with, the other allied inventions don't follow"
And how is the claim invalid, you dishonest asshole? You tried saying that I was "backpedaling" several pages ago on this thread. Except the record shows my arguments have been consistent throughout. And kindly enlighten us exactly HOW you somehow invent radar if you
HAVEN'T FIRST DISCOVERED AND DEVELOPED BASIC FIRST PRINCIPLES ?
It's not an fallacy when you come right out and state that this is exactly what you are doing. I quote again:
"And for the benefit of those who think they've got the handle on this discussion as it relates to Orson Scott Card's idiotic book, a handy passage straight from the pages of Ender's Game for your perusal:"
Go fuck yourself, liar. You are indeed guilty of Appealing to Motive. You'd have a shred of an argument if my position was solely
"Ender's Game" is a crappy book because I hate Orson Scott Card". I have outlined reasons, quoted passages, and constructed a foundation for saying that Orson Scott Card's book is, in fact, idiotic. Don't like it? Too bad.
So, the first five sentences of your quote are nothing more than a basic biological description of the species. One could write a very similar description for humans, so I fail to see the relevance.
No, stupid, they establish the context for the relevant quote in the passage.
Thanks for ignoring the fact that one could write nearly identical descriptions for humans. Would you claim that a description that humans possess no natural radio receivers was somehow relevant to this discussion?
I ignored nothing, asswipe. Your so-called "observation" is meaningless and doesn't address the overall context issue raised earlier, which sets up the explanation for why the Buggers did not develop a language or any other form of audible communication among themselves.
The Buggers were able to successfully navigate to Earth twice. Therefore they must be in possession of technology that is necessary to navigate interstellar distances.
Evidence from the book to support this, please. Because according to Graff, such technology was not aboard their ships.
Secondly, is is blindingly obvious to anybody who doesn't have an axe to grind against Card (You've already admitted that you do.),
Appeal to Motive Fallacy yet again.
that the bugger's would have no reason to put redundant copies of devices that may have been aboard the queen's ship. If that ship is destroyed then the entire invasion fails, making backups useless.
Sorry, does that actually constitute evidence which is in fact missing from Card's book? No? Thought so.
Why on Earth are you arguing about conceptual flaws?
Because this is a debate board, stupid, and little things like "conceptual flaws" are valid grounds for investigation and shredding. I'm sorry if that concept cannot be contained within that tiny mind of yours.
What bearing do they have on the technological development of the Buggers, which is what you were apparently trying to argue?
Is that a question or a joke?
And as already pointed out to you multiple times, this does not preclude the development of devices that utilize the electromagnetic spectrum in a variety of ways.
Without any initial discovery and development of basic first principles. Your idiocy is about as comprehensive as ThatImbecileFromThatPlace's.
Would you care to point out where I have handwaved _anything_ away? All I did until this latest bout of your stupidity, where you started bringing up irrelevant quotes, was repeatedly tell you that the use of radio for communication is in no way necessary to develop technologies such as radar.
Context restoration in progress:
And here we have the real problem. You dislike Orson Scott Card, and because you are not particularly bright you take the standard response of stupid people. Anything created by the person you dislike must be crap, because you aren't competent enough to separate the person from their work.
Oh, and thanks for providing the quote that shows that not only do you have absolutely no understanding of technological development, you can't even understand the most basic things you read.
The buggers could probalby see about the same spectrum of light as human beings, and there was artificial lighting in their ships and ground installations. However, their antennae seemed almost vestigal. There was no evidence from their bodies that smelling, tasting, or hearing were particulary important to them. "Of course, we can't be sure. But we can't see any way they could have used sound for communication. The oddest thing of all was that they also don't have any communication devices on their ships. No radios, nothing that could transmit or receive a signal of any kind."
So, the first five sentences of your quote are nothing more than a basic biological description of the species. One could write a very similar description for humans, so I fail to see the relevance. Then you provide two sentences that are actually relevant. Now, if this is a description of the second fleet, then the lack of such devices is hardly surprising. Only the queen's ship would be likely to have those, and it was destroyed. If it's the first fleet, then you might actually have a point, but it's hidden behind the hard-on you have for complaining about an incredibly minor detail in a book that involves a handwavium weapon like the Dr. device.
"They must talk to each other directly, Ender, mind to mind. What one thinks, another can also remember. Why would they even learn to read and write? How would they know what reading and writing were if they saw them? Or signals? Or numbers? Or anything that we use to communicate?"
Would you care to explain what your problem is with this quote, and why you think it has any bearing on technological development?
Your handwaving, I think.
I'd be more than happy to compare degrees, and show you that I am more than qualified to make such a statement if you continue to present this idiotic assertion that radio for communication purposes is necessary for the development of technology that uses the EM spectrum for other purposes.
Oh yes, we can just claim all sorts of things about ourselves on the internet, can't we? Sorry, but anybody who can come out and say that you can invent radar without first ever discovering and developing the basic first principles of radio engineering —of which it's use for communciation is what you practically
stumble over as the very first step— is clearly talking out of his ass. Which you are.
That's a bullshit backpedal.
Lie.
You really need to go back and re-read what you wrote before you start trying to misrepresent your own words.
Sayeth the lying strawmanderer. That's comedy.
A review of the record:
Patrick Degan wrote:1)Yep, the Buggers couldn't sue for peace because somehow they never got around to discovering radio. Nevermind that this is sort of essential if you're going to develop a whole host of technologies which require an understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, and in fact is really sort of impossible not to discover if your society has already started playing with electricity. Only one reason why Ender's Game was one of the dumbest SF books ever written.
2) You can't navigate your way through space with telepathy. For that you need RADAR and maps produced through radio-astronomy. Which means you're going to discover radio or you don't have those tools at hand, which means you can't fly through space. Which is why Card's thinking in this area was idiotic.
3) Because the discovery of radio is BASIC: it actually precedes the invention of things like radar and computers and microwave emitters. The very first usage of the discovery is for communications purposes. But if you don't have that to start with, the other allied inventions don't follow.
Sort of like trying to have cars if you've never bothered to invent the wheel
4) Some of the people on this thread are arguing that Bugger telepathy makes radio unnecessary, which means without an impetus the invention never gets made. It's stated clearly in Card's silly novel that the Buggers don't have radio, which is why they can't communicate with Earth (this begs another question which Card also stupidly leaves unanswered but that will come up inevitably in the course of this debate). My overall point is that without the radio in the first place, you can't go on to develop the technologies crucial to successful spaceflight, which renders the basic assumption behind Card's plot idiotic on its face.
5) Now, I don't know about anybody else who claims they know what they're talking about on this thread, but Orson Scott Card's OWN FUCKING WORDS show that the Buggers don't have radio or devices to transmit and receive signals "of any kind".
Which still leaves the initial question unanswered: if a culture never develops radio and its allied technologies, then how can they actually navigate their way through space?
6) And... optical astronomy will help you spot debris and small asteroids which might be in your way but too small for your telescopes to pick up? Optical astronomy is more accurate than radio astronomy for drafting starcharts?
7) If you want the most accurate charts you can get, you use the most accurate means for producing detailed information. Light-gathering telescopes fail in that regard. This really isn't all that difficult to understand.
8) Got news for you, asshole: black holes are exactly detected with radioastronomy and X-ray source detectors. That's how the first black holes were spotted and it's how the presence of suspected black holes at certain stars are confirmed.
9) Uh uh, asswipe, you're not getting away with that one. The fact that radioastronomy does a far better job of spotting hazards such as black holes than optical telescopes are capable of demonstrates its utility in terms of space navigation. The fact that radar can spot small objects which optical telescopes are insufficient to track demonstrates its superiority in that area as well. That you are incapable of comprehending either of these points is your problem.
Get it, moron? Asking at one point "how is it possible" in the overall context of the argument is by way of pointing out
impossibility.
Now, either point out the inconsistency in my position, the "backpedal", or kindly shut the fuck up.
Previously you had written:
"You can't navigate your way through space with telepathy. For that you need RADAR and maps produced through radio-astronomy. Which means you're going to discover radio or you don't have those tools at hand, which means you can't fly through space."
Notice the use of the word can't. That would imply that you are claiming that it's impossible to navigate.
No, the operative definition of "backpedal" is not whatever it seems to mean in your obviously delusional state. The statement is quite valid: you need detailed maps to point out hazards like x-ray sources or other sources of hard radiation which cannot be detected optically. You need radar to point out obstacles which might be in your ship's path which are too small to be detected optically. Without that technology, you don't have those advantages, which means navigation through interstellar distances is not possible. Neither you nor ThatDishonestRetardFromThatPlace have made a valid case as to why this is not so.
Now you're backpedalling and pretending that you were only asking how it would be possible.
Absolute lie. My entire position has been that it is not possible, said position remaining consistent, and challenging others to somehow explain it's impossibility away is
not backpedaling. Either you truly do not know the definition of "backpedal", have a reading-comprehension problem, or you are simply dishonest.
Now slink back into your hole unless you can come up with something intelligent or honest to say in this thread.
