More Trektardism

[Surlethe]

Sad that people other than government propagandists intuitively accept this.

Sad, but understandable: this tribalism is simple human nature. Like most people, these people have never learned to subjugate their intuition with logic; instead, they harness reasoning to their intuition.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder if these Net Nanny morons realize that "you're biased" is just as much of a personal attack as "you're an idiot" or "you're an asshole".

[Ghost Rider]

I wonder if these Net Nanny morons realize that "you're biased" is just as much of a personal attack as "you're an idiot" or "you're an asshole".

Logic to these fuckers is as foreign as the scientific method is. Nothing more then big words that make no sense whatsoever.

[Zablorg]

I wonder if these Net Nanny morons realize that "you're biased" is just as much of a personal attack as "you're an idiot" or "you're an asshole".

Let's give that a road test;

"Michael Wong, it is my informed opinion that you demonstrate tendencies of aggression, bais, and numerous other such nasty traits when attempting to debate those who would come to you only to have a civilized discussion. One wonders whether these activities carry over into the real world."

Compared to this:

"Mike, your an angry little cuntbag who insults people for no reason. I bet you have no friends, you smelly little asshole."

Clearly, they get more milage out of the first one.

[Batman]

Well the former DOES have advantages if you get paid for it on a per-word basis

Which they don't of course but I wouldn't put it past these people to really think it carries more weight because it's a lot longer and uses more complicated words. It's apparently their basis for assuming Trek technology is superior, afterall.

[Darth Servo]

I wonder if these Net Nanny morons realize that "you're biased" is just as much of a personal attack as "you're an idiot" or "you're an asshole".

Do you really need to ask? Of course not. Anything they do is automatically OK. Anything you do is automatically wrong.

[Darth Servo]

Well the former DOES have advantages if you get paid for it on a per-word basis

Which they don't of course but I wouldn't put it past these people to really think it carries more weight because it's a lot longer and uses more complicated words. It's apparently their basis for assuming Trek technology is superior, afterall.

They ARE doing their damnest to emmulate Darkstar, who thinks you win a debate by drowning the argument in excessive verbage. That's a "reward" in and of itself. I wonder if they give each other prizes for who can get closest to RSA's level of verbal diarrhea. Have an awards ceremony each year or something.

[Peptuck]

Well the former DOES have advantages if you get paid for it on a per-word basis

Which they don't of course but I wouldn't put it past these people to really think it carries more weight because it's a lot longer and uses more complicated words. It's apparently their basis for assuming Trek technology is superior, afterall.

JMSpock actually stated outright on ST.com that one of the reasons why STvsSW was superior to SDN was because Darkstar's arguments were longer.

[Coiler]

JMSpock actually stated outright on ST.com that one of the reasons why STvsSW was superior to SDN was because Darkstar's arguments were longer.

Know exactly where he said this?

[Darth Servo]

JMSpock actually stated outright on ST.com that one of the reasons why STvsSW was superior to SDN was because Darkstar's arguments were longer.

Know exactly where he said this?

It is rather ironic given spocktard's pages. They're typically "this episode shows 'X'" or "here's a picture, so that means 'Y'". He refuses to add equations and scaling and, well, LOGIC to his pages so they won't be so cluttered.

[Batman]

JMSpock actually stated outright on ST.com that one of the reasons why STvsSW was superior to SDN was because Darkstar's arguments were longer.

Know exactly where he said this?

It is rather ironic given spocktard's pages. They're typically "this episode shows 'X'" or "here's a picture, so that means 'Y'". He refuses to add equations and scaling and, well, LOGIC to his pages so they won't be so cluttered.

Yeah. Can't have stuff that actually would support your points cluttering up your precious pages. As long as they're pretty who cares if they're supported by nothing whatsoever?

[Lord Poe]

This reminds me of one Christian Fundie who challenged "The Amazing Atheist" to a debate, but the one condition was, he couldn't swear! Of course, TAA refused, and Jesus Crispy declared victory.

JMS is a little Fundie, homeschooled shut-in. Prove me wrong.

[Wyrm]

No bet. So far, all observed behavior points to that conclusion anyway.

[Ritterin Sophia]

This reminds me of one Christian Fundie who challenged "The Amazing Atheist" to a debate, but the one condition was, he couldn't swear! Of course, TAA refused, and Jesus Crispy declared victory.

JMS is a little Fundie, homeschooled shut-in. Prove me wrong.

VenomFang, we've talked about him on here before, someone posted one of his stupid videos in testing, later I posted one of his PMs to me in slam where someone said his logic is so circular they're surprised his head isn't spinning in his videos, this spurred one of our posters here to make a couple Bible videos.

[Themightytom]

Well the former DOES have advantages if you get paid for it on a per-word basis

Which they don't of course but I wouldn't put it past these people to really think it carries more weight because it's a lot longer and uses more complicated words. It's apparently their basis for assuming Trek technology is superior, afterall.

The more you say the more likely it is that you will slip up. on the other hand a witty saying proves nothing.
I feel like both of these phrases would be invaluable rules of thumb for Trekkies who use the silly technobabble, adopt the pseudo intellectual stance and spend a lot of time saying nothing.
On the other hand we're all arguing about science fiction so why get irritated enough to use expletives.

[Darth Wong]

On the other hand we're all arguing about science fiction so why get irritated enough to use expletives.

Why the fuck not?

Seriously, why the fuck do some people think that if someone uses expletives, he must be foaming at the mouth with rage? I can be in a very good mood, yet still use plenty of expletives. I can also be in a good mood, see someone post something stupid, and call him a moron. It doesn't mean that I'm in a foul mood or angry or anything.

If someone is in a good mood, does that mean he is necessarily polite and thinks everyone else in the world is smart no matter what they say?

[white_rabbit]

On the other hand we're all arguing about science fiction so why get irritated enough to use expletives.

It adds emphasis much quicker than buggering about with long winded bullshit like the snotling fondlers over at SF.retard.net. I don't know about you, but I occasionally feel the need for brevity when posting in situations like that.

[Batman]

Why NOT use expletives when the one you're arguing with is so definitely deserving them? Especially as out in the real world people use expletives all the time?

[Darth Wong]

Why NOT use expletives when the one you're arguing with is so definitely deserving them? Especially as out in the real world people use expletives all the time?

In the real world we adults use expletives all the time when talking to each other. But when we talk to children, we tend to carefully avoid the use of expletives.

That's why, when someone assumes you can't be an adult if you use insult him or foul language, it's highly likely that he's a child himself. After all, that's how children are accustomed to being treated by adults.

[Davey]

I don't swear that often in real life or online, but that doesn't stop me from saying stuff like that and the like whenever the fucking goddamn hell I want to. When I write dialogue, though, I tend to be very careful because too much swearing makes the words lose their power and become sorta mundane. But that's another matter entirely.

Speaking of real life, I've noticed how these Trektards are so sure and confident over the web, but I've always wondered if they'd act the same way across a table, where they haven't got the same anonymity and don't have Google, Wikipedia and the CTRL, C, and V keys.

[Surlethe]

Speaking of real life, I've noticed how these Trektards are so sure and confident over the web, but I've always wondered if they'd act the same way across a table, where they haven't got the same anonymity and don't have Google, Wikipedia and the CTRL, C, and V keys.

Have you ever argued with a Republitard? It's the same phenomenon. The way they present their arguments, without having time to sit behind a keyboard and compose, would be different, but they'd still harp upon the same talking points they use over the internets.

[Lord Poe]

Speaking of real life, I've noticed how these Trektards are so sure and confident over the web, but I've always wondered if they'd act the same way across a table, where they haven't got the same anonymity and don't have Google, Wikipedia and the CTRL, C, and V keys.

See, we should set up a stickam chat room for a debate. See who has the balls to show up. On camera.

[Davey]

Have you ever argued with a Republitard? It's the same phenomenon. The way they present their arguments, without having time to sit behind a keyboard and compose, would be different, but they'd still harp upon the same talking points they use over the internets.

I can't say I have; I'm relatively new to the internet. That said, from what I've seen most political debates over online forums or email quickly spiral into text-based shouting contests and virtual pissing matches. Because of that I keep my political thoughts to myself, among like-minded people or not, and I watch what I say, because that's the thing with the internet, you never know who's going to read your stuff.

I've seen and met a few keyboard commandos, but most of them have been over the internet. They don't act the same offline. Offline they don't have access to Wikipedia and HKpro.com, so they just try and make up an act and hope you'll just swallow it because they say they know what they're talking about. On and offline they're both idiots, but they're even bigger idiots when they're offline. Keyboard commandos easily rank among the top ten on my list of 'most hated things on the internet' among spammers, viruses, and politards of any alignment.

See, we should set up a stickam chat room for a debate. See who has the balls to show up. On camera.

I'd find it impressive if anyone did. I don't, for one.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

A new year brings a new bunch of Trektards to the debating table, and for old ones to mount a fresh assault. Look at this gem I found on ST.com:
http://boards.startrek.com/community/me ... 09820;st=0
Of course, our old friend Phoenix has reared his head, and yep, still coming out with the same crap

Oh, and it wouldn't be complete without the traditional no-laser fallacy; for this we look to the top of page 3 from someone called CaptainRobertVienna:

This question is easily answered based on a single episode from TNG's second season: 'The Outrageous Okana'

I may not have the quotes exactly, but:

Data: "Captain, it appears they are locking lasers on us."

Riker: "Lasers? Those won't even penetrate our navigational shields..."

Now SW: IV

Naval Officer: "We count thirty rebel ships my Lord, but they are so small they are evading our Turbo LASERS."

Done deal. Empire could fire away all it wants, while the crew of the 1701, A, D or E, or Voyager or DS9 would sit there, find a way to disrupt their power relays, beam aboard a few active torpedoes (or maybe an anit-matter pod?) and be home in time for tea with Picard.

Enjoy the target practice

[Aaron]

Why do I get the impression that most of the users on that board are thirteen and furiously beating their meat to T'Pol pics? Clearly they haven't much blood flow to the brain.