ONEG video: Hide And Q

[Samuel]

Same story with printing. In case you haven't noticed, Chinese script isn't really conducive to the kind of movable-type printing that the European scripts are, thousands of characters vs 23 (at the time). Thus, China didn't get beyond wood blocks, whereas Guttenburg turned it into the remarkably modern movable-type printing press. Yet there is a clear ancestory of the idea between the two, again by way of the Arabs.
All the "eventual collapses of feudalism" you appeal to happened for specific reasons, Patrick. The fall of feudalism in Europe came with the obselecence of the mounted knight with the Welsh longbow and gunpowder. We didn't get rid of monarchies until much later. You haven't yet pointed out specific changes within Japan that would bring down that feudal society that didn't come from outside.

The only possible cause I can think of would be the merchant class, but the more successful of them were being integrated into the hierachy.

Same story with printing. In case you haven't noticed, Chinese script isn't really conducive to the kind of movable-type printing that the European scripts are, thousands of characters vs 23 (at the time). Thus, China didn't get beyond wood blocks, whereas Guttenburg turned it into the remarkably modern movable-type printing press. Yet there is a clear ancestory of the idea between the two, again by way of the Arabs.

Fun fact- the printing press had been previously invented by the Minoans. It didn't take off.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

I would thank you not to confuse Samuel's position with my own. I do not advocate forcing any government to do anything. I propose an extraplanetary civilization to be in contact with the natives, a source for ideas that would change their world just by their mere introduction.

The problem is that they build up rapidly (good) and us the new tech to continue killing each other (not good). Maybe you could find a way to encourage them not to- move out the embassy and medinal benefits in times of war perhaps?

The reason my plan is so underhanded and sneaky is because it is for the show Federation, where the action would be illegal. I dumped doing that for a more sane rewrite- do you have a more developed plan for that?

Hell, I probably wouldn't interfere at all with a planet with vigorous intercultural trade and a few key technologies scattered here and there until it reached something like the modern age. With the right caveats, I'd think at that point they'd be able to handle anything I could throw at them.

... and then they still have to go through all the pain and suffering up the long ladder. And at this point you essentially have Fed policy- warp drive is 50 years ahead of the modern age.

Go in earlier and... well, a more interesting Cold War.

Come to think of it, Patrick's postion is more interventionist than yours.

And you've yet to explain why the Black Death and the Hundred Years War enabled the development of the middle class.

His argument is because they spured hedonism, which increased the demand for skilled craftsmen, increased mobility as a greater proportion of the population filled the role and reduced the previous controls as the people enforcing them were dead.

Patrick, I think we need to change how we are arguing- the thing is getting too long. Any suggestions?

[Patrick Degan]

This required an immediate response:

And you've yet to explain why the Black Death and the Hundred Years War enabled the development of the middle class.

His argument is because they spured hedonism, which increased the demand for skilled craftsmen, increased mobility as a greater proportion of the population filled the role and reduced the previous controls as the people enforcing them were dead.

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! I said no such fucking thing! Do you even know what the definition of hedonism is?! What the fuck does hedonism have to do with the increased value of labour due to its comparitive scarcity to the time pre-plague and before the Hundred Years War?

Patrick, I think we need to change how we are arguing- the thing is getting too long. Any suggestions?

Immediate suggestion: summarisation of points and compartmentalising them according to particular sub-theme. Or we cease using point-by-point quotation and reply and post arguments in a body.

On a broader note: you cease your usage of logical fallacies, the broken-record arguments, and strawmandering. That alone is gobbing up copious bandwidth in this thread.

[Samuel]

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! I said no such fucking thing! Do you even know what the definition of hedonism is?! What the fuck does hedonism have to do with the increased value of labour due to its comparitive scarcity to the time pre-plague and before the Hundred Years War?

"1 : the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life "

The increased demand for skilled labor was due to the increase of demand for luxery goods. Just having less skilled labor wouldn't make it more valuable as demand would drop as well due to the drop in population- there needs to be an increase in relative demand.

If you have a mechanism to do that please share it because I was under the impression that people acting like it was the end of the world and enjoying themselves is what did it.

On a broader note: you cease your usage of logical fallacies, the broken-record arguments, and strawmandering. That alone is gobbing up copious bandwidth in this thread.

Basically the whole case boils down to use not agreeing on logical fallacies. Or in your case not agreeing with the very site you quoted. Remember when I pointed out that the fallacy of consequences didn't apply and you ignored that site?

[Patrick Degan]

Basically the whole case boils down to use not agreeing on logical fallacies. Or in your case not agreeing with the very site you quoted. Remember when I pointed out that the fallacy of consequences didn't apply and you ignored that site?

Excuse me, but the Appeal to Consequence Fallacy did apply to your argument that the Space People must intervene on Primitive World because failure to do so will mean unacceptable death and suffering (something you assume a priori). Trying to say "moral arguments are exempt" doesn't cut it, because that does not attach a truth value to a particular proposition. Whether that suits you or not is irrelevant.

[Samuel]

Basically the whole case boils down to use not agreeing on logical fallacies. Or in your case not agreeing with the very site you quoted. Remember when I pointed out that the fallacy of consequences didn't apply and you ignored that site?

Excuse me, but the Appeal to Consequence Fallacy did apply to your argument that the Space People must intervene on Primitive World because failure to do so will mean unacceptable death and suffering (something you assume a priori). Trying to say "moral arguments are exempt" doesn't cut it, because that does not attach a truth value to a particular proposition. Whether that suits you or not is irrelevant.

It isn't a a priori assumption. You get the joys of famine, plague and war for centuries vs the costs of a major planetary war.

And it applies because...

because that does not attach a truth value to a particular proposition.

What does that even mean?

The argument from consequences is "blank is true/false because it implies x". I'm not saying that- I'm saying "blank must be done otherwise x will happen".

[Patrick Degan]

Basically the whole case boils down to use not agreeing on logical fallacies. Or in your case not agreeing with the very site you quoted. Remember when I pointed out that the fallacy of consequences didn't apply and you ignored that site?

Excuse me, but the Appeal to Consequence Fallacy did apply to your argument that the Space People must intervene on Primitive World because failure to do so will mean unacceptable death and suffering (something you assume a priori). Trying to say "moral arguments are exempt" doesn't cut it, because that does not attach a truth value to a particular proposition. Whether that suits you or not is irrelevant.

It isn't a a priori assumption. You get the joys of famine, plague and war for centuries vs the costs of a major planetary war.

A war which your actions will prompt, moron. The same sort of thing that occurred on Mordan IV when Capt. Mark Jameson armed opposing factions in that planet's civil war, which led to four decades of bloodshed, because he thought it would end the war and bring about the planet's unification. (TNG —"Too Short A Season").

To put it simply, it does not matter how many deaths you believe might occur "down the line" if you do not interfere or how many deaths you believe you will avert down the line. You are advancing potentiality over actuality. YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS THAT OCCUR FROM THE WAR YOU TRIGGER NOW. Which makes you guilty of murder, many times over.

because that does not attach a truth value to a particular proposition.

What does that even mean?

The argument from consequences is "blank is true/false because it implies x".

Wrong again:

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:

1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

Your own particular Appeal to Consequence follows example number one.

I'm not saying that- I'm saying "blank must be done otherwise x will happen".

Do you not understand that your formulation is nothing but your subjective personal belief? It gives you your reason why you want to meddle, but it does not make the formulation objectively true, which is what the Appeal to Consequence example at Nizkor.org also outlines. Just what part of "is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim" eludes you?

[Samuel]

A war which your actions will prompt, moron.

Which effects responsibility, not the morality of the action.

The same sort of thing that occurred on Mordan IV when Capt. Mark Jameson armed opposing factions in that planet's civil war, which led to four decades of bloodshed, because he thought it would end the war and bring about the planet's unification. (TNG —"Too Short A Season").

Giving weapons to both sides is completely different to giving it to one side- the rationale used was the prime directive, which I am scraping.

You are advancing potentiality over actuality.

We do that when we give out vaccines. It is known as planning ahead.

YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS THAT OCCUR FROM THE WAR YOU TRIGGER NOW. Which makes you guilty of murder, many times over.

More important to keep your hands clean and your heart pure than to bother about the pain, suffering and death of others. Too bad isolationism is morally bankrupt- people still die, you just aren't the ones killing them.

Wrong again:

"blank is true/false because it implies x".

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

Wow. They are the same. Your near complete failure of reading comprehension is not my problem.

Your own particular Appeal to Consequence follows example number one.

"I'm not saying that- I'm saying "blank must be done otherwise x will happen"."

Appealing to the consequence of an action is NOT an appeal to consequences- the appeal if you weren't to stupid to read what you posted applies only to beliefs.

Do you not understand that your formulation is nothing but your subjective personal belief?

What the fuck are you talking about? How is it my subjective personal belief?

It gives you your reason why you want to meddle, but it does not make the formulation objectively true, which is what the Appeal to Consequence example at Nizkor.org also outlines.

Uh, yes it does. It is objectively true. If we don't change the situation, x will happen. The reason we know x will happen is because it is occuring now. Further x will continue to happen because there is a long time before they develop to the point they no longer have x.

X in this case is famine, war and disease.

Just what part of "is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim" eludes you?

Nothing. I actually understand the logical fallacy. You unfortunately DON'T.

[Patrick Degan]

A war which your actions will prompt, moron.

Which effects responsibility, not the morality of the action.

It affects both, moron. What part of this is so fucking difficult for you to grasp?

The same sort of thing that occurred on Mordan IV when Capt. Mark Jameson armed opposing factions in that planet's civil war, which led to four decades of bloodshed, because he thought it would end the war and bring about the planet's unification. (TNG —"Too Short A Season").

Giving weapons to both sides is completely different to giving it to one side- the rationale used was the prime directive, which I am scraping.

You have totally missed the point, as usual. In fact, you seem determined to miss the point. Jameson interfered because he personally thought it would bring about a better situation on Mordan IV. Instead, the result of his interference was a four-decade civil war and millions of dead who would otherwise have not died but for his interference in their internal affairs.

You are advancing potentiality over actuality.

We do that when we give out vaccines. It is known as planning ahead.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Vaccinations protect actual living persons in the here and now. That is not a case of advancing potentiality over actuality. Jesus fucking Cthulhu but you are dense.

YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS THAT OCCUR FROM THE WAR YOU TRIGGER NOW. Which makes you guilty of murder, many times over.

More important to keep your hands clean and your heart pure than to bother about the pain, suffering and death of others. Too bad isolationism is morally bankrupt- people still die, you just aren't the ones killing them.

Do you not understand that your wishful thinking does not translate into an actual reality? That you cannot justify pre-emptive murder because you think some "possible" benefit in some far-off future might come to pass. Especially as you really do not have the means to see the future to say with any authority that it will unfold the way you say it will unless you interfere. No matter how you try to weasel out of the implications of your policy, you are causing extant harm by your actions. Only a moral imbecile fails to understand this.

Wrong again:

"blank is true/false because it implies x".

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

Wow. They are the same. Your near complete failure of reading comprehension is not my problem.

A classic example of projection —a psychological fault in which the subject transfers his own defects upon others.

Your own particular Appeal to Consequence follows example number one.

"I'm not saying that- I'm saying "blank must be done otherwise x will happen"."

That IS an Appeal to Consequence, moron. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

Appealing to the consequence of an action is NOT an appeal to consequences- the appeal if you weren't to stupid to read what you posted applies only to beliefs.

Which, whether you wish to recognise it or not, is exactly what you are doing. Since you cannot prove X no matter how many times you wish to say otherwise. You cannot demonstrate that the future of your target primitive world will unfold as you say it will. You cannot demonstrate with any certainty that your programme will achieve the results you claim it will. All you keep doing is to repeat your mantra over and over again: "we must interfere to save them from themselves; their future is too horrible to think of".

Do you not understand that your formulation is nothing but your subjective personal belief?

What the fuck are you talking about? How is it my subjective personal belief?

Since you cannot prove X no matter how many times you wish to say otherwise. You cannot demonstrate that the future of your target primitive world will unfold as you say it will. You cannot demonstrate with any certainty that your programme will achieve the results you claim it will. All you keep doing is to repeat your mantra over and over again: "we must interfere to save them from themselves; their future is too horrible to think of". The only thing you have to go on is your belief of what will happen if interference doesn't occur.

It gives you your reason why you want to meddle, but it does not make the formulation objectively true, which is what the Appeal to Consequence example at Nizkor.org also outlines.

Uh, yes it does. It is objectively true. If we don't change the situation, x will happen. The reason we know x will happen is because it is occuring now. Further x will continue to happen because there is a long time before they develop to the point they no longer have x.

Um, no, that is not objective truth. That is projecting upon a possibility at best. You can pretty much justify anything you like saying "X will happen in the future because X is happening now". The problem is that there really is no reliable method to predict the future. You can only imagine it. But you propose to trigger off warfare on their world to get your planetary society united under a ruthless dictatorship which you hope will be only a short-term phenomenon because of your imagination. Everything about your proposals flows from your imaginings and nothing more.

X in this case is famine, war and disease.

Really? Outlining a prediction of the future based upon vague generalities. Not exactly a solid basis for an experiment with other peoples' lives.

Just what part of "is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim" eludes you?

Nothing. I actually understand the logical fallacy. You unfortunately DON'T.

A classic example of projection —a psychological fault in which the subject transfers his own defects upon others.

[Samuel]

It affects both, moron. What part of this is so fucking difficult for you to grasp?

Causing a war versus letting wars happen "naturally" is what we are talking about- not causing wars for kicks and giggles. In both cases people die.

You have totally missed the point, as usual. In fact, you seem determined to miss the point. Jameson interfered because he personally thought it would bring about a better situation on Mordan IV. Instead, the result of his interference was a four-decade civil war and millions of dead who would otherwise have not died but for his interference in their internal affairs.

The point was the man was covering his sorry ass and managed to get millions killed. I'm sorry the show didn't hang a "villian" sign around his neck, but he sold weapons to a terrorist to free hostages and then gave similar weapons to his enemies so no one would notice a balance of power shift.

He wasn't trying to make things better- he was covering his own ass.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Vaccinations protect actual living persons in the here and now. That is not a case of advancing potentiality over actuality. Jesus fucking Cthulhu but you are dense.

Currently we don't have any major epidemics that vaccines are halting. It is the potential for problems being advanced over actual people being harmed. I'm not talking about the autism nuttiness- I'm talking about people who are alergic and die. We accept that because there is the potential for disease outbreaks that vaccines stop.

Do you not understand that your wishful thinking does not translate into an actual reality? That you cannot justify pre-emptive murder because you think some "possible" benefit in some far-off future might come to pass. Especially as you really do not have the means to see the future to say with any authority that it will unfold the way you say it will unless you interfere. No matter how you try to weasel out of the implications of your policy, you are causing extant harm by your actions. Only a moral imbecile fails to understand this.

You can't take chances fixing things because you aren't perfect. Wow- I guess with less than perfect certainity we shouldn't do anything! Or maybe given that we are intervening the whole time we might have some effect on it. This isn't fire and forget.

As for unfolding unless you intervene... you mean, aliens might have completely different histories than humans? Lets look at Trek- wait, war, war and... more war. I guess they aren't so different!

Yes, my actions are causing harm, which I have REPEATEDLY acknowledged. However, they are serving a great good- something you wouldn't except unless the odds are 100%. How about 6000 years of human history? Sure, we have had periods with little war- but even then we had famine and disease. No time has been free of it.

A classic example of projection —a psychological fault in which the subject transfers his own defects upon others.

Classic Patrick. I show how you are wrong and you attempt to use big words in the vain hope I don't know them. The fact of the matter is that I got the definition right and you refuse to acknoweledge it. I showed you were wrong and your responce was an ad hominum. Care to try again or are you filled with to much of your stupid pride and bull headedness to recognize that?

That IS an Appeal to Consequence, moron. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

blank must be done otherwise x will happen"."

The car's oil must be changed or it may break.
The gun must be cleaned or it will jam.
The paper must be turned in or your grade will fall.
You must bath or you will be dirty.

According to Patrick, pointing out the consequences of an action is a logic fallacy. Which is odd given that NONE of those, which follow the same formula, are logical fallacies.

Which, whether you wish to recognise it or not, is exactly what you are doing. Since you cannot prove X no matter how many times you wish to say otherwise. You cannot demonstrate that the future of your target primitive world will unfold as you say it will. You cannot demonstrate with any certainty that your programme will achieve the results you claim it will. All you keep doing is to repeat your mantra over and over again: "we must interfere to save them from themselves; their future is too horrible to think of".

Except it is the way the human race ran. In Trek, aliens have the exact same thing with large amounts of warfare. I assume they have famine and plague too as even the hypothetical planet of the hippies needs modern technology to lick those.

Since you cannot prove X no matter how many times you wish to say otherwise. You cannot demonstrate that the future of your target primitive world will unfold as you say it will. You cannot demonstrate with any certainty that your programme will achieve the results you claim it will. All you keep doing is to repeat your mantra over and over again: "we must interfere to save them from themselves; their future is too horrible to think of". The only thing you have to go on is your belief of what will happen if interference doesn't occur.

I can't prove ANYTHING with 100% certainity. And the results I claim HAVE happened in human history- large empires are more prosperous than feuding fractional states.

If interference doesn't happen, they might spontaneously decide to toss over 4.5 billion years of evolution pressure and give peace a chance. After all, it isn't like the urge for dominance, competition, tribe, possessions or other instincts will be deeply rooted in their brains.

Of course, if that is the case and we do find the planet of the hippies, we will simply give them the technology and have them peacefully grow in harmany while singing songs and playing on their hippie drums. However, the odds of that occuring are so low that they are about nonexistant.

Um, no, that is not objective truth. That is projecting upon a possibility at best. You can pretty much justify anything you like saying "X will happen in the future because X is happening now". The problem is that there really is no reliable method to predict the future. You can only imagine it. But you propose to trigger off warfare on their world to get your planetary society united under a ruthless dictatorship which you hope will be only a short-term phenomenon because of your imagination. Everything about your proposals flows from your imaginings and nothing more.

You honestly think war is only a temporary phenomena they will grow out of?

As for liberalizing a planetary wide state, there is the fact that once they get warp drive the Federation will lean on them to change. Given the number of member worlds, their tactics appear to be effective.

In a more theoretical vain, I'm pretty sure space aliens offering you life extension and a shitload of stuff in exchange for altering your society would seem very attractive. And if not to you, than to your successor.

Really? Outlining a prediction of the future based upon vague generalities. Not exactly a solid basis for an experiment with other peoples' lives.

People dying horribly would be a vague generality. I'm sorry I can't be more specific- not knowing the names of alien diseases sort of cramps me from doing so. I'll give it a shot though.

Malnutrition
Total War
Maldistribution Famine
Crop Failure Famine
Pandemic
Childhood fevers
Deaths while giving birth
Looting and Pillaging
Disease into unprotected populances
Diseases into crowded cities due to a lack of sanitiation
Revolutionary violence

A classic example of projection —a psychological fault in which the subject transfers his own defects upon others.

Patrick, you have shown that you are incapable of basic english comprehension skills. You didn't understand that a general statement by definition INCLUDES specific statements! It is NOT my fault for drawing conclusions based on your actions.

[Patrick Degan]

It affects both, moron. What part of this is so fucking difficult for you to grasp?

Causing a war versus letting wars happen "naturally" is what we are talking about- not causing wars for kicks and giggles. In both cases people die.

I don't give a flying fuck what you say your motivations are, it still comes down to the same damn thing —you engineering the deaths of millions in pursuit of your personal vision.

You have totally missed the point, as usual. In fact, you seem determined to miss the point. Jameson interfered because he personally thought it would bring about a better situation on Mordan IV. Instead, the result of his interference was a four-decade civil war and millions of dead who would otherwise have not died but for his interference in their internal affairs.

The point was the man was covering his sorry ass and managed to get millions killed.

And by handwaving about creating a better future, you're doing nothing but covering your sorry ass while getting millions killed.

He wasn't trying to make things better- he was covering his own ass.

So are you.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Vaccinations protect actual living persons in the here and now. That is not a case of advancing potentiality over actuality. Jesus fucking Cthulhu but you are dense.

Currently we don't have any major epidemics that vaccines are halting. It is the potential for problems being advanced over actual people being harmed. I'm not talking about the autism nuttiness- I'm talking about people who are alergic and die. We accept that because there is the potential for disease outbreaks that vaccines stop.

Protecting people in the here and now —NOT bringing about a wish-projection of some imagined perfect future for people who don't as yet exist.

Do you not understand that your wishful thinking does not translate into an actual reality? That you cannot justify pre-emptive murder because you think some "possible" benefit in some far-off future might come to pass. Especially as you really do not have the means to see the future to say with any authority that it will unfold the way you say it will unless you interfere. No matter how you try to weasel out of the implications of your policy, you are causing extant harm by your actions. Only a moral imbecile fails to understand this.

You can't take chances fixing things because you aren't perfect. Wow- I guess with less than perfect certainity we shouldn't do anything! Or maybe given that we are intervening the whole time we might have some effect on it. This isn't fire and forget.

I know you imagine you made a point with that drivel of yours. It's still you flogging the same self-justifying bullshit to cover your sorry ass for engineering the deaths of millions in pursuit of your personal vision.

As for unfolding unless you intervene... you mean, aliens might have completely different histories than humans? Lets look at Trek- wait, war, war and... more war. I guess they aren't so different!

Yes, my actions are causing harm, which I have REPEATEDLY acknowledged. However, they are serving a great good- something you wouldn't except unless the odds are 100%. How about 6000 years of human history? Sure, we have had periods with little war- but even then we had famine and disease. No time has been free of it.

Good luck selling that defence at your war crimes trial. Because you're still flogging the same self-justifying bullshit to cover your sorry ass for engineering the deaths of millions in pursuit of your personal vision.

A classic example of projection —a psychological fault in which the subject transfers his own defects upon others.

Classic Patrick. I show how you are wrong and you attempt to use big words in the vain hope I don't know them. The fact of the matter is that I got the definition right and blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblah...

Classic Samuel. When confronted with a defect in your logic, you simply try twisting it about (or outright lie about the contra-argument) and hope you can bullshit your way out of the trap and that nobody will notice.

That IS an Appeal to Consequence, moron. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

blank must be done otherwise x will happen"."

The car's oil must be changed or it may break.
The gun must be cleaned or it will jam.
The paper must be turned in or your grade will fall.
You must bath or you will be dirty.

According to Patrick, pointing out the consequences of an action is a logic fallacy. Which is odd given that NONE of those, which follow the same formula, are logical fallacies.

According to Samuel, personal belief about a future he can't reliable predict is the same thing as fact, which somehow means he can Appeal to Consequences and not have it show as the logical fallacy in his argument that it actually is.

Which, whether you wish to recognise it or not, is exactly what you are doing. Since you cannot prove X no matter how many times you wish to say otherwise. You cannot demonstrate that the future of your target primitive world will unfold as you say it will. You cannot demonstrate with any certainty that your programme will achieve the results you claim it will. All you keep doing is to repeat your mantra over and over again: "we must interfere to save them from themselves; their future is too horrible to think of".

Except it is the way the human race ran.

Which counts for exactly dick in terms of trying to project some other planet's future.

In Trek, aliens have the exact same thing with large amounts of warfare. I assume they have famine and plague too as even the hypothetical planet of the hippies needs modern technology to lick those.

Actually in Trek, we know very little about the histories of most of the worlds presented in the series, but have seen at least one primitive world in which the Bronze Age inhabitants had already given up belief in the supernatural (Mintaka III), another which enjoyed a stable, high culture for longer than the existence of homo erectus on Earth (Bajor), another in which the people found the discipline of logic to avert their own annihilation before humanity took its first faltering steps offworld (Vulcan), and one on which the people's virulent race-hatred led to their complete extinction (Cheron). At least four examples which show your "reasoning" is defective vis-a-vis other worlds "having the exact same thing with large amounts of warfare" as well as famine and plague. Your "reasoning" is fundamentally broken anyway because you simply assume —without foundation— that any given world with primitives on it will face the same history and future as Earth did.

Since you cannot prove X no matter how many times you wish to say otherwise. You cannot demonstrate that the future of your target primitive world will unfold as you say it will. You cannot demonstrate with any certainty that your programme will achieve the results you claim it will. All you keep doing is to repeat your mantra over and over again: "we must interfere to save them from themselves; their future is too horrible to think of". The only thing you have to go on is your belief of what will happen if interference doesn't occur.

I can't prove ANYTHING with 100% certainity.

You can't even prove your hysteria-laden bullshit with anything approaching reasonable, nevermind absolute, certainty.

And the results I claim HAVE happened in human history- large empires are more prosperous than feuding fractional states.

Which means the same history as occurred on Earth must automatically unfold on another world... how, exactly?

If interference doesn't happen, they might spontaneously decide to toss over 4.5 billion years of evolution pressure and give peace a chance. After all, it isn't like the urge for dominance, competition, tribe, possessions or other instincts will be deeply rooted in their brains.

Based upon your guess that what happened on Earth must be the universal pattern for behaviour on every world with humanoids, of course.

Of course, if that is the case and we do find the planet of the hippies, we will simply give them the technology and have them peacefully grow in harmany while singing songs and playing on their hippie drums. However, the odds of that occuring are so low that they are about nonexistant.

About as low-to-nonexistent that you can credibly demonstrate some universal law of humanoid historical development following the same patterns on disparate worlds and based upon the pattern for Earth, and make anything like credible predictions based on it.

Um, no, that is not objective truth. That is projecting upon a possibility at best. You can pretty much justify anything you like saying "X will happen in the future because X is happening now". The problem is that there really is no reliable method to predict the future. You can only imagine it. But you propose to trigger off warfare on their world to get your planetary society united under a ruthless dictatorship which you hope will be only a short-term phenomenon because of your imagination. Everything about your proposals flows from your imaginings and nothing more.

You honestly think war is only a temporary phenomena they will grow out of?

The Vulcans did. The Bajorans did, evidently before hominids even learned to walk erect. The Betazoids did. Humans did. What is your basis for automatically declaring that the primitives on Planet X won't?

As for liberalizing a planetary wide state, there is the fact that once they get warp drive the Federation will lean on them to change. Given the number of member worlds, their tactics appear to be effective.

Funny, somehow the Romulans, the Klingons, and the Cardassians failed to get that memo. Neither did the Tholians, the Breen, or the Tzenkethi. Or maybe the member worlds of the Federation ended up joining not because of Earth "leaning" on them to change their ways.

In a more theoretical vain, I'm pretty sure space aliens offering you life extension and a shitload of stuff in exchange for altering your society would seem very attractive. And if not to you, than to your successor.

You believe, that is.

Really? Outlining a prediction of the future based upon vague generalities. Not exactly a solid basis for an experiment with other peoples' lives.

People dying horribly would be a vague generality. I'm sorry I can't be more specific- not knowing the names of alien diseases sort of cramps me from doing so. I'll give it a shot though.

Malnutrition
Total War
Maldistribution Famine
Crop Failure Famine
Pandemic
Childhood fevers
Deaths while giving birth
Looting and Pillaging
Disease into unprotected populances
Diseases into crowded cities due to a lack of sanitiation
Revolutionary violence

Based upon your guess that what happened on Earth must be the universal pattern for behaviour on every world with humanoids, of course. Once more: credibly demonstrate some universal law of humanoid historical development following the same patterns on disparate worlds and based upon the pattern for Earth, on which anything like credible predictions can be based upon.

Patrick, you have shown that you are incapable of basic english comprehension skills.

And again, a classic example of projection —a psychological fault in which the subject transfers his own defects upon others.

You didn't understand that a general statement by definition INCLUDES specific statements! It is NOT my fault for drawing conclusions based on your actions.

Except you are not drawing conclusions based upon actions but your own belief that what occurred on Earth must be the universal law for historical development on any given world with humanoids, and on that basis declaring a justification for intervention to save said humanoids from themselves. Even though you don't really know their history. Even though you have no means to actually see their future. You simply guess and believe, and with that as your backing, you will engineer the deaths of millions.

Good luck at your war crimes trial.

[Samuel]

I don't give a flying fuck what you say your motivations are, it still comes down to the same damn thing —you engineering the deaths of millions in pursuit of your personal vision.

Which has jack shit to do with the morality of my actions.

And by handwaving about creating a better future, you're doing nothing but covering your sorry ass while getting millions killed.

You missed the part about me having to carry all this out secretly because it was illegal, didn't you?

So are you.

Do we even speak the same language? Covering your ass refers to actions to hide your mistakes. This isn't remotely similar to that.

Protecting people in the here and now —NOT bringing about a wish-projection of some imagined perfect future for people who don't as yet exist.

I'm not aiming for a utopia. Silly strawman. And guess what? Most of the people affected by global warming haven't been born yet. Should we not bother to attempt to deal with the future? Fact of the matter is we attempt to deal with the far of future and the people who might live in it often.

I know you imagine you made a point with that drivel of yours. It's still you flogging the same self-justifying bullshit to cover your sorry ass for engineering the deaths of millions in pursuit of your personal vision.

Yes- not having people starve to death or puke out there guts is my "personal vision" istead of being considered empathy. Because only a mad vision could drive me to attempt to improve other people's lives.

Good luck selling that defence at your war crimes trial. Because you're still flogging the same self-justifying bullshit to cover your sorry ass for engineering the deaths of millions in pursuit of your personal vision.

Illegal and immoral are two seperate things. As it is, the only thing I am aiming for is "aggressive war". Which could be circumvented with my puppet state finding proxies and allies to intervene in the name of.

Classic Samuel. When confronted with a defect in your logic, you simply try twisting it about (or outright lie about the contra-argument) and hope you can bullshit your way out of the trap and that nobody will notice.

And you show that with... nothing at all. You provide no evidence, no argument, no anything.

According to Samuel, personal belief about a future he can't reliable predict is the same thing as fact, which somehow means he can Appeal to Consequences and not have it show as the logical fallacy in his argument that it actually is.

How is it a personal belief?
The idea that they will continue to have warfare until they advance to a certain point (testified to by human history) or the idea that a strong central state will end warfare (testified to by human history).

Also Patrick, even if wrong, they would not be logical fallacies! They would be false premises. Seriously, logic 101.

Which counts for exactly dick in terms of trying to project some other planet's future.

Because aliens are magically immune to the same evolutionary pressures that humans are? Given we have other species on our planet that also engage in war, it is pretty much assured for social groups.

Mintaka III- you do realize there are primitive groups on our own world who have not truck for ghosts or other supersticions? It is rare, but not such a major feat.

Bajor- having actual Gods might have something to do with it. Of course, as a static society, they get the shit beaten out of them by an advancing society.

Vulcan- you mean the one that had a civil war WORSE than anything in human history? I'm sure that affected their pacifism.

Cheron- how does that rebut me?

You can't even prove your hysteria-laden bullshit with anything approaching reasonable, nevermind absolute, certainty.

You gave me 4 rebutals. One was a world destroyed by warfare, one was a world that was static and conquered because of it, one was a world with an extremely brutal civil war (prior to which endemic war raged across the planet) and one was completely unrelated to warfare.

Which means the same history as occurred on Earth must automatically unfold on another world... how, exactly?

... your kidding me. You dispute that single states are more prosperous than small states for a given region? Aren't you familiar with economies of scale- it isn't human only.

Based upon your guess that what happened on Earth must be the universal pattern for behaviour on every world with humanoids, of course.

You haven't shown how there is any other pattern- in fact, you insisted that it MUST occur in order for advancement to procede.

About as low-to-nonexistent that you can credibly demonstrate some universal law of humanoid historical development following the same patterns on disparate worlds and based upon the pattern for Earth, and make anything like credible predictions based on it.

Actually, the rules I have apply to all intelligent species. It is based on the fact that evolution selects for certain traits and amoung them is the ability to fight war.

The Vulcans did. The Bajorans did, evidently before hominids even learned to walk erect. The Betazoids did. Humans did. What is your basis for automatically declaring that the primitives on Planet X won't?

The Vulcans grew out of war after an obsenely bloody conflict, which was considered worse than any comparable human one. The Bajorans had literal Gods guiding them. The Betazoids are a human sub group. Humanity did after an violent nuclear war- and it STILL fights wars! Did you not pay any attention to the fact that Starfleet is a military organization? Just because humanity doesn't kill itself, doesn't mean its wars are any less bloody.

Funny, somehow the Romulans, the Klingons, and the Cardassians failed to get that memo. Neither did the Tholians, the Breen, or the Tzenkethi. Or maybe the member worlds of the Federation ended up joining not because of Earth "leaning" on them to change their ways.

The first 3 predate the Federation as do the last 3. Apparently getting into space and making your own empire makes you strong enough to ignore gentle attempts.

You believe, that is.

Yes, I believe that individuals are motivated by self interest and identification with a group. Basic psychology. Of course, alien cultures... could identify with different groups? Seriously, how would it stop the carrot from working?

Based upon your guess that what happened on Earth must be the universal pattern for behaviour on every world with humanoids, of course. Once more: credibly demonstrate some universal law of humanoid historical development following the same patterns on disparate worlds and based upon the pattern for Earth, on which anything like credible predictions can be based upon.

I believe Guns Germs and Steel does a better job.

And again, a classic example of projection —a psychological fault in which the subject transfers his own defects upon others.

Wow. So aside from shifting the goal posts, you essentially admit you fucked up with basic definitions? Or do you ignore points because you feel like it?

Except you are not drawing conclusions based upon actions but your own belief that what occurred on Earth must be the universal law for historical development on any given world with humanoids, and on that basis declaring a justification for intervention to save said humanoids from themselves. Even though you don't really know their history. Even though you have no means to actually see their future. You simply guess and believe, and with that as your backing, you will engineer the deaths of millions.

Not knowing there history... you are kidding, right? If I employ anything remotely like competant individuals, that is the FIRST thing I will examine.

You keep on moving goal posts. Each time it is a new objection you use for everything as if it is some sort of silver bullet.

Good luck at your war crimes trial.

Except the Federation doesn't consider wars of aggression illegal. And it would be a court martial for violating the Prime Directive... except they never enforce it.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't give a flying fuck what you say your motivations are, it still comes down to the same damn thing —you engineering the deaths of millions in pursuit of your personal vision.

Which has jack shit to do with the morality of my actions.

Sorry, but there is no morality to deliberately engineering the deaths of millions. I don't know how to make that simpler for your comprehension.

And by handwaving about creating a better future, you're doing nothing but covering your sorry ass while getting millions killed.

You missed the part about me having to carry all this out secretly because it was illegal, didn't you?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a "secrecy" exemption to the commission of war crimes and mass murder.

Do we even speak the same language?

Evidently not, since my language includes an understanding of what morality and logic actually are.

Covering your ass refers to actions to hide your mistakes. This isn't remotely similar to that.

No, you're hiding your crimes, which is worse, and is still you covering your sorry ass for engineering the deaths of millions.

Protecting people in the here and now —NOT bringing about a wish-projection of some imagined perfect future for people who don't as yet exist.

I'm not aiming for a utopia. Silly strawman. And guess what? Most of the people affected by global warming haven't been born yet. Should we not bother to attempt to deal with the future? Fact of the matter is we attempt to deal with the far of future and the people who might live in it often.

We have to deal with global warming now because we ourselves are about to be fucked by it. We've got plenty of valid motivation for dealing with the problem without bringing projections of possible futures into the consideration.

not having people starve to death or puke out there guts is my "personal vision" istead of being considered empathy. Because only a mad vision could drive me to attempt to improve other people's lives.

By engineering the deaths of millions in the here and now. Speaking of some rosier future which might happen doesn't erase the crime of what you're proposing to do NOW.

Illegal and immoral are two seperate things. As it is, the only thing I am aiming for is "aggressive war". Which could be circumvented with my puppet state finding proxies and allies to intervene in the name of.

In a word, bullshit. Your proposed action is both illegal and immoral. Mass death is not justifiable because you think it will bring about a successful conclusion to your experiment. And you're still facilitating the act, which still makes you guilty.

Classic Samuel. When confronted with a defect in your logic, you simply try twisting it about (or outright lie about the contra-argument) and hope you can bullshit your way out of the trap and that nobody will notice.

And you show that with... nothing at all. You provide no evidence, no argument, no anything.

The record of the last four pages of this thread say otherwise. That you choose not to recognise them is irrelevant to anything, but then we've already seen what a dishonest little shit you have become in the course of this discussion.

The idea that they will continue to have warfare until they advance to a certain point (testified to by human history) or the idea that a strong central state will end warfare (testified to by human history).

Except you need for Earth history to somehow be the universal pattern for the history of any world with humanoids to make that argument fly.

Also Patrick, even if wrong, they would not be logical fallacies! They would be false premises. Seriously, logic 101.

A False Premise is not the use of a belief as consequence of not doing a particular action or believing a particular thing —which is what you've pinned your defence on. False premise is simply a hasty conclusion used as the foundation for a syllogism which renders the reasoning flowing from it defective.

Which counts for exactly dick in terms of trying to project some other planet's future.

Because aliens are magically immune to the same evolutionary pressures that humans are? Given we have other species on our planet that also engage in war, it is pretty much assured for social groups.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain how that translates into a reliable projection of fact regarding a given planet's future development.

Mintaka III- you do realize there are primitive groups on our own world who have not truck for ghosts or other supersticions? It is rare, but not such a major feat.

Except the canon facts do not point to the Mintakans being just one particular tribe. Kindly give the evidence of other Overseer-worshipping or superstition-ridden tribes on the planet to back your so-called rebuttal, please.

Bajor- having actual Gods might have something to do with it. Of course, as a static society, they get the shit beaten out of them by an advancing society.

From what we see, the Prophets rarely interact with the Bajorans, and the example is not invalidated in any case. Their history proceeded upon a far more peaceful path than Earth's did.

Vulcan- you mean the one that had a civil war WORSE than anything in human history? I'm sure that affected their pacifism.

Your contention was that war won't "magically disappear". The Vulcans realised what their course of action was leading to and put an end to it, by themselves. They didn't need the Space Brothers coming down to them or using proxies to establish a ruthelss world-conquering regime to do it.

Cheron- how does that rebut me?

By demonstrating that their history turned out not at all like Earth's, which puts another hole in your argument that the history of any given world can be likened to Earth's own pattern.

You gave me 4 rebutals. One was a world destroyed by warfare, one was a world that was static and conquered because of it, one was a world with an extremely brutal civil war (prior to which endemic war raged across the planet) and one was completely unrelated to warfare.

Really, now you're down to Moving the Goalposts to keep your shambling argument going. Pathetic.

Which means the same history as occurred on Earth must automatically unfold on another world... how, exactly?

... your kidding me. You dispute that single states are more prosperous than small states for a given region? Aren't you familiar with economies of scale- it isn't human only.

Context restoration in progress:

You cannot demonstrate that the future of your target primitive world will unfold as you say it will. You cannot demonstrate with any certainty that your programme will achieve the results you claim it will. All you keep doing is to repeat your mantra over and over again: "we must interfere to save them from themselves; their future is too horrible to think of". The only thing you have to go on is your belief of what will happen if interference doesn't occur.

I can't prove ANYTHING with 100% certainity. And the results I claim HAVE happened in human history- large empires are more prosperous than feuding fractional states.

We were talking about other worlds, liar, not a comparison between large empires and small states on Earth. Now you try to lift only part of that exchange to alter the meaning of the argument. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Based upon your guess that what happened on Earth must be the universal pattern for behaviour on every world with humanoids, of course.

You haven't shown how there is any other pattern- in fact, you insisted that it MUST occur in order for advancement to procede.

On the contrary, I have. Your goalpost-moving does not invalidate the examples already presented, liar.

About as low-to-nonexistent that you can credibly demonstrate some universal law of humanoid historical development following the same patterns on disparate worlds and based upon the pattern for Earth, and make anything like credible predictions based on it.

Actually, the rules I have apply to all intelligent species. It is based on the fact that evolution selects for certain traits and amoung them is the ability to fight war.

Warfare is not an inherited characteristic, moron. You really are getting desperate now.

The Vulcans did. The Bajorans did, evidently before hominids even learned to walk erect. The Betazoids did. Humans did. What is your basis for automatically declaring that the primitives on Planet X won't?

The Vulcans grew out of war after an obsenely bloody conflict, which was considered worse than any comparable human one. The Bajorans had literal Gods guiding them. The Betazoids are a human sub group. Humanity did after an violent nuclear war- and it STILL fights wars! Did you not pay any attention to the fact that Starfleet is a military organization? Just because humanity doesn't kill itself, doesn't mean its wars are any less bloody.

Your contention is that, without outside help, a species is not going to find the means to end warfare amongst itself to successfully reach space. The existence of every spacefaring species, including humanity, contradicts this. Your contention is that disparate worlds will end up following the same historical pattern and the examples given of several worlds in Star Trek contradicts this. Keep thinking that your goalpost moving will salvage your argument. It won't.

Funny, somehow the Romulans, the Klingons, and the Cardassians failed to get that memo. Neither did the Tholians, the Breen, or the Tzenkethi. Or maybe the member worlds of the Federation ended up joining not because of Earth "leaning" on them to change their ways.

The first 3 predate the Federation as do the last 3. Apparently getting into space and making your own empire makes you strong enough to ignore gentle attempts.

As you wish. Then you can prove that Earth "leaned" on the other member worlds of the Federation to "change their ways", I presume.

Yes, I believe that individuals are motivated by self interest and identification with a group. Basic psychology. Of course, alien cultures... could identify with different groups? Seriously, how would it stop the carrot from working?

When the people you've forced your beneficence on after piling up a mountain of corpses decide they don't want you on their planet anymore.

Based upon your guess that what happened on Earth must be the universal pattern for behaviour on every world with humanoids, of course. Once more: credibly demonstrate some universal law of humanoid historical development following the same patterns on disparate worlds and based upon the pattern for Earth, on which anything like credible predictions can be based upon.

I believe Guns Germs and Steel does a better job.

At what? How does that little Red Herring point to a universal law of humanoid historical behaviour which can be applied to any world and from which predictions can be based?

And again, a classic example of projection —a psychological fault in which the subject transfers his own defects upon others.

Wow. So aside from shifting the goal posts,

Lie.

you essentially admit you fucked up with basic definitions? Or do you ignore points because you feel like it?

As I believe I've said before in this thread, I am not responsible for your fantasies.

Except you are not drawing conclusions based upon actions but your own belief that what occurred on Earth must be the universal law for historical development on any given world with humanoids, and on that basis declaring a justification for intervention to save said humanoids from themselves. Even though you don't really know their history. Even though you have no means to actually see their future. You simply guess and believe, and with that as your backing, you will engineer the deaths of millions.

Not knowing there history... you are kidding, right? If I employ anything remotely like competant individuals, that is the FIRST thing I will examine.

You keep on moving goal posts. Each time it is a new objection you use for everything as if it is some sort of silver bullet.

How am I "moving the goal posts", liar? I have not changed any standard of proof, but you just keep handwaving with the morality protestations and the "it'll lead to a better future" mantra and "what happened on Earth will happen elsewhere" bullshit. Tossing out fallacy names willy-nilly will not lend your position any appearance of legitimacy, no matter how desperately you think it will.

[Formless]

You know, Sam, you seem to be a pretty good debater most of the time, but it seems you missed one of the finer, but important, aspects of debating: learning when to step back, analyze your position, and concede to the stronger argument. You seem to be hell bent on finding any small weakness in Patrick's arguments that might prove you right when there is none, and it looks bad on you. There is no shame in defeat here. But there is much humiliation to be had if you go down fighting like this.

Just some friendly advice.

[Samuel]

You know, Sam, you seem to be a pretty good debater most of the time, but it seems you missed one of the finer, but important, aspects of debating: learning when to step back, analyze your position, and concede to the stronger argument. You seem to be hell bent on finding any small weakness in Patrick's arguments that might prove you right when there is none, and it looks bad on you. There is no shame in defeat here. But there is much humiliation to be had if you go down fighting like this.

Just some friendly advice.

I'm good at debating? This is news to me. Also, for the love of the Emperor GIVE EXAMPLES. Seriously I think friendly advice without explanation is being for... stupid cinematic- how hard are you to find?

Sorry, but there is no morality to deliberately engineering the deaths of millions. I don't know how to make that simpler for your comprehension.

Except that is what formulating insterstellar war is- nothing more than formulating the deaths of billions. It isn't considered immoral because the alternatives are considered worst. Having large numbers of dead doesn't make something evil.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a "secrecy" exemption to the commission of war crimes and mass murder.

Only to being caught. Who is going to testify against Section 31, which doesn't officially exist?

No, you're hiding your crimes, which is worse, and is still you covering your sorry ass for engineering the deaths of millions.

I'm only doing that because the actions are illegal. If they weren't illegal, I'd have postings for job openings in the main intelligence agency and supporting personal requirements to Starfleet. I am dealing with an extremely limited and well defined situation to prove my point.

It is worth noting that covering your ass has jack to do with the morality of a given action.

We have to deal with global warming now because we ourselves are about to be fucked by it. We've got plenty of valid motivation for dealing with the problem without bringing projections of possible futures into the consideration.

Except people were complaining about it when Al Gore was in college. In the 70s. Or are you telling me people shouldn't deal with problems until after they occured?

By engineering the deaths of millions in the here and now. Speaking of some rosier future which might happen doesn't erase the crime of what you're proposing to do NOW.

So? The ends justify the means in this case. You might disagree, but I am using means they would normally use and putting it to a productive purpose. Instead of fighting over the same piece of land again and again, there will be actual change.

In a word, bullshit. Your proposed action is both illegal and immoral. Mass death is not justifiable because you think it will bring about a successful conclusion to your experiment. And you're still facilitating the act, which still makes you guilty.

You are asserting it is wrong to kill large numbers of people for a goal. You haven't justified that- killing large numbers of people is as wrong as killing them individually, but added up. There isn't anything special about it. The same exceptions to murder still apply.

The record of the last four pages of this thread say otherwise. That you choose not to recognise them is irrelevant to anything, but then we've already seen what a dishonest little shit you have become in the course of this discussion.

Patrick, nothing in that statement has anything to do with anything I have said.

Except you need for Earth history to somehow be the universal pattern for the history of any world with humanoids to make that argument fly.

So going by the only sample we have is invalid because... aliens will magically be immune to the same selective pressure humans are subject to? Bull.

A False Premise is not the use of a belief as consequence of not doing a particular action or believing a particular thing —which is what you've pinned your defence on. False premise is simply a hasty conclusion used as the foundation for a syllogism which renders the reasoning flowing from it defective.

Patrick, you are arguing that the idea that

personal belief about a future he can't reliable predict is the same thing as fact,

Which would be... the premise. If you are unwilling to remember what you typed yourself, I am more than willing to refresh you. It must be hard... having it right there in my rebuttal so you don't mix it up.

Except the canon facts do not point to the Mintakans being just one particular tribe. Kindly give the evidence of other Overseer-worshipping or superstition-ridden tribes on the planet to back your so-called rebuttal, please.

You mean that the entire planet is a single culture. Even though they are in the bronze age an communication must be done on foot at 5 miles per hour? And the "entire culture" they are observing is done by one outpost?

From what we see, the Prophets rarely interact with the Bajorans, and the example is not invalidated in any case. Their history proceeded upon a far more peaceful path than Earth's did.

Except for the prophocies. How do you think Earths history would have proceded if one of the religions was emperically true? AND let you fortell the future? And has locations on the planet was those weird spirit thingees.

Finally, there is the fun part that the planet is unified. Which I repeatedly argued would prevent warfare.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bajoran_history

Your contention was that war won't "magically disappear". The Vulcans realised what their course of action was leading to and put an end to it, by themselves. They didn't need the Space Brothers coming down to them or using proxies to establish a ruthelss world-conquering regime to do it.

Except by that point Vulcan was unified AND spacefaring. In fact it is possible the war CAUSED them to become unified.

By demonstrating that their history turned out not at all like Earth's, which puts another hole in your argument that the history of any given world can be likened to Earth's own pattern.

Which is shown by the fact they all killed each other... that doesn't really rebut my point. Especially considering they were spacefaring by that time- they had already developed.

Really, now you're down to Moving the Goalposts to keep your shambling argument going. Pathetic.

When a person makes that claim they need to show how.

We were talking about other worlds, liar, not a comparison between large empires and small states on Earth. Now you try to lift only part of that exchange to alter the meaning of the argument. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

So more of your bull "it could be entirely different". Because they are aliens. Which exempts them from evolutionary pressures.

On the contrary, I have. Your goalpost-moving does not invalidate the examples already presented, liar.

Lets see- we have a tribe of rationalists... which we also have occur on Earth.
We have a planet influenced by space aliens/Gods.
We have a world united by a bloody war
We have a world united by a bloody war
We have a world destoryed by a bloody war AFTER they get spaceflight.

Really. You have to do better than that.

Warfare is not an inherited characteristic, moron. You really are getting desperate now.

Ants anyone? For human populations, war is a cultural trait, which is selected for.

Your contention is that, without outside help, a species is not going to find the means to end warfare amongst itself to successfully reach space. The existence of every spacefaring species, including humanity, contradicts this. Your contention is that disparate worlds will end up following the same historical pattern and the examples given of several worlds in Star Trek contradicts this. Keep thinking that your goalpost moving will salvage your argument. It won't.

The smell of straw. It tastes... like victory.

I have argued not that they won't be able to (which would beg the question of how we did it), but that it would be obsenely bloody. Given that the worlds in Trek followed the pattern of warfare and violence before unification, yeah it is a constant pattern.

As you wish. Then you can prove that Earth "leaned" on the other member worlds of the Federation to "change their ways", I presume.

Nope. However, it leans on states that wish to join up- they have to fullfill a set of criteria, remember? And they still get entrants. It is probably along the lines "it would be too bad if slaves or another empire can and hit your world..."

When the people you've forced your beneficence on after piling up a mountain of corpses decide they don't want you on their planet anymore.

We were never there. More to the point, you seem to think that the populance will be pissed with the situation. Which is weird becuse you seem to think it will be a totalitarian dystopia.

At what? How does that little Red Herring point to a universal law of humanoid historical behaviour which can be applied to any world and from which predictions can be based?

It points out that the people who get technological advances first use their tech to crush everyone else. It is about why Europe managed to conquer the globe, but it uses other cultures to show the same thing- the evolution of states inevitably leads to it.

How am I "moving the goal posts", liar? I have not changed any standard of proof, but you just keep handwaving with the morality protestations and the "it'll lead to a better future" mantra and "what happened on Earth will happen elsewhere" bullshit. Tossing out fallacy names willy-nilly will not lend your position any appearance of legitimacy, no matter how desperately you think it will.

Because now it is "you're a bloody murder!", when previous it was "you can't predict the future". You keep on changing the objections and the phrasology, recycling new buzz words for each round. And when I rebut it you hop to something else and claim that I never answered the previous one.

[Formless]

I'm good at debating? This is news to me. Also, for the love of the Emperor GIVE EXAMPLES. Seriously I think friendly advice without explanation is being for... stupid cinematic- how hard are you to find?

Mmmm... Okay.

1. Your advice in Debate Help is indicative of a competent debater. If, however, you do not think this is true, then why the fuck are you arguing with Patrick, who is already established as a relatively strong debater, and thus has reason to be more confident then you? This is not one of those debates where the truth is obvious: you aren't debating with morons like you are probably used to.
2. You seem to have long ago devolved into Broken Record debating, repeating points roundaboutly that were already discussed (for example, in regards to accepting moral culpability for willingly arming nations with the intention of starting wars). Debating is not just about debunking the other guys points, you should make an effort to understand the other debaters position so as to better understand your own. Otherwise you get week long bitter games of tennis like this one going. Seriously, I haven't seen an OVEG thread get to this many pages in a loooooooonnnnnngggg time.
3. Uh... WTF is "stupid cinematic- how hard are you to find?" supposed to mean? That just wasn't communication, man. That was a brainfart that made about as much sense as a prime time soap-opera.

Look back in this thread a little ways. I bowed out from the opposite position as you for these very kinds of reasons. I have since been swayed back to that position from reading Patrick, but that was just how it goes.

Perhaps, if the two of you still want to go at it, you could rent The Coliseum and continue your duel there? That would certainly give you the opportunity to get your position straight and your arguments nailed down. Just an idea.

[Samuel]

1. Your advice in Debate Help is indicative of a competent debater. If, however, you do not think this is true, then why the fuck are you arguing with Patrick, who is already established as a relatively strong debater, and thus has reason to be more confident then you? This is not one of those debates where the truth is obvious: you aren't debating with morons like you are probably used to.

I always underestimate my abilities. Mostly as a reaction to people overestimating them.

What does confidence have to do with anything? On the internet your nerves count for nothing

As for the truth not being obvious... Given that we are down to fighting out ethical justifications, I'd say it is obvious.

You seem to have long ago devolved into Broken Record debating, repeating points roundaboutly that were already discussed (for example, in regards to accepting moral culpability for willingly arming nations with the intention of starting wars). Debating is not just about debunking the other guys points, you should make an effort to understand the other debaters position so as to better understand your own. Otherwise you get week long bitter games of tennis like this one going. Seriously, I haven't seen an OVEG thread get to this many pages in a loooooooonnnnnngggg time.

I understand his position. It is that we should only intervene to stop genocides (and possibly other major large scale killings, although that may not be the case- it depends on wheter the rationle for intervening with genocides is destruction of culture or killing of people). The justification is that we need to do something, but that starting wars would kill to many people and providing technology would cause too much disruption. If they have something we need, we will set up trade to get it.

I have already stated why I reject that plan- peacekeepers would need to be deployed for a large amount of time in order to insure that violence simmers down and won't start up again. Aside from being expensive and limiting the number of planets that can be helped, it creates a dependency problems. They depend on how you monitor, what the criteria is and what you bring. If you bring medical aid after a war, and ONLY after it, sick people are going to have an incentive to start wars. You could try to short circuit that by giving them technology, but if they are in separate states, you will only get a situation similar to the fierce people in the Amazon- war, war and more war.

As for setting up 3rd world extraction states, do I need to explain why that is a bad idea?

I understand his arguments perfectly. However, none of them will result in the planets population getting into the modern age any faster than they normally would or with any lower cost.

#


# Uh... WTF is "stupid cinematic- how hard are you to find?" supposed to mean? That just wasn't communication, man. That was a brainfart that made about as much sense as a prime time soap-opera.

I was looking on you tube for a video from C&C 2 that I thought would be... appropriate. Unfortunately, it appears that the videos were uploaded whole, not by a mission by mission basis.

Look back in this thread a little ways. I bowed out from the opposite position as you for these very kinds of reasons. I have since been swayed back to that position from reading Patrick, but that was just how it goes.

Because...? Seriously, it annoys me to no end that people don't give reasons.

Perhaps, if the two of you still want to go at it, you could rent The Coliseum and continue your duel there? That would certainly give you the opportunity to get your position straight and your arguments nailed down. Just an idea.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0&t=129197

And why would I want to undergo that?

Probably not all unless it is a subject you want one on one and people are dogpiling you. Which is the intent of the place to begin with. But given we haven't had many last long enough to put forward to the place, this looks more or less trying to force debates, which is the wrong way of handling things on a place where people come to entertain themselves.

[Formless]

Sammy, you don't get it. You are arguing against someone who knows more then you do about the topic, namely in regards to history. You have little historical precedent to back you up, and that is why this has devolved into ethics like this.

I bowed out because I had not taken the time to formulate my position properly. I had not enough evidence to support my claims, no matter how true I thought they were. Now, however, I have more information, and I think I can sum this debate up in few words, and show you why you are wrong.

The argument for the Space Man's/White Man's Burden is that you can theoretically uplift the population to reflect your lifestyle, standard of living, and standard of happiness. By supporting efforts that will increase them to that standard of living, you get them closer and closer to your standard of happiness, which is viewed as an absolute standard which everyone must apply to. This means short term losses and suffering is acceptable because in the long run they will achieve your standard of living. Never mind that they will eventually reach this standard on their own. Never mind that they won't be able to achieve much needed social changes on their own because you gave it to them for half price. Never mind that they very well might achieve novel solutions that you cannot give them and that theoretically be something you could benefit from learning. (to name a historical example, many of the founding principals of governance the US were based on were ideas taken from the Native Americans)

Never mind that you gain nothing from the process, and are expending resources to speed up a natural process that you are too damn impatient to wait for.

The problem with this all is simple: since the moral objective is happiness, there is no absolute moral standard. If someone is living happy by the standards of their civilization and society, then mission accomplished. Just because a higher standard exists does not mean that it is necessary that everyone lives up to it. Happiness is relative to what that person has to compare it to. If everyone on their block is happy living under a divine king, that king is doing something right, right? Why fix what isn't broken?

For ideological reasons? We tell our children that Santa Clause is real, a white lie. Lying is ideologically wrong, right? Encouraging a superstition is ideologically wrong, right? Never mind that it makes our children happy, and for most it does no long term harm. That happiness, although based on a lie, is a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. These civilizations are like little children, only they already believe in Santa Claus (so to speak), removing the issue of lying to them.

Are you doing it because you think that they live in a shit-hole? Shit-hole by whose standard? You know that shit used to be valuable to people, right? Manure is very useful in agriculture. All kidding aside, how do you really define what is and is not a shit-hole? You have again substituted your standards for their standards. If they are happy living in a shit-hole, why argue with that? Morally, there is no problem that needs addressing here.

Are you doing it because you think that they have a naturally high mortality rate? Why would they care, they are used to living shorter lives. Let them live the way they are used too and are happy to continue living as, it will not make a difference objectively.

The only time at which this is different is when their standard changes. That can happen if they find out about your civilization and they find out about a higher standard exists. Orson Scot Card laid it out better in Speaker for the Dead: in it, the local sapient species of a plane, colloquially known as the "piggies", know that the human settlers on their planet came from the stars and live in luxury with high technology. They demand to have that technology, especially spaceflight. They reason that in time, humanity will fill up the stars and leave them no space to claim their own. Leaving aside the absurdity of that idea (the piggies only knew that space equaled territory, and couldn't imagine the scale involved), it highlights the problem with interacting with these species at all; the instant they know about the higher standard, you are inviting jelousy, and have done them a disservice by removing their relative standard of happiness. It is only then that they will want something out of you. Put yourself in their shoes: before the invention of the internet, did you miss the fact that you couldn't email people? To answer "yes" to that question would be absurd. The same is true for these lower civilizations. You never miss what you never had. Progress only matters to people's happiness in hindsight.

You cannot hinge an argument on hindsight.

Basically, as long as you can ensure the happiness of the lower civilization, you have done your duty. Sure, you can use your status to ensure that the planet never undergoes a major catastrophe, such as by removing dangerous asteroids. Sure, if you are clever you can secretly stop a major war or genocide. but you are only wasting your time, resources, and risking a fuck-up if you try to impose your standards of morality and happiness on these cultures.

And that is not even going into the specifics of why the way you would go about imposing yourself on these cultures is doomed to failure or the way it has historically been a Bad Thing. Patrick covered those bases. No, all I have done is show that your basic assumption and premise is horribly flawed. I am surprised you failed to notice, but in seven pages you still have not provided a rational for your moral absolutism and the idea that you have an imperative to act. Broken record debating indeed.

P.S. I suggested you go to the Coliseum because this seemed to be such an involved debate between you two. By that I mean, it already looks like a Coliseum debate, and not like one of Sonnenburgs OVEG video announcement threads.