Klingons: What's with 'em?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Considering you missed the point of the post, that being that being utterly rigid about "suspension of disbelief" leads to dogma, and dogma leads to intelligent people saying really retarded things, you can cram it.

If you consider adhering to rules and remaining consistent while debating to be dogmatic and "retarded," then you're probably of Paul Jacques and this document.

OK, first, cut the strawman. I'm not saying that because I "don't want to deal with a specific issue", I'm just writing it off as having no proper explaination. What I am saying is that things frequently do have proper explainations, it's just they are not all "in-universe" and don't have "in-universe" explainations, such as the issues with the transformation of the Klingons.

Secondly, only a dogmatic idiot would rigidly hold to "suspension of disbelief" when dealing with television and film, because some much of what happens in television and film are dictated by factors other than "in-universe" reasons, such as budget, or because a scene is more exciting if shot a certain way, or writer's error. That being said, it's fine to quantify the power of something or another and I never once said that you shouldn't. What I'm saying is that when you encounter an issue that can be easily and turthfully explained by changes in a shows budget, you shouldn't ignore the truth and waste copious amounts of brainsweat making up some convoluted bullshit explaination, simply because you want to "suspend disbelief".

I'm also saying that "suspension of disbelief" is taken way too far, which is why I listed the above examples of normally intelligent people saying impossibly stupid things in order to defend something in the show that is easily explained by some dumbass Paramount script-hobo trying to write something that sounds high tech or science-y. For instance, there was one Next Generation episode that had "subatomic bacteria". Subatomic bacteria! You can't suspend disbelief there, because the words are directly contradictory. Bacteria can't be subatomic, because size is one of the defining characteristics of bacteria that differentiates it from other organisms. Yet people pull the "suspension of disbelief" dogma up, saying "Well, bacteria can be subatomic cause... uh... the show says so and we must watch the show like it's 100% true!". It reminds me ALOT of theway that fundies use to claim that Genesis is literally true. "Genesis is true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is 100% true!" sort of thing. It's all a steaming pile of dogma.

"Blah blah blah, following the rules is dogmatic."

Since you pissed and moaned when I snipped your last rant, I'm going to quote this in all it's long-winded entirety. My response is the same as before:
The rules of debate must be applied evenly and universally for the debate to function. Suspension of disbelief is no exception. If we do not regard the subject matter being discussed as 'reality' then the debate ceases to function. The show has its own reality, TNG can have sub-atomic bacteria, and the DS can generate enough power to blow up a planet.

If you can't understand this, then just go away. This is how the game is played, and I can't recall conversing with any person besides yourself who has protested this rule as being dogmatic in the three years which I have been at least peripherally involved in this.

[Gil Hamilton]

If you consider adhering to rules and remaining consistent while debating to be dogmatic and "retarded," then you're probably of Paul Jacques and this document.

What rules? You talk as though there is a agreed upon list written down somewhere, as opposed to an assumption on your part.

"Blah blah blah, following the rules is dogmatic."

Where are these Rules that everyone has agreed upon that you are holding to like Bible law?

Since you pissed and moaned when I snipped your last rant, I'm going to quote this in all it's long-winded entirety. My response is the same as before:

You shouldn't bother, since you've very carefully avoided actually responding to it and instead have stuck your fingers in your ears and have yelled "I"M RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG! I DON'T CARE ABOUT LOGIC OR MAKING ANY SENSE BECAUSE OF THE RULES! RULES!"

The rules of debate must be applied evenly and universally for the debate to function. Suspension of disbelief is no exception. If we do not regard the subject matter being discussed as 'reality' then the debate ceases to function. The show has its own reality, TNG can have sub-atomic bacteria, and the DS can generate enough power to blow up a planet.

Again, you mention rules that don't exist, but still pound them out like they are the word of some god, without checking to see whether you are making any sense. No rules of debate were posted at the beginning of this thread, as would be costumary if this was a real debate (appearantly you have never debated in real life for competition, because actual debates start with an agreed upon set of rules by all teams, such as rebuttle time, et cetera).

Secondly, you don't seem to understand that you can only take suspension of disbelief so far. In fact, in order to truly do it, you have to say "OK, that is bullshit". If we are treating a television show as reality, then we must reject stuff like subatomic bacteria, because it's a contradiction that can't exist in reality (as for the DS, there is no reason to reject it's power generation, after all, since it runs on some unknown principle... besides, I've never mentioned it, you keep bringing it up). After all, if we just arbitrarily accept anything as reality, no matter how goofy or stupid, we are acknowledging that the other universe is working on an entirely different set of physical principles than our own and any sort of analysis is meaningless. This is where common sense comes in, a commodity in which you seem to be deficient in. We remember that we are still watching a television show, which is constrained by it's own medium, budget, and the talent of it's writers, and suddenly such mysteries like subatomic bacteria and why the Klingons as a species spontaneously transformed is made clear.

The problem is people like you who treat science fiction the way a fundementalist treats the Bible. Perfect, inerrant, always realistic and literal. This, of course, is unreasonable, since the medium is not held to the same standards by it's creators nor the general public. In reality, film is not only subject to the whims of it's writers but the amount of money available to make the film, the technology and the skill of it's production staff to create the world it is set in, and the fickle nature of post-production, not to mention a thousand other odds and ends. It is unrealistic in the extreme to not take that into account when contemptating television programming, since all of that stuff directly effects the programming. Suspension of disbelief is useful, but it isn't everything and cannot be used to explain everything in such a world as the film industry. To be completely rigid in ignoring all of that is foolish. Then to scream at people who've got a different eye for the industry because they don't follow a set of rules that are designed to ignore 90% of the process, just 'cause that's the way you've always done it and even if it makes you do moronic things like defending the existance of subatomic bacteria, just because you thing you gotta, is dogma just like those fundies and Genesis.

If you can't understand this, then just go away. This is how the game is played, and I can't recall conversing with any person besides yourself who has protested this rule as being dogmatic in the three years which I have been at least peripherally involved in this.

Ah, goodie, you admit to the dogma. You've aways done it that way, so you've never thought to question whether you are making any sense. And I say you specifically, because I've been involved in this, um, community just as long as you and yet I've yet to see any agreed upon rules ever made and know plenty of more levelheaded minds involved.

[Pablo Sanchez]

What rules? You talk as though there is a agreed upon list written down somewhere, as opposed to an assumption on your part.

Have you been paying attention to the debates here? Suspension of disbelief is one of the most important concepts in sci-fi debate. It is assumed in nearly every scientific discussion of the topic. If I'm asking about what happened to the Klingons in between TOS and ST:TMP on a Forum dedicated to the discussion of science in Star Trek and Star Wars, I don't have to tell you that I want suspension of disbelief, unless you're some kind of moron. This is not a formal debate, so we don't have to declare the rules before hand.

Gil, why don't you tell me what we should do, instead of pretending that the universes being discussed are real and that the medium is an accurate depiction? When there is sound in space in SW, should we stop saying that it's a cockpit aid and start saying that it was for the benefit of the audience? Then what's the point in talking about it in the first place?

PS: Is it your habit to write long, redundant repetitions of the same theme to make a point? Here's what your saying boiled down to a proper length: "I don't like suspension of disbelief because it leads to theories which are uncomfortable and don't always make sense. Suspension of disbelief should not be used when there is a simple real-world explanation for a difficult problem in continuity. BTW, you're like a creationist."

[Pablo Sanchez]

Secondly, you don't seem to understand that you can only take suspension of disbelief so far. In fact, in order to truly do it, you have to say "OK, that is bullshit". If we are treating a television show as reality, then we must reject stuff like subatomic bacteria, because it's a contradiction that can't exist in reality (as for the DS, there is no reason to reject it's power generation, after all, since it runs on some unknown principle... besides, I've never mentioned it, you keep bringing it up).

Why can't there be an unknown physical effect that allows bacteria to shrink and become infintecimally small. If we're going to allow a station the size of a small moon to generate more energy in an hour than the sun will in millions of years, what the fuck is wrong with other kinds of magic?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Since this has gone very far from the original topic, and there's no possibility of either of us convincing the other of his viewpoint, why don't we quit before this becomes a grudge?

[Gil Hamilton]

Rather than make three posts I'll respond to all posts in one. And I'll focus on brevity since you seem to have problems with long paragraphs.

Post #1>
I care very little for what the local conventions and don't tend to deal well with people who act like a bunch of howler monkies whose territory has been breached by an outsider when I break one of them. The simple fact is that treating "suspension of disbelief" like it's bible freakin' law is silly, since it leads to normally intelligent people saying what you said in your second post, not to mention denies the influences of 95% of the film industry which are every bit as important as to the events "in-universe". One thing I really hate is people doing things "just because we always do it that way".

Really, "suspension of disbelief" is a fine way to go, but it needs a judicious amount of common sense to go with it. The people (which includes you, it seems) that are so wound up in taking everything like it's gospel without stopping to think about it just end up making fools of themselves and leads one to wonder why anyone with any knowledge would defend the existance of something like the subatomic bacteria I've been using as an example.

And I don't see how exactly you can call what happens on these boards "scientific debate" all considering, considering that they tend to be neither and are full of people (like you) that say "Well, why can't there be subatomic bacteria?"

Post #2>
Did you even think about that before you posted it? I'll let you retract that statement if you want.

Post #3>
I was going to stop posting in the thread anyway. If discussion has gone on this long without anyone changing opinions it's not worth discussing. Besides, I know full well that you'd probably argue this forever since another thing I've noticed about this board is that people are incapable about letting anything go even long after it has lost any meaning.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Rather than make three posts I'll respond to all posts in one. And I'll focus on brevity since you seem to have problems with long paragraphs.

I have a problem with pompous assholes making longwinded rehashes of the same point; half of their sentences being insults, the other half being the same argument in different clothes. This is why I never debated Darkstar.

Post #1>
I care very little for what the local conventions and don't tend to deal well with people who act like a bunch of howler monkies whose territory has been breached by an outsider when I break one of them. The simple fact is that treating "suspension of disbelief" like it's bible freakin' law is silly, since it leads to normally intelligent people saying what you said in your second post, not to mention denies the influences of 95% of the film industry which are every bit as important as to the events "in-universe". One thing I really hate is people doing things "just because we always do it that way".

How would you do it? You seem to want a forum with no standards of evidence whatsoever, where you're free to explain away holes in universes, like the Ewok victory in ROTJ as simply storyline, and the lack of ST ground forces as budget constraints.

Really, "suspension of disbelief" is a fine way to go, but it needs a judicious amount of common sense to go with it. The people (which includes you, it seems) that are so wound up in taking everything like it's gospel without stopping to think about it just end up making fools of themselves and leads one to wonder why anyone with any knowledge would defend the existance of something like the subatomic bacteria I've been using as an example.

Taking a single, exceptionally egregious example and holding it up as a standard isn't good. Are there any other references that you can bring?

And I don't see how exactly you can call what happens on these boards "scientific debate" all considering, considering that they tend to be neither and are full of people (like you) that say "Well, why can't there be subatomic bacteria?"

I admit that it was stupid, I mispoke. I'll explain what I unsuccessfully attempted to express below.

Post #2>
Did you even think about that before you posted it? I'll let you retract that statement if you want.

This is what I meant:

A) It was dialogue that described it as "subatomic bacteria," right? We rationalize that by saying that the person saying it is wrong, that it was some kind of radiation or that they simply weren't that small.
B) How you do decide what is acceptable and what is not? When is one outrageous thing more palatable than another?

Post #3>
I was going to stop posting in the thread anyway. If discussion has gone on this long without anyone changing opinions it's not worth discussing. Besides, I know full well that you'd probably argue this forever since another thing I've noticed about this board is that people are incapable about letting anything go even long after it has lost any meaning.

I can let it go. You're right that it's stupid to try and rationalize things like the subatomic bacteria. However, that's merely the worst example. This Klingon question that has gone so far away from the point can be explained easily enough within the universe that referring to the show's budget is an unnecessary distraction from the actual discussion.

[Andras]

In the ST RPG done by FASA wayback, they suggested that the Klingons made the smoothheads as a genetically engineered subrace to better understand and compete with humans. Supposedly this sub-race was a fusion of klingon and human genetic material. There was another fusion "race" of Klingon and Romulan for duty on the Romulan frontier.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I can't believe I never thought of this.

We know Klingons LOVE Bloodwine right? It's not wine for them, it's not even a beer. It's like it's fucking WATER. But what if Klingon women forget not to drink alcohol during pregnancy? Can you imagine the effect of liters of Bloodwine on their unborn children? They'd probably have physical mutations: like ridges. And of course, mental retardation.

But how does this explain the non-ridged Klingons? Simple. What if there was a huge Bloodwine shortage? The taps ran dry, people panicked. And without Bloodwine, Klingon women didn't drink and their children were smart and smooth foreheaded.

But then came the Tribbles. The Klingon ship filled with tribbles soom discovered if you shaved 10 tribbles and put them in a blender, you got a glass of bloodwine. And so began The Great Tribble Hunt. Officially, to exterminate the little buggers. Unofficially, to round up millions. With their breeding rate, the Klingon Empire would at last have endless supply of bloodwine! And so skull ridges and stupid people returned.

And why don't they admit it? Simple. Imagine if Russia (who the Klingons are suppose to be) ran out of vodka for years. There'd be a huge national shame. No one would admit it or talk about it. Same with the Klingons.

As for Kor and Chang? Well, Chang's mother had a limited supply of bootleg Bloodwine, and thus Chang has small physical mutations (small ridges) and slight mental problems (Shakespeare) As for Kor, well have ridges meant you had Bloodwine, a sign of honor! So Kor actually had his DNA injected with Bloodwine. It would be a facinating experience.

Fuck, this explains all the bumpy forehead aliens in ST. It seems Trek is filled with trillions of alcoholics!

[dworkin]

So the Klingons are all sufferers of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?