Discussion in 'Space Battles' started by Ryan, May 14, 2008.
Not if the enemy platoon has the sense to duck (or, God forbid, is wearing body armour)...
I believe that's probably what he was saying (not that I can speak on his behalf). It's a style over substance thing really. For the typical layman sci-fi fan who has no particular interest in maths and doesn't necessarily understand the implications of certain observed effects (asteroid destruction, death star energy density etc.), they're more likely to assume that the one which they think looks more aesthetically futuristic and uses more technobabble (phasers instead of lasers, infamous navigational deflector, transporters etc.) is actually more advanced, neglecting things like actual observed feats and performance. For instance, I've spoken to plenty of people who don't think Star Wars ships have shields, just because they saw the films once or twice and didn't see any Trek-style shield bubbles (selectively forgetting all the dialogue and examples to the contrary).
That's what I was thinking. Thank you for clearing it up.
I can understand that analysis. My forays into ST.com indicate that many arguments from the more radical trekkies do seem to stem from a giant style of substance fallacy.
And yeah, I've heard the no shields argument before. I swear, it killed brain cells. }p
I think that is basically proving my point. Maybe I should amend it to say picking apart every sentence or something? There is a difference between being civil in a debate and being arrogant. I don't care if someone is dead wrong or not. All one has to do is point it out in a civil manner. That really doesn't seem to occur too much. So I guess there is a "style". A style reflects the attitude and the attitude there is one of bias/contempt/dislike/whatever to those who do not share the same point of view.
I didn't start anything off with a snipe as this wasn't even a serious thread. A snipe is going after one side. I went after both. Because it is Trek fanboys just being childish if such a book was written for the express purpose of winning an internet debate rolleyes and it is at the same time funny Wars fanboys would get their panties in a bundle over then losing an internet debate rolleyes. And of all things a science fiction debate.
Basically your first post ridiculing Trek supporters and raising Wars supporters as some sort of rational bunch is contradictory, slightly hypocritical (as a group), and unobservant. Wars and Trek fanboys are no more rational or less rational than the other.
TOS is known for rather higher capabilities than TNG&co. C+ combat and weapons, small amounts of AM blowing away planet atmospheres... Tons of stuff. Photon grenade used by Kirk once had greater observable firepower than most phototorps used against ground targets in new series.
Search this forum for Cult of the Connie.
And considering only confirmed ICS numbers are for Jedi fighters, Slave Zero and a freaking troop transport with several 200GT batteries. Nothing would prevent friends in high places of certain people that will not be named to release revised ROTS ICS, that gives high hundred petaton/sec firepower for real warships. You know the dozen of "canon" Star Battleships and Star Dreadnoughts classes to which Star Destroyers are just small escort craft.
The AM shown in Trek doesn't add, not enough to blow away atmospheres of planet at any rate. C+, I'll have to ask about that, same with weapons. Most of the 'Tons of Stuff' are mostly one-shot things that aren't ever seen again.
As for the 'hundred peta/sec' thing, I raised an eyebrow over that, SSDs aren't capable of that, though serializing a planet is the worst it can do. Eclipse-Class SSDs, searing away continents is the tops. Death Stars are the only ones capable of UBER-terapeta-wtf kind of firepower.
Which is a giant net-nanny style over substance fallacy. Wong and some of the others have an abrrassive debating style. That doesn't make them any less right about their statements. If one is too thin skinned, and let's these insults get to them, that's their problem.
Because in a debate its ultimately irrelevant who is polite to whom, so much as who has logic, evidence, and facts to back up their position.
For someone who gets involved in politics as often as yourself, I would expect you to know this. After all, when was the last time there was an ellection that didn't involve mudslinging?
No. And you would know this if you actually looked around rather than spouted off. The fact is that its not contempt for someone who doesn't share the point of view, its contempt for the sheer idiocy and blatant ignorance that the other party brings to the table 99% of the time. Again, which you so conveniently ignored, I'm a member of a monotheistic religion. Wong is a fairly militant atheist (as are quite a few other members of SDN). By your logic, he should speak to me in utter contempt and tear me a new one at every opportunity. Yet not only does he not do this, but he and I have had many a civil conversation with one another.
No, a snipe is a derisive remark towards someone without even an attempt to provide proof to back it up.
Which changes nothing.
Stop being an idiot and actually read Saxton's webpage. You will understand just how much energy you need to perform a BDZ (here's a hint for you, buddy boy, the K-T asteroid that hit Earth 65 million years ago smacked in with a baseline minimum of 100 terratons, and it came nowhere near the energy necessary to turn the surface to molten slag and charred glass, or vaporizing the oceans and blowing off the atmosphere to reduce the planet to a barren husk incapable of supporting life).
Ahh yes, because as I pointed out, Warsie fanboys are clearly getting their panties in a bunch over the fact that the Shrike could wipe out every soul on Coruscant before Palpatine has time to say "I sense a disturbance..." and pissing and moaning that a Adaptus Astares is going to bitchslap a squadron of Clone Troopers so hard that Vader's going to feel it on the Executor.
Strawman. I specified the rabid trekkies, and pointed out that I've never witnessed the same behavior of any other science fiction group. Again, you conveniently ignore that in favor of your diatribe.
Still waiting on Exhibit A.
Again, waiting on that evidence to support your claims. For someone whose been here nearly a decade, I am surprised to see that your behavior closely resembles that of Ryan (though in Ryan's defense, he at least attempts to offer up evidence to support his claims.)
Bigger! Better! Faster!
 ISDs have at least 10x the volume and mass of Star Trek warships.
 Each individual ISD weapon has at least 100x the firepower of a corresponding Star Trek warship weapon.
 Even privately owned ships in Star Wars go at least 1000x faster than Star Trek ships.
Just watch the original three Star Wars movies for a demonstration of these three rules in action. You say some guy wrote a book with calcs. Did he get an award for stating the obvious?
Ryan... now you see what you started here.
Okay. Bryan, you're wrong. You're wrong because you haven't actually participated in any debates there. You're wrong because Aratech, who has, and who has beliefs which according to you would be persecuted on SDN, says that you're wrong. You're wrong because your whole argument is one big style over substance fallacy and is obviously rooted in your hurt feelings as a Trekkie.
That's about as civil as I can get while still trying to make the point.
Now, allow me to be uncivil:
Shut the fuck up and start making good arguments. Because nearly everything you've said in this thread is little more than the electronic equivelent of steaming feces that you fling at anyone who decides to read the thread.
Aratech, you are trying to dilute the original issue here by resorting to the lame tactics of quoting each and every sentence and taking this from a discussion on the issue to a battle of wills. I am not going to play that game.
Hell, you even quoted fragments of sentences!!!!11oneone!!one. Come on. Come the hell on, now. That is so tiring and annoying and it just proves my point. You accuse me of style over substance fallacies yet you are attempting to dilute the post with trivial quotation tactics.
Like asking me for evidence and then saying "Still waiting for exhibit A" in the very next quote.
Oh, and Aratech you also broke my paragraph about Trek and Wars fanboys up as to distort the context and bend its meaning to fit your own. That again proves my point. Why don't you actually re-read my prior post and NOT go off and dissect each sentence in the paragraph and instead read the entire paragraph to get the proper meaning? Because what I wrote when read as a paragraph is FAR FAR different than what you think I wrote quoting each individual sentence.
Typical tactic to dilute the actual message and twist my post into what YOU want it to say rather than what it actually says.
Um, what? So if I read the threads and make observations that is somehow different than participating? You don't have to participate to notice there is a trend. As for my hurt feelings as a Trekkie... what? I'm hardly a "trekkie." I like Star Trek just as much as I like Star Wars, Farscape, Babylon 5, or any other science fiction media. I can't have hurt feelings for something I have no inherent vested interest in. What does it matter to me if the Klingons are destroyed by the Hutts? Really, it doesn't mean anything to me.
How can you accuse me of a style over substance fallacy when I am talking about the style a debate or argument is performed in. Isn't that what style is? Last time I checked it was. I'm not saying whether the Trek v Wars debate is right or wrong, I am saying that flaming someone or insulting them because they are wrong is poor style.
So I don't see how you can accuse me of such a fallacy when I am talking about the style and not directly commenting on the substance. I think Wars would wipe the floor with much of Trek (exceptions like Q) based on current consensus. What I am saying is that you do not have to flame someone into oblivion because they disagree with the group. Hence the poor style debates are conducted in over there. Nor am I saying all of them or a majority are conducted in such a manner. Just more than here and enough it is noticeable to affect perceptions on that forum.
I really don't see why some are getting defensive in the manner you are Cpl. Facehugger.
SIGH... ah well we were due for another fight, after the prime directive fight died down
Here, Aratech. I will quote myself because I think that is actually better than retyping out the true meaning of my post. Rather than what you want my post to mean:
I never talked about whether War is right or wrong. I never mentioned any substance. I mentioned only debating style. I know Wars can wipe the floor with much of Trek minus the God-like beings and exceptions, but I didn't originally bring that up. I was referring to style. If someone flames another or treats them like shit because of a disagreement. Even if you make an illogical argument it is not grounds to flame them.
Here I am making no attack on any side without attacking the other, so it is not a snipe. Also reading the entire paragraph would have explained why I made the comments I did. If you mentioned something it is fair game (mentioning debates at SDN opens it up to be criticized). So it was not a snipe. Note the part where I mention whiny Trekkies and whiny Warsies. It has nothing to do with calculations or whatnot (no need to mention Saxton's site, which I have read and enjoy as a matter of fact), it wasn't even an attack on whiny Warsies. It was more of an attack on whiny Trekkies who would resort to writing a book for the express purpose of winning an internet debate. But then we'd have whiny Warsies getting all upset because in that scenerio they'd now be losing.
Here I am saying both sides in which the fans become fanboys and become whiny are equally irrational. I wasn't expecting this to be some sort of pissing match where I would need to go and perform the scientific process to gather evidence for your satisfaction. I wanted to point out that you were accusing one group of being whiny while basically making the other group to be entirely rational. I was pointing out that is simply not true. It is simply not true that Wars fans are somehow more rational than Trek fans.
You're an outsider looking in. If you don't understand why your perspective means less in this than that of someone on the inside, this discussion is pointless.
If you were honest with this argument, you'd have conceded once someone, Aratech in this case, came in who knows more than you on the subject and contradicted you.
*Shrugs* If you say so.
I'm accusing you of a style over substance fallacy when that's exactly what you're doing. Hell, you yourself admit that you're discussing only the style of their debate in this whole post.
The problem is that you're applying undue importance to the style and ignoring the actual substance. Hence style over substance.
I'm getting offensive because you're debating horribly and using some weak-wristed "I'm just talking about their style!" argument to get out of the fact that you're basically sniping against members of another board - which is against board conventions.
Outsider looking in? You can make objective assessments of how an argument is conducted, if it is civil or not, based solely on observation. I don't have to directly participate to see if someone is being unfairly flamed or not. But I will concede a point and say that Aratech has more experience, as I have not been there in some time some months. So if something has changed in etiquette I would not be up to date. Assuming it hasn't since the last time I checked out some threads there...
Because that is all I brought up. I brought up the rudeness I perceive, which is style.
I want to understand where you are coming from and if I am wrong I will concede. But I don't see how you can attack me as supporting a fallacy when I am talking about the style and not the substance?
With such a fallacy it would have to be where I am ignoring the substance (which I am not) and instead focusing on the style. I am not doing that, because I am commenting solely on the style and even admitted they were right. I am objecting to how the views are expressed.
I just honestly do not see where you are coming from to be hostile to me for that. I AM talking of the style (and no one in particular) and freely concede the substance (that Wars wins). How is objecting to how a debate conducted some sort of fallacy? It's a comment on the environment, how fun it would be to be there. It's not fun if you are flammed or people are hostile.
I'm not saying everyone is hostile to people all the time. Myself and others who can get into heated political discussions are not going to go off and insult each other if we are in some random thread discussing something random. So of course people can be civil in certain situations. But put different people into certain situations and the discussion can turn instantly hostile. Look here at abortion debates and then look at a thread dealing with, I don't know... TV shows. People can be at each other's throats in an abortion debate but then be all buddy-buddy discussing a mutually liked TV show.
I think I'll be contrary and disagree with pretty much everyone;
Other boards suck. All of them. SD.net. ST.com. They all suck. From my experience they're all circle-jerking over their particular medium. Forget the ST/SW rivalry; I've seen people at both claim that ____ is more powerful than the big boys (Culture, etc), and the mods there have no problem with threads that exist only for juvenile bashing on other fandoms. You think Ryan's bad? Stuff I've seen there makes Ryan look like...well...Aratech, by comparison.
That's why I continue to post at this board. In my ten years on the internet, I've only regularly posted on three forums; this one, the Star Wars CCG board, and the Master of Orion 2 board. The latter two, sadly, died. So now you're stuck with me.
Aratech, Cpl: I'll tell ya what. This weekend when I have time I'll go and cruise around SD for the weekend and if my perceptions were wrong I'll concede.
Please. That's when the vs. debates were FUN! Of COURSE we want that to happen.
I want to see flame wars everywhere, Wong pulled down by angry mobs of Trekkies - Darkstar's return and subsequent re-banning, Laird getting mod powers again, B5ers pissing and moaning about not having their own ICS, and 40kers going, "we still have chainsaw swords, so shut up".
Chaos and confusion! Mass panic and terror reigning supreme over the site, daily raids and floods from one forum on another! It will be glorious!
B5ers have something way nastier than an ICS; a fully canon EU. The First Ones could give the GE and the ST powers a run for their money simultaneously.
God, this thread is worse than I thought it would be.
Dear Rob, what have I done?
You had no idea.
What you are proposing would be pale in comparison to what happened seven to nine years ago, the internet wars nearly damn made the Spacebattles a completely mess and chaotic place. It was like if the Idirans decided to go on a murderous rampage through this place. The SB.com experienced numerous invasions from other boards and websites at that time.
Ah yes, this place had crashed down and revived few times.
FYI, Darkstar was tiny compared to few certain posters that preceded him.
To name few of great moments that happened here...
I have witnessed the birth of infamous poking tank by Gabooz.
Before JC Interrupted, there was Sylvar Fyre.
The OBS war... that was one of this place's finest moments.
All those ... moments will be lost ... in time, like tears ... in rain.
*watches silently as Phantom cradles a dove*
Wait. What was "The OBS war"?