|
Ferrinus posted:"Logical" and "rational" are not actually the same word. You can tell because they're spelled and pronounced differently and have slightly different connotations. I used "logical" precisely because "rational" is much rhetorically closer to the idea of rational thinking, rational actors, etc, whereas something can be logical (as in, it makes sense that it would happen that way) without being rational (as in, it's a highly emotional response or successful manipulation by propaganda or whatever). It's logical that a man might fly into an irrational rage upon finding that he's being cheated on. Point 1) You are trying to use a rhetorical trick here to get out of hot water. The act of being enraged because you have a cheating spouse is "irrational" (as in highly emotional) but you are describing logic in the above quote with regards to the act of analyzing the basis for the rage and then attempting to equivocate that to the act of finding your spouse cheating on you when if you were being honest you would be comparing how by performing the act of analyzing the basis for the rage the action could be looked at as an irrational basis to be angry and yet somehow also a logical basis to be angry. In other words this is a rhetorical shell game. Point 2) you don't mean a crowd of people you mean a really big crowd of people (aka a population). gently caress off.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 3, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
reignofevil posted:Point 2) you don't mean a crowd of people you mean a really big crowd of people (aka a population). gently caress off. You're arguing against the entire field of economics and sociology with this statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
That's okay I've said dumb stuff before and I'd love to learn more about why I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:That's okay I've said dumb stuff before and I'd love to learn more about why I'm wrong. No, it's time to double down and prove why you have the smart idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Hell yeah you're right!
reignofevil fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Mar 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Point 1) You are trying to use a rhetorical trick here to get out of hot water. The act of being enraged because you have a cheating spouse is "irrational" (as in highly emotional) but you are describing logic in the above quote with regards to the act of analyzing the basis for the rage and then attempting to equivocate that to the act of finding your spouse cheating on you when if you were being honest you would be comparing how by performing the act of analyzing the basis for the rage the action could be looked at as an irrational basis to be angry and yet somehow also a logical basis to be angry. In other words this is a rhetorical shell game. It's not a rhetorical trick, it's just... rhetoric. "Logical" and "rational" are not literally the same. You attempted to show that I was wrong by treating them as though they're interchangeable... but they aren't. Google both words if you like; you'll find similar but non-identical definitions, such that I can say that something represents a logical progression but not a rational progression. quote:Point 2) you don't mean a crowd of people you mean a really big crowd of people (aka a population). gently caress off. I shan't be loving off because I'm completely in the right on this one. It's both rational and logical (!) to discuss the way populations, as a whole, respond to prevailing conditions. For instance, the way a prison population might behave if any prisoner might be being watched by a guard at any time, though they don't know for sure whether they are at any given moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
I think considering how engaging in being a society, the gatherings and interactions of many people at once tend to happen in public, generally most people wouldn't resent being observed while in public while they would resent being spied on in private, within their own homes with only their close family. Of course, most observation that we object to these days has the extra dimension of being done by a group that is in power and doing the observation to help maintain power. Or just the possibility of the information being used to maintain power, since with all that information floating around that could be misused, almost definitely will be misused. I don't think observation would matter much to indigenous cultures while the observers are just distant, unaffiliated strangers, but it could be very distressing when they actually do achieve a place in the galactic international landscape for the big nearby state to know more of their history than even they know. It'd feel like being naked on a massive scale. I think Childhood's End by Arthur Clarke had a bit of that dynamic, and in the real world I think I've seen an amount of resentment in the real world from the descendants of various cultures resent the western academia that has better scholarship on their history than they do within themselves (either from lack of recordkeeping or from people trying to suppress their own history). Ferrinus posted:Can you please explain "edgelord"? Because you keep saying it. It's basically characterized by elaborately constructing ways to see a horrifying dystopia regardless of how much that interpretation is actually grounded in anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
The basic premise of the episode is that the hero is trying to totally eradicate a religion, and people are writing so many words about how okay and normal that is. Like straight-up deleting the faith from a dude’s brain. This is what I’m here for!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
Please give an example of something that represents a logical progression but not a rational one. Your cheating spouse example seems to me to represent both a logical and rational progression of events however if I am somehow in err regarding this please explain it very clearly once again to help me. Otherwise use a brand new example! But do make it very clear why an analysis of the rationality of a situation could lead to one conclusion but the logical analysis of the same situation could lead to another. I'll attempt to make clear why I would believe the spouse example to be both logical and rational. 1) traditionally in a relationship the defined terms are that both partners will only seek sexual gratification from one another. 2) Spouse found sexual gratification elsewhere 3) Partner flies into a rage because premise 1 has been violated. People tend to get angry when their partner demonstrates a low value for being honest on a matter. Rational to be angry. Perfectly logical to be angry. Please let me know if I'm missing something. Rational and logical are synonyms. That isn't conclusive but man I wouldn't want to be arguing from your position here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:08
|
|
|
quote:I shan't be loving off because I'm completely in the right on this one. It's both rational and logical (!) to discuss the way populations, as a whole, respond to prevailing conditions. For instance, the way a prison population might behave if any prisoner might be being watched by a guard at any time, though they don't know for sure whether they are at any given moment. We were discussing whether a population represented a more logical whole than an individual group in a town somewhere. Stop trying to change the subject this is tiresome I never said it wasn't logical to discuss the way populations respond to prevailing conditions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The basic premise of the episode is that the hero is trying to totally eradicate a religion, and people are writing so many words about how okay and normal that is. I feel like accidentally having been made god of that religion does give a certain implied authority. Maybe Picard should've manipulated them into attacking the nearby Imperial shield generator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
I mean it's one thing to be smug if you were at least trying to discuss the thing you said. Now you want to discuss some other thing and you think I'm not gonna notice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Please give an example of something that represents a logical progression but not a rational one. Taken to a logical extreme, the Prime Directive means obliterating whole planets to prevent change. But that’s not rational behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Taken to a logical extreme, the Prime Directive means obliterating whole planets to prevent change. But that’s not rational behaviour. It might be rational if you believe in some kind of grand cosmic plan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Please give an example of something that represents a logical progression but not a rational one. Your cheating spouse example seems to me to represent both a logical and rational progression of events however if I am somehow in err regarding this please explain it very clearly once again to help me. Otherwise use a brand new example! But do make it very clear why an analysis of the rationality of a situation could lead to one conclusion but the logical analysis of the same situation could lead to another. Well, for instance, flying into such a rage that you actually kill the guy would not be rational by most standards - the negative consequences far outweigh the catharsis - but it would be a logical progression of events if you had a nasty temper, had also been having a bad day, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:We'll never know either way. Considering the show has run it's course, and we are shown the things of interest happening, or at least hear about it happening off screen, we do know that since we don't hear about them restarting the duck blind they don't restart the duck blind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The basic premise of the episode is that the hero is trying to totally eradicate a religion, and people are writing so many words about how okay and normal that is. The religion comes up after the failed memory wipe. C'mon, your lies and edits are usually better than this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
Again you try this trick. A logical progression of events compared to the irrational mindset of the angry spouse. This is apples to oranges. How about the rational progression of events versus The logical progression of events. Or the illogical actions of the spouse versus the irrational actions of the spouse. I'll see what you've got come tomorrow. “May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with Humans? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
Comparing a concept like analyzing something to the mindset of the thing being analyzed does not show a difference between two terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
This thread needed a new title!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Again you try this trick. A logical progression of events compared to the irrational mindset of the angry spouse. This is apples to oranges. How about the rational progression of events versus The logical progression of events. Or the illogical actions of the spouse versus the irrational actions of the spouse. I'll see what you've got come tomorrow. "Rational" does not actually mean, or at least does not usually mean as compared to "logical", "natural or sensible given the circumstances", but "logical" does/can. My original point was that populations tend to act naturally or sensibly given circumstances (such as mass surveillance) even if randomly chosen individuals or small groups might not. The word "rational" points much more directly at rationality, i.e. sentient decision-making. You wouldn't say that it's rational that a man might fly into a rage and murder his spouse's lover because that would make it sound like he's making a sound decision rather than acting in a predictable manner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:The religion comes up after the failed memory wipe. So why did they wipe his mind? Because he had experienced ‘miraculous’ events that might convince him of the existence of a higher power. reignofevil posted:It might be rational if you believe in some kind of grand cosmic plan. Well, there you go: rationality is relative, whereas logic is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
Semantic arguments aside, Ferrinus' stance on spying and the mintakens assumed views in general betrays a significant projection of 21st century American paranoia re: surveillance. Spying is bad, to you. You assume, therefore, that it would be bad to the mintakens, but that is an assumption based on no evidence, only your own biases. You seem to hold an absolute value system of right and wrong based entirely on your own internal biases and the biases of your identified peer group. Spying, surveillance, study, voyeurism, whatever you call the act the Federation was involved in, you say it is wrong. So it must be. But the Federation doesn't believe it is wrong. The mintakens we meet do not appear to believe it is wrong. When two parties are in agreement that an act is not in violation of their own individual ethics, you, a third party, are free to tell anyone who'll listen that you don't agree with them, but you don't get to say they are wrong. And you certainly don't get to interfere in their arrangement in an attempt to change it to suit your own ideas. And because it turns out people like you actually do try to do that all the time, that made a rule to try to stop it and called it the prime directive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
The domes have gone too far to annex this thread into their territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So why did they wipe his mind? Because he had experienced ‘miraculous’ events that might convince him of the existence of a higher power. They didn't wipe his whole mind. You can't even go a single post without trying to mis-represent something. They tried to selectively erase his memory of seeing them. The religion came up *after* the memory wipe. Finger Prince posted:You seem to hold an absolute value system of right and wrong based entirely on your own internal biases and the biases of your identified peer group. This has been VERY clear based on everything in this thread to date. They feel totally confident that they can define who are real people and who aren't, which cultures are good and which ones aren't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:This has been VERY clear based on everything in this thread to date. They feel totally confident that they can define who are real people and who aren't, which cultures are good and which ones aren't. ...are you arguing that the episode doesn't portray the Mintaken as "real people?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The domes have gone too far to annex this thread into their territory. Mintakendome
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:...are you arguing that the episode doesn't portray the Mintaken as "real people?" What? No, i'm not talking about the episode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:What? No, i'm not talking about the episode. You're saying that certain posters in this thread "feel totally confident" that they can call exploitation and coercion bad, despite the fact that... certain cultures think they're good? Schwarzwald fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Mar 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:You're saying that certain posters in this thread "feel totally confident" that they can call exploitation and coercion bad, despite the fact that... certain cultures think they're good? Interesting how you jump from "defining some people as real and others as not" to a stupid internet "gotcha". Weird how that turns out. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:Interesting how you jump from "defining some people as real and others as not" to a stupid internet "gotcha". Weird how that turns out. I literally can't tell what you're argument is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
This whole conversation has gone completely beyond my capacity to follow it. Ferrinus says that government spying is bad. reignofevil disagrees on account of Ferrinus drew a distinction between "rational" and "logical" as well as "populations and society" and "a crowd of people." Finger Prince also disagrees on account of maybe the people being spied on have an exhibitionism fetish and who are we to get in the way of that. SMG thinks the episode is about how Picard tries to get out of becoming an object of worship. He says that Picard has a dudes mind wiped. CainFortea disagrees, and says that what actually happens is that the dude merely got his mind wiped. CainFortea is flabbergasted that SMG could misinterpret such a simple detail. Finger Prince says that right and wrong are cultural values, and as best as I can determine CainFortea follows that up by saying that because values are cultural it's insensitive to disagree? This whole thread is a goddamn nightmare. What the gently caress is any of this???
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
So, uh, anyone ever think about how all the changed timelines due to time travel episodes in effect mean we've watched dozens of universal genocides?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 06:02
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:They feel totally confident that they can define who are real people and who aren't, which cultures are good and which ones aren't. WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT I JUST NOW got what you meant by this! By "cultures" you mean The FEderation don't you! You're saying that "They" are wrong for calling bad things bad because that would be insensitive to Captain loving Picard!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:So, uh, anyone ever think about how all the changed timelines due to time travel episodes in effect mean we've watched dozens of universal genocides? Eh, if you put it in those terms, you witness the universal genocide of potential timelines every day. Especially when you do that one thing. Gross.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT The “secret decoder ring” of the discussion is that Cainfortea believes Picard is axiomatically good. So, when I write that Picard attempted to erase a man’s belief in god by tampering with his brain, and that’s a bad thing, Cainfortea’s objection is that Picard could have done much worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 07:29
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:This whole thread is a goddamn nightmare. What the gently caress is any of this??? loving gold, baby!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 11:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwx5uB0pyhQ if i had a galaxy class space boat i would offer this whole thread a ride on it
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So, when I write that Picard attempted to erase a man’s belief in god by tampering with his brain, and that’s a bad thing, Cainfortea’s objection is that Picard could have done much worse. No. I'm just pointing out that your lies and misrepresentations are laughably bad at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 3, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
CainFortea posted:No. I'm just pointing out that your lies and misrepresentations are laughably bad at this point. I wrote that Picard tried to delete the faith from a dude’s brain, because the dude had experienced ‘miraculous’ events that might convince him of the existence of a higher power. (That’s objectively what happens.) You are calling that plot synopsis a “lie” because: 1) Picard didn’t try to delete the man’s entire brain - just the part with the faith. 2) The faith was ‘merely’ an idea or feeling at that point, and had not yet developed into an organized religion. (Picard uses other methods to eliminate the religion later.) So, you’re saying that what Picard did wasn’t that bad, because all he did was try to delete the faith from a dude’s brain. He could have done much worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2020 15:15
|
|