View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:40 pm



Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Planetary Defenses in Star Trek 
Author Message
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6822
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
1. Your "bluff" argument's dishonest nature and my views on your shade-throwing argument technique has been discussed throughout the thread. I'll skip taxing Mike's patience or my own time limitations with another retread. RTFT.

2. I do enjoy how you finally admit that Chakotay's statement is valid and truthful when nothing is appended to it, even if you do try to throw shade about his "real objective" (avoiding bloodshed altogether). Kudos on the admission.

3. I remain fascinated at your utter ignorance of and refusal to discuss all of Star Trek anytime an analogy to or example from another episode is used, even when you've discussed the episode before. I do not find such failures to respond due to the pleading of ignorance particularly swaying, but if you think that works out for you then go on.

4. Your insistence that no commander attacks without knowing victory can be achieved is not accurate. Pickett roars to mind. Of course, Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" does, too, but that was quoted in a Star Trek episode so, as per your mental block referenced in #3, you've never heard of it. Similarly, I recall an "engage, retreat, engage, retreat" complaint elsewhere in Star Trek, but nevermind that, amirite?

5. You're damned right I am not addressing your assertions about your insertions. I ignore lots of fanon, not just yours. For all we know he utterly dismissed Chakotay's point as if he hadn't heard him at all and paid it no mind whatsoever . . . certainly that view is the one best supported by the episode, given that he ignores Chakotay's points utterly. To play among the more limited and carefully-selected imaginative options you have provided would be to lend them an astonishingly undeserved credence.


1. Hot air. You're calling my argument dishonest and... that's all.
2. I had already pointed that out some time ago. The only problem being that the appended part happens to be the rest of the plot one cannot randomly ignore "just because". I believe I have more than sufficiently explained why by now.
3. Call it whatever you want. There is simply no point starting a new subtopic about a perhaps remotely similar situation with different characters in a different setting, involving different political caveats and else. This is a red herring at best and it would be silly to insist on it when YoH offers all we need. I especially don't intend on having a repeat of your vague Nemesis reference here.
4. You're arguing semantics over a single instance of me rephrasing the statement about Janeway amongst a large number of verbatim to almost identical quotations I provided at the same time and many times before. Frankly useless here.
5.1. Which I could swing around; for all we know, he didn't pay attention to Chakotay because he was talking utter nonsense. See? It does work too.
5.2. Nevertheless, Annorax' silence simply does not change the fact that Chakotay would be aware of what tactical plausibilities his statement would convey to a competent commander, especially one unaware of what was really about to unfold, whether said commander listened or not. A simple point you really, really have considerable trouble to understand. Which just requires me to ask the same question again, hoping this time that you'll simply not dodge it:

Q: Would you claim with a straight face that if you had been Annorax, out of all the tactically realistic options you'd consider based on what already happened (like, again, Voyager's crew having "adapted" to the chroniton torps and resisting more than well the TWS' beam), mutiny would be the likeliest option you'd think of in reaction to Chakotay's words?

-> A question obviously set in the context where Annorax did listen and did consider Chakotay's statements valuable.


Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:50 pm
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1828
Reply with quote
The only part of your post that was a little more than mere resistance-typing is quoted below:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
5.1. Which I could swing around; for all we know, he didn't pay attention to Chakotay because he was talking utter nonsense. See? It does work too.


… and it is a microcosm of the whole thread. Your entire argument against Chakotay's shield quote as being a bluff has required the insertionism against his now-admittedly-valid warning about Janeway doing damage. I retorted that insertionism is not required because it was a valid warning, and lately that Annorax didn't respond to Chakotay at all, effectively ignoring him and paying his words no mind, thus there is no reason to insert anything.

By analogy, picture a train on a track. Our first stop is Warning Station and the track leads directly to Protected Planet station. You hate the latter so want to hijack the train by laying a new imaginary track that prevents the train from reaching Warning Station and curves far away from Protected Planet Station. You have finally admitted that we've reached Warning after page upon page of claiming that what we could all see out of our windows wasn't real. So now you insist that the train should back up and avoid Warning by getting on your new imaginary track, because reasons.

Meanwhile, I've been exasperatedly pointing out the window at Warning Station and, now, have pointed out that your because-reasons argument for hopping tracks is completely ridiculous because your track is probably not even there.

A. Faced with my plausible anti-insertionist alternative, you acknowledge the possibility of non-insertionism yet keep seeking the very same conclusion via "swing around".

Your conclusion *requires* insertionism. Without it, you have no case against Chakotay's so-called bluff. It's like pretending something must be happening in the room just off-screen yet then they release a 360° VR version.

More to the point, you're going to hold to the same conclusion no matter what, as seen throughout the thread.

B. Even when you're ostensibly twisting non-insertionism around in your favor, you actually keep insertionism without acknowledging it. You assert that Annorax assessed Chakotay's statements and found them factually invalid, deciding then to ignore them.

That's completely different than Annorax choosing not to listen in advance, as I said.

More to the point, even if your argument hits a snag, you're still going to keep using it as if valid, just hiding it better.

C. There is also consistency in the shade-throwing, here once again against characters whose statements you don't like. Note that Annorax is, in your response, presumed to be rational, while Chakotay is assumed to be a BS-filled moron. However, in the episode, Annorax is clearly and even explicitly portrayed as an obsessed megalomaniac, albeit one whose charisma and persuasiveness kept his crew happy for centuries and even got Chakotay involved for a time.

More to the point, your approach to argumentation wherein you do it via bashing and whisper-campaigning against the facts (or debaters) in your way is just skeezy.

I could go on and on based on the rest of your post, pointig to the irrationality of your position and the methods used to defend it (e.g. calling the rest of the thread hot air because you choose to ignore it just like you ignore examples from other Trek episodes), but the point is long-since made.

Change your ways, for now that your techniques are exposed they will be less workable from now on.


Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:25 pm
Profile WWW
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6822
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
The only part of your post that was a little more than mere resistance-typing is quoted below:


Most of said "resistance-typing" was centered on pointing out how several of the points you raised in your former post were useless.
I probably wasted some of my free time in the process I suppose. Oh well...

Quote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
5.1. Which I could swing around; for all we know, he didn't pay attention to Chakotay because he was talking utter nonsense. See? It does work too.


… and it is a microcosm of the whole thread.


What is that supposed to prove or mean? In the end I have valid arguments from both ends of the spectrum, from Chakotay's perspective who would easily guess what wrong conclusion Annorax would get led to (so Chakotay is being manipulative), and from Annorax who by remaining silent can be understood the way I also presented (Chakotay being unreliable in his technological and tactical assessments so Annorax doesn't even listen). Both weakening the reliability of Chakotay's statements.
Nothing you can dismiss either.
I actually have to thank you for opening a door here that allowed me to add that second good argument against your position. ;)

Quote:
Your entire argument against Chakotay's shield quote as being a bluff has required the insertionism against his now-admittedly-valid warning about Janeway doing damage.


And as you feign ignoring, I told you just above —against your strawman— that there was nothing new in my position regarding the value of the general statement when left alone, detached from the context of the episode.
I offered you a chance to correct your error. Beyond that point, you're just being dishonest.

Quote:
I retorted that insertionism is not required because it was a valid warning, and lately that Annorax didn't respond to Chakotay at all, effectively ignoring him and paying his words no mind, thus there is no reason to insert anything.

By analogy, picture a train on a track. Our first stop is Warning Station and the track leads directly to Protected Planet station. You hate the latter so want to hijack the train by laying a new imaginary track that prevents the train from reaching Warning Station and curves far away from Protected Planet Station. You have finally admitted that we've reached Warning after page upon page of claiming that what we could all see out of our windows wasn't real. So now you insist that the train should back up and avoid Warning by getting on your new imaginary track, because reasons.

Meanwhile, I've been exasperatedly pointing out the window at Warning Station and, now, have pointed out that your because-reasons argument for hopping tracks is completely ridiculous because your track is probably not even there.


Your exasperation is your only fault and the fruit of your refusal to acknowledge the most obvious point I have repeatedly tried to present before you in several different ways in the hope you would at least once open your eyes.

Now you seem to have convinced yourself that I have agreed that the statement about Janeway was a 100% non-weighed truth with nothing implicit, which is of course ridiculous only on the merits that I already said that a lie needs a nugget of truth to be a good bait.

That's just a new card you're recycling in the vain hope that we won't see that you're doing it just to avoid facing the implications of the words spoken by Chakotay to a competent commander.

One can easily imagine that your future wave of sophisms is going to focus on finding about any form of argumentative contortion just to avoid dealing with reality.

Quote:
A. Faced with my plausible anti-insertionist alternative, you acknowledge the possibility of non-insertionism yet keep seeking the very same conclusion via "swing around".


There was nothing anti-insertionist about your "alternative" considering that you also inserted that Annorax "didn't hear it" and/or "paid it no mind."
Which anyway was irrelevant to the point I always made: even if Annorax suddenly became deaf without anyone else noticing, it wouldn't change a thing to what Chakotay could reasonnably expect Annorax to think if the later would actually pay attention to Chakotay's words as a competent commander would.

Essentially your defense is now to have Annorax do what you've been doing since the first exchange regarding my claims about Chakotay. Play deaf.

Besides, considering what characters would likely do or think has always been a staple of debates. You don't get to suddenly rewrite rules because they don't suit your views.

Quote:
Your conclusion *requires* insertionism. Without it, you have no case against Chakotay's so-called bluff. It's like pretending something must be happening in the room just off-screen yet then they release a 360° VR version.


Let me correct that. Your position requires rejectionism (yay, it works!) of all parameters —while on the other hand I'm weighing the likely odds— mixed with a new dose of your own type of insertionism since you're suggesting the guy could be somehow playing deaf or, anyway, not paying attention, or both.

Thing is, I'm not treating my position as a fact. I say Chakotay could be willingly trying to deceive Annorax. That's all.
But it's more than enough to attach a <cautious!> tag to the validity of his statements.

There is more than enough legit reasons to try to assess if Chakotay is just being 100% honest or if he's trying to be manipulative, why he'd be doing that and how.

In fact, let's just make that clear, your entire position is pure hypocrisy, because in order to know if Chakotay is telling the truth or not, you also do have to "get into his mind".
Which can only be done by considering all the parameters and therefore judging the likeliness of what he was thinking and what he was trying to achieve.
It's even more dishonest from you because you know this situation is special since Chakotay possesses crucial information that is going to play against Annorax AND he is trying to find reasons to convince Annorax to stand down.

I think my position is utterly straight forward and I have no plan to restate it again.

Quote:
B. Even when you're ostensibly twisting non-insertionism around in your favor, you actually keep insertionism without acknowledging it. You assert that Annorax assessed Chakotay's statements and found them factually invalid, deciding then to ignore them.


Huh. I didn't claim I wasn't inserting another interpretation. I was simply using your new angle of attack and giving you a taste of your own medicine. *sigh*
If anything, I have largely proven above that you were the one being unaware of relying on some newly crafted "insertionism".

And what's up with this sudden spasmodic regurgitation of "isms" and "ists" anyway? Are you a member of the PC politburo or something?

Quote:
That's completely different than Annorax choosing not to listen in advance, as I said.


Oh, look!
IN-SER-TION-ISM.
How surprising.

Quote:
More to the point, even if your argument hits a snag, you're still going to keep using it as if valid, just hiding it better.


The argument can't be clearer and I would gain absolutely nothing with you by even trying to smudge it, considering your actual difficulties to understand it when it's been presented in about a bajillion different transparent and crystal clear ways.

Quote:
C. There is also consistency in the shade-throwing, here once again against characters whose statements you don't like. Note that Annorax is, in your response, presumed to be rational, while Chakotay is assumed to be a BS-filled moron. However, in the episode, Annorax is clearly and even explicitly portrayed as an obsessed megalomaniac, albeit one whose charisma and persuasiveness kept his crew happy for centuries and even got Chakotay involved for a time.


Lookie! Mister 2048 draws a behavioural and psychological portrait of Annorax but —the shock!— completely ommits the fact that he's also been competent, calculative, very intellectual and had an obvious will to listen to both human prisoners instead of having their clap trap sealed shut.

No matter what you do, everytime you even think you found a new argument, you're actually just playing one more round in my favour. Doesn't it get tiring eh? :)
Well, that's the problem, Robert. Dishonesty just does not pay. Perhaps you'll learn.

Quote:
More to the point, your approach to argumentation wherein you do it via bashing and whisper-campaigning against the facts (or debaters) in your way is just skeezy.

I could go on and on based on the rest of your post, pointig to the irrationality of your position and the methods used to defend it (e.g. calling the rest of the thread hot air because you choose to ignore it just like you ignore examples from other Trek episodes), but the point is long-since made.


Another point I believe I have to cover because it's obviously eluding you. Really, I am that patient! :)
See, if that other episode you use as part of your argumentation is particularly relevant, it means it must provide a situation very, very similar to what we're dealing with here.
Then, guess what? If we can't even agree on Year of Hell, what makes you think we'd suddenly find a sharable stance on that other episode?
If A = B and I say A is blue and you say it's red, then it's just going to end with me saying B is blue and you arguing until your last breath that B is red.

Ergo, pointless.

Quote:
Change your ways, for now that your techniques are exposed they will be less workable from now on.


Boo.
The comedy writes itself.
I also notice that just as much you were very partial in your behavioural and psychological analysis of Annorax, you also will employ any kind of fancy dance move to avoid replying to my question.
For the moment, I'll not tire of copy-pasting it though.

Q: Would you claim with a straight face that if you had been Annorax, out of all the tactically realistic options you'd consider based on what already happened (like, again, Voyager's crew having "adapted" to the chroniton torps and resisting more than well the TWS' beam), mutiny would be the likeliest option you'd think of in reaction to Chakotay's words?

-> A question obviously set in the context where Annorax did listen and did consider Chakotay's statements valuable. (Just repeating that last part too, just to be sure, in case the context would seem ambiguous to you...)


Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:12 pm
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1828
Reply with quote
So now you strategically backpedal on admitting Chakotay's statement's truth value without your insertions, and simultaneously try to claim you've always said it (show me three cases), I've always known it (insertionism!), and I am dishonest for playing it up (more shade).

I also like your double-standard nonsense where you think you get to evade and ignore rebuttals, but if you ask a stupid circular question which I explicitly refuse to even acknowledge you copy and paste it with a big Q and pretend you're thereby scoring points, as if you forgot my refusal just like you forgot the rest of Star Trek and this thread.

Par for the course.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
There was nothing anti-insertionist about your "alternative" considering that you also inserted that Annorax "didn't hear it" and/or "paid it no mind."


This is cute, I will grant, but foolish. Your insertionism is based on attempting to read the thoughts of a silent man by injecting mental equations onto him using terms you add to the conversation. My response to your insistence on mind-reading takes his silence at face value.

Basically it's the diary joke: http://kosongcafe.blogspot.in/2010/06/f ... ntion.html

So, if you're going to mind-read, which I don't think is a great plan when there's no reason to (i.e. when all necessary and valid information is already known), the least-BS-filled way is mine. If you are pro-BS, then let's go all the way and simply admit that Annorax didn't hear Chakotay because he was consumed with lust for the tattooed face.

Quote:
No matter what you do, everytime you even think you found a new argument, you're actually just playing one more round in my favour. Doesn't it get tiring eh? :)


Classic troll statement. Thanks for confessing.

Quote:
Well, that's the problem, Robert. Dishonesty just does not pay. Perhaps you'll learn.


Oh, honey, how could I miss it? You've blathered it all over the thread and embarrassed yourself endlessly.


Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:18 pm
Profile WWW
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6822
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
So now you strategically backpedal on admitting Chakotay's statement's truth value without your insertions, and simultaneously try to claim you've always said it (show me three cases), I've always known it (insertionism!), and I am dishonest for playing it up (more shade).


If anything, I may have not made it 300% super-blatant because it didn't seem to me that I had to spill it out in big colourful toddler letters and say, why, yes, in the vast majority of battle situations, a captain wouldn't engage his forces unless he could deal damage to the enemy and eventually gain something in the process, even if it were suicidal.
Nor may I have pointed out out the obvious —that a good lie can be sold because it also contains a truth somewhere down the line; otherwise, it's just a bad lie— in such a clear way.
We have reached such a point in this discussion where I do now feel the need to don the Captain Obvious cape in fear that certain basic truths that were always part of my arguments may be entirely missed by you.
And they are.

You could, for a change, be welcome to substantiate your accusations by proving that my claim ever rejected both the concepts of "non-contextual general truth" and "the necessary truth in the lie". But you would amusingly fail, for my claim of a bluff obviously required something to actually sound true for Annorax to catch it.

This, and that:

Me wrote:
Janeway would simply not stupidly engage her ship that way, that is absolutely sure. Some fans may hate her, but if there is one thing certain is that the show painted her as a devoted and very responsible captain, not shy of sacrifice and very caring about her crew which she always puts before herself. We even saw that again in that very two-parter episode!


Which you simply sniped. Err, I mean, to which you "replied", whether missing the point or —more likely— being dishonest and hardly concerned for facts:

"None of that makes any sense. You do know the plan involved taking the temporal core offline, yes?"

So not only now you are actually backpedalling and thought that, well, after all, what Mr. Oraghan said did make sense. But since that would perhaps (probably) embarrass you, you also decided to project your own failure onto me and went for the claim that I am the one suddenly admitting to the full of common sense idea of not engaging one's forces lest damage can be dealt to the oponent (or more).

By the way, that's from page 2, FYI.

Or, down the same page:

Me wrote:
Then we will have to agree on a definition of bluffing because as far as I am concerned, a blatant lie makes for a very poor bluff.


I hope I do not have to explain this one to you too. Right?

Quote:
I also like your double-standard nonsense where you think you get to evade and ignore rebuttals,...


What rebuttals did I miss exactly? Be specific or give up.

Quote:
... but if you ask a stupid circular question which I explicitly refuse to even acknowledge you copy and paste it with a big Q and pretend you're thereby scoring points, as if you forgot my refusal just like you forgot the rest of Star Trek and this thread.


There, thank you! :)
Of course it is rhetorical. When you say it's circular it's because you do know very well the only one honest answer you could give to it.
So you do anything to avoid giving said answer.
Anybody else without any sort of investment in this discussion would easily answer this. Thing is, they may even provide an answer going against me, but they would actually not be afraid of answering it. ;)

Quote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
There was nothing anti-insertionist about your "alternative" considering that you also inserted that Annorax "didn't hear it" and/or "paid it no mind."


This is cute, I will grant, but foolish.


Yet 100% factual, cute nor not. You're being hypocritical, that's it.

Quote:
Your insertionism is based on attempting to read the thoughts of a silent man by injecting mental equations onto him using terms you add to the conversation. My response to your insistence on mind-reading takes his silence at face value.

Basically it's the diary joke: http://kosongcafe.blogspot.in/2010/06/f ... ntion.html

So, if you're going to mind-read, which I don't think is a great plan when there's no reason to (i.e. when all necessary and valid information is already known), the least-BS-filled way is mine. If you are pro-BS, then let's go all the way and simply admit that Annorax didn't hear Chakotay because he was consumed with lust for the tattooed face.


Which I already adressed on this very page:

"Annorax' silence simply does not change the fact that Chakotay would be aware of what tactical plausibilities his statement would convey to a competent commander, especially one unaware of what was really about to unfold, whether said commander listened or not. A simple point you really, really have considerable trouble to understand."

Notice that at that moment I still was considering the possibility that you were honestly in pain to grasp that simple point.
Of course we both know that you'd gain nothing acknowledging that because your position is to think that Chakotay is 100% honest and not deceitful, which imho cannot be known considering what's going on.
Thing is, if according to your claim, Chakotay is sooooo honest and not being manipulative in the slightest, then how come he hides the truth to Annorax and doesn't actually tell him why Janeway & Pals are attacking? Could it be... lemme see... that he's actually plotting against Annorax? :D

So, anyway, since the first question apparently rubs you the wrong way, and since I still want to hear your clear and straight opinion on that, please read and answer this new and perhaps less loaded question:

Q:How do we know for sure that Chakotay isn't trying to manipulate Annorax to some degree since we know that he's hiding a hugely decisive secret against him and is also talking Annorax into giving up?

I'll be waiting for your answer.

Quote:
Quote:
No matter what you do, everytime you even think you found a new argument, you're actually just playing one more round in my favour. Doesn't it get tiring eh? :)


Classic troll statement. Thanks for confessing.


Wounded much? :)
Simply proving that your latest suggestion backfired. Not my fault. Just think more next time.

Quote:
Quote:
Well, that's the problem, Robert. Dishonesty just does not pay. Perhaps you'll learn.


Oh, honey, how could I miss it? You've blathered it all over the thread and embarrassed yourself endlessly.


Eh, at least you could claim a remote level of honesty if you weren't so blatantly sniping and dodging points that go against your position.


Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:01 pm
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1828
Reply with quote
I see you're still posting the big Q as if you're doing something. Let's talk about that.

I. Grandstanding the Loaded Question

Trolls will do things like continually repeat a loaded question and act like an explicit refusal to answer it means something, where "something" is usually "whatever the troll wants to claim". This is true whether the question is simply dismissed out of hand or if the background loading of the question is thoroughly dismantled bit by bit as part of the refusal.

In reality, of course, the target is simply refusing to voluntarily wade into a vat of bullshit.

We can see similar examples in many areas. In politics and law, grandstanders will carefully construct a loaded question and demand a yes or no answer, where either answer can be used to further attack the target. We often see conspiracy nuts who think the moon landings were a hoax post videos of themselves doing the same to astronauts, which occasionally results in a well-deserved punch. And, of course, in the Vs. Debate some of the Star Wars inflationist trolls used to try that when amongst their friendlies.

The trolls do not consider themselves subject to the same requirement of answering questions or even maintaining conversation, of course. They'll likely sidestep, smokescreen, or otherwise evade answering, and try to sling enough BS or personal attacks to prevent their honest opponent from pounding the pulpit on that point. The scattergun of nonsense from the dishonest troll debater is literally designed to require so much time to unpack that almost no one would do it, and even if they did it no one would read it.

And, of course, it isn't like the honest opponent is likely to respond to their vacuous, vapid, and inherently illogical argumentation technique of the repetitive loaded question in reverse. They're interested in defending the truth and discarding irrelevancies, not grandstanding.

This brings us to the troll Mr. Oragahn.

His loaded question is "How do we know for sure that Chakotay isn't trying to manipulate Annorax to some degree since we know that he's hiding a hugely decisive secret against him and is also talking Annorax into giving up?"

Let's unpack. As background, of course, Oragahn is simply trying to cast any doubt he can on Chakotay's honesty in a particular statement to Annorax, because Chakotay's next statement to Annorax features a concept that Oragahn is intent on rejecting by any means necessary. (This is not a character attack on Oragahn, as he explicitly stated this.)

(And, frankly, this is silly. If one wished to show Chakotay as a potential fibber, there are seven seasons of Voyager to choose from. However, this would require Oragahn research Star Trek, which he explicitly refuses to do.)

First, note the nature of the question . . . "how do we know for sure that Chakotay isn't…”. In other words, for me to answer, I must either prove a negative (which is logically impossible, especially against a bullshitter) or agree to Oragahn's bullshit. So, the very nature of the question is dishonest.

Second, we have the particulars of the question, which are basically just vague shade-throwing attacks on Chakotay's honesty.

A. He's "trying to manipulate" "to some degree". Well, hell's bells, the same could be said of anyone in almost any serious discussion. A textbook author could be said to be trying to manipulate students into Belief X to some degree, merely by word choice or what-have-you.

And, with "manipulate", this is basically just prejudicial language in the place of an argument . . . a type of shade-throwing at which Oragahn excels.

B. Noting that Chakotay is "hiding" something from Annorax, and moreover a huge "secret against him", is more soap-opera prejudicial language, and warping the context, besides. A more honest phrasing is that Chakotay warned Annorax of his impending doom without spilling all the beans of how it would happen (thereby allowing him to prevent it). In a situation where a badguy can be stopped by battle, a warning of doom to avoid battle is not nefarious as Oragahn tries to spin it, but spilling the whole plan like a Bond villain would be incredibly stupid.

More specifically, there are many things Chakotay didn't tell Annorax, such as Neelix's secret to leola root stew. The only relevant "secret" was the plan of Annorax's defeat. Thus, to declare Chakotay's honesty non-existent regarding the warnings of doom because he kept the secrets of how the doom would occur is rather circular, and just generally stupid.

C. That Chakotay is trying to talk Annorax into giving up is itself claimed as proof of his dishonesty. This is rather like a nefarious prosecutor trying to claim that a defendant producing a defense against the prosecutor's case is worth an extra charge of perjury, inherently, simply for disagreeing with the prosecution.

This is especially noteworthy because we've had a circumstance in this thread where Oragahn has claimed the reverse. I've gone on at length describing the dishonest and factually invalid claims Oragahn has made on the "bluff" claim, including noting its explicit purpose for Oragahn insofar as trying to nullify Chakotay's next sentence, but when I referred to it in the last couple of posts as a dishonest argument he protested the label.

Now, I am very comfortable calling it a dishonest argument, and feel I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oragahn is being knowingly dishonest in arguing it. Oragahn, on the other hand, cannot publicly acknowledge that, so tries to paint it as a nefarious prosecutor sort of situation in principle, with me as prosecutor.

But how the hell can he protest that when it is exactly what he is doing to Chakotay (albeit Oragahn's doing it with far, far less (i.e. zero) factual basis)?

Further, if arguing with a purpose is dishonest by default, then doesn't Oragahn's explicit attempt to attack Chakotay's honesty in order to nullify his next sentence mean that Oragahn is dishonest by default?

Sure seems that way to me. Of course, I am also 'with a purpose', here . . . and, alas, so are you. You damned dirty liar!

So, to conclude, I hope Oragahn continues to repost his stupid loaded question, because every time he does so it'll just be more obvious troll grandstanding. As for me, I will continue to not answer it.

(Or, if his honesty failures rub off on me, I'll start asking him similar questions like "when did you stop beating your mother" and grandstand the crap out of his refusal to give a specific date . . . because, of course, that means he still does it, amirite?)

EDIT: I just noticed that he's calling that a "perhaps less loaded" version of the question. If so, holy crap.

EDIT EDIT: The version above it is "Would you claim with a straight face that if you had been Annorax, out of all the tactically realistic options you'd consider based on what already happened (like, again, Voyager's crew having "adapted" to the chroniton torps and resisting more than well the TWS' beam), mutiny would be the likeliest option you'd think of in reaction to Chakotay's words?"

Note the yes-or-no but poisoned with "would you claim with a straight face", and the nonsense of a question referring to Oragahn's mindreading claims when my whole point is that his mindreading is both pointless and inherently dishonest. Oragahn can no more disprove my fervently held belief that Annorax was having a sex fantasy about Chakotay than anyone can disprove Oragahn's nonsense, because the man didn't respond to the warning except to ignore it.

Now sure, if Chakotay had spelled out the intricate details, it might've changed Annorax's behavior… shooting his disloyal crewmembers, for instance. But the whole conversation is stupid to even have, and having it only lends credence to Oragahn's mental masturbation. Similarly, having a conversation about the exact mechanics of Annorax's sex fantasy with Chakotay . . . zero-gee butt-sex in front of a big window versus mutual fellatio: which best to show the vengeful Time that he'd found love again? . . . is equally absurd.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
No matter what you do, everytime you even think you found a new argument, you're actually just playing one more round in my favour. Doesn't it get tiring eh? :)


Classic troll statement. Thanks for confessing.


Wounded much? :)
Simply proving that your latest suggestion backfired. Not my fault. Just think more next time.


No, you didn't understand. You may now want to imply that all my arguments are self-defeating via some logical paper bag I can't escape, but what you actually said is that every time I post I give you another round to play, and that your goal is for me to tire. Indeed, I don't even see how your phrasing could possibly be a reference to bad argumentation on my part, what with anything I do supposedly allowing playing more rounds. The goal of debate is not playing rounds, but fact-finding… formulating defenses of truth and defeating attacks upon it. For you, however, it seems to be the continuation of debate without end.

Hence my statement that you are a confessed troll.

More to follow…


Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:46 pm
Profile WWW
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1828
Reply with quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
2046 wrote:
So now you strategically backpedal on admitting Chakotay's statement's truth value without your insertions, and simultaneously try to claim you've always said it (show me three cases), I've always known it (insertionism!), and I am dishonest for playing it up (more shade).


If anything, I may have not made it 300% super-blatant because it didn't seem to me that I had to spill it out in big colourful toddler letters and say, why, yes, in the vast majority of battle situations, a captain wouldn't engage his forces unless he could deal damage to the enemy and eventually gain something in the process, even if it were suicidal.
Nor may I have pointed out out the obvious —that a good lie can be sold because it also contains a truth somewhere down the line; otherwise, it's just a bad lie— in such a clear way.


II. The Strategic Side-step

As noted previously, dishonest trolls don't respond like normal people. Above, Oragahn even reveals the technique of lying via a cloaking truth. Let's look:

A. Chakotay's warning

Earlier, I said "Chakotay warned Annorax that Janeway wouldn't attack unless she knew she could do some damage . . . this was perfectly correct." Oragahn responded that "This part was perfectly correct. This point is included, I don't deny it. It's a dual thing. The statement is true. The implication is not. Limiting oneself to the first part only is missing the just as important other element."

I noted his admission that Chakotay's statement was valid when Oragahn's insertions of things like "on her own" (not in the text of the episode) and "implications" of mindreading weren't included . . . that being his attempt to explore how Annorax felt about what he heard and how it related to his childhood and his sex fantasies of Chakotay. (I kid, but still.)

Afterward, he backpedaled on this admission while claiming to have always maintained it (confused yet?) and, when challenged to prove that he'd maintained it, started posting irrelevancies.

See, admitting that Chakotay was right in warning Annorax that Janeway was attacking because she knew she could do some damage means that the coming attack should be assumed to do some damage. And indeed, it did, and Janeway did indeed believe that it would because, per the episode, she believed the weapon-ship's defenses would be brought down and that her firepower was more than adequate to the task.

When challenged, however, Oragahn started posting irrelevances about whether he's said leaders are likely to attack in situations of certain death. That has approximately jack all to do with the whole point, but it is just enough resistance typing (with a lot of blowhardisms to aid in covering up the non-answers to the challenge) that he thinks he'll look good. (This also goes along with my earlier repeated complaints about how Oragahn was prone to reimagine his own words when needed.)

So, what did Oragahn say he said?

1. He once said Janeway wouldn't "stupidly engage" her ship in a suicide attack with no hope of damaging the enemy.
2. A "blatant lie makes for a very poor bluff".

These are his pieces of evidence that he always said what he now claims not to say but which he previously said, or something.

But see, merely acknowledging that Janeway isn't suicidal isn't the same as acknowledging that Chakotay's statement was factually valid. It was factually valid as a warning not because it said something about Janeway, but because it posited that a threat would do damage . . . and it did.

But again, Oragahn is posting that stuff about Janeway not being suicidal as honest truthfulness which, he thinks, covers the lying he's actually doing.

B. Ignorance and Projectionism

Quote:
"None of that makes any sense. You do know the plan involved taking the temporal core offline, yes?"

So not only now you are actually backpedalling and thought that, well, after all, what Mr. Oraghan said did make sense. But since that would perhaps (probably) embarrass you, you also decided to project your own failure onto me and went for the claim that I am the one suddenly admitting to the full of common sense idea of not engaging one's forces lest damage can be dealt to the oponent (or more).


The above is unmitigated bullshit and Oragahn knows it. His post involves clear ignorance of what's occurring, to wit: " At this point, Chakotay was convinced that Annorax had to be stopped, either from the inside (the mutiny plan), or hopefully from the outside.
He was aware that Voyager survived the temporal weapon so his remark was appropriate and could have very well been true, considering Trek's favourite trope of solving problems within an episode (the crew is that clever at finding solutions in short amounts of time)."

Oragahn clearly suggests that Chakotay was hoping the weapon-ship would be taken via mutiny or else destroyed by some cleverness of Janeway and crew, as opposed to the actual plan featuring the disabling of the ship's temporal defenses from within while Janeway attacked from the outside. Or, more briefly, the plan was A + B, and Oragahn was yammering about uber-A as opposed to uber-B as if he didn't know A, B, or A+B.

Naturally I said his post made no sense and reminded him of A+B . . . or, as said in the episode:

"CHAKOTAY: It'll require precise timing. You and me working from within.
PARIS: And Captain Janeway attacking from Voyager."

Now the little troll is trying to pretend that I haven't always held the same view. What a liar.

C. Pure nonsense

Quote:
You could, for a change, be welcome to substantiate your accusations by proving that my claim ever rejected both the concepts of "non-contextual general truth" and "the necessary truth in the lie". But you would amusingly fail, for my claim of a bluff obviously required something to actually sound true for Annorax to catch it.


"What sort of meaningless double-talk is this?"

------------


By the way, I did err in one part:

Quote:
Quote:
... but if you ask a stupid circular question which I explicitly refuse to even acknowledge you copy and paste it with a big Q and pretend you're thereby scoring points, as if you forgot my refusal just like you forgot the rest of Star Trek and this thread.


There, thank you! :)
Of course it is rhetorical. When you say it's circular it's because you do know very well the only one honest answer you could give to it.


Obviously, I meant "loaded", not "circular". That's my bad. Oragahn even sorta catches it when he later edits his question to be "less loaded".

Of course, there is no "honest" answer to a loaded yes-or-no question, except refusal and attacking the precepts of the question.

Quote:
afraid of answering it. ;)


Oh, look how cuuuuute. The troll asking cowardly loaded questions (for only one afraid of the truth loads the questions dishonestly) pretends it is cowardice to refuse to answer them.

Troll.


Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:48 pm
Profile WWW
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1828
Reply with quote
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Also, I'm getting sick and tired of this feuding between 2046 and Oragahn. You two need to ratchet it down a few notches or you both are going to get a one day ban. Right now consider this a warning. I know you two well enough to know that you both can argue intelligently and with appropriate evidence. No excuses.
-Mike


Just so we're clear, I believe it apparent that Oragahn is acting as a troll, as per his behavior and statements to that effect in this thread. As I review older threads in which he participated and I did not, the same dishonest tactics and refusal to budge from defeated positions (replete with shade-throwing, position re-imagining, and other sliminess) are apparent now that I have seen what to look for. Sure, he's better than your basic obvious troll, but it's still the same behavior in a nicer, less jet-black hat.

That said, I have also sinned in this thread by (a) defiantly refusing to disengage, especially after insults were lobbed, thus feeding the troll and (b) dropping any pretense of respect for him and his ways. One could also argue that by condensing his points and not responding point-by-point to his voluminous dancing around (save for an earlier post in which I went through it bit by bit regarding his tangle with SonOfCCN) that I have left myself open to complaints, but I haven't the time to parse every bit of his intentionally vague and self-contradictory scattergunning. Usually people just sort of leave him be or find areas of commonality at which to call it even, and only rarely does he get as insult-happy as now or receive as good as he gives. This is, after all, not that sort of place.

I recognize that you'd be hard-pressed to go through the pages of discussion in detail and catch all the nuances amidst all the noise, meaning only that your job is difficult. I also recognize that you'd rather avoid picking a side. However, the situation is also untenable. Even if I fell on my sword and self-banned for awhile, it would, per the history, only be a matter of time before he picked another squabble, and of course now that his trollery is so visible I would be hard-pressed not to call him out on it, meaning the "feud" is permanent until he changes his ways. I could exit forever, but I rather hate to leave the place to a troll or make him feel his trolling is rewarded, which will just spawn more of it.

With apologies, I have no real suggestion or advice, but all I can say is that something has to change. Your warnings have fallen on deaf ears, as instead of shaping up he only continues, and with no action forthcoming I respond as well (or poorly, as the case may be).

Obviously, then, the most likely outcome is dual banning, but a day will change nothing. From my perspective a month won't, either, unless he returned honest and non-trolling. But really, who changes?

The best outcome, then, to my mind, is for everyone to see what he does and recognize it for the dishonest and slimy behavior that it is, so that at least when tried he can be more easily shot down. As such, my next messages back and forth will all be based on pointing out his skeezy techniques. I can try not to respond emotionally (e.g. references to "bullshit", showing exasperation, et cetera), but that's about all I can promise.

Of course, in the meantime, this will have him screaming bloody murder, throwing out smokescreens and accusations and so on in an effort to get me to engage on that low nonsense and thereby cloak his behavior by making it seem mutual. This is, after all, what he has been doing throughout, and everyone knows I can get perturbed by such bullshit. (We all have a weakness.)

So again, I have no advice. In a viciously-policed forum his personal bullshit used as smokescreen might get shot down a bit quicker, but y'all are forced to do anti-spam duty most of the time. So, this merry-go-round seems likely to continue so long as he remains an active troll and I remain someone who resists them. Whatever the case, it is obvious that no one else is posting, and that as I said originally his bad behavior (and, I grant, my increasingly-brutal responses) are sullying the board and its proper tone.

Of course, by even posting to you about it (heaven forbid I had PM'ed) he'll pretend that I am seeking help from others, the same grandstand-y nonsense that he's tried throughout the thread. But, all I wanted to do here is explain to you what's going on out of respect, and apologize for not being able to provide you a way out.


Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:26 pm
Profile WWW
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6822
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
I see you're still posting the big Q as if you're doing something. Let's talk about that.

I. Grandstanding the Loaded Question

Trolls will do things like continually repeat a loaded question and act like an explicit refusal to answer it means something, where "something" is usually "whatever the troll wants to claim". This is true whether the question is simply dismissed out of hand or if the background loading of the question is thoroughly dismantled bit by bit as part of the refusal.

In reality, of course, the target is simply refusing to voluntarily wade into a vat of bullshit.

We can see similar examples in many areas. In politics and law, grandstanders will carefully construct a loaded question and demand a yes or no answer, where either answer can be used to further attack the target. We often see conspiracy nuts who think the moon landings were a hoax post videos of themselves doing the same to astronauts, which occasionally results in a well-deserved punch. And, of course, in the Vs. Debate some of the Star Wars inflationist trolls used to try that when amongst their friendlies.

The trolls do not consider themselves subject to the same requirement of answering questions or even maintaining conversation, of course. They'll likely sidestep, smokescreen, or otherwise evade answering, and try to sling enough BS or personal attacks to prevent their honest opponent from pounding the pulpit on that point. The scattergun of nonsense from the dishonest troll debater is literally designed to require so much time to unpack that almost no one would do it, and even if they did it no one would read it.

And, of course, it isn't like the honest opponent is likely to respond to their vacuous, vapid, and inherently illogical argumentation technique of the repetitive loaded question in reverse. They're interested in defending the truth and discarding irrelevancies, not grandstanding.

This brings us to the troll Mr. Oragahn.

His loaded question is "How do we know for sure that Chakotay isn't trying to manipulate Annorax to some degree since we know that he's hiding a hugely decisive secret against him and is also talking Annorax into giving up?"

Let's unpack. As background, of course, Oragahn is simply trying to cast any doubt he can on Chakotay's honesty in a particular statement to Annorax, because Chakotay's next statement to Annorax features a concept that Oragahn is intent on rejecting by any means necessary. (This is not a character attack on Oragahn, as he explicitly stated this.)

(And, frankly, this is silly. If one wished to show Chakotay as a potential fibber, there are seven seasons of Voyager to choose from. However, this would require Oragahn research Star Trek, which he explicitly refuses to do.)

First, note the nature of the question . . . "how do we know for sure that Chakotay isn't…”. In other words, for me to answer, I must either prove a negative (which is logically impossible, especially against a bullshitter) or agree to Oragahn's bullshit. So, the very nature of the question is dishonest.

Second, we have the particulars of the question, which are basically just vague shade-throwing attacks on Chakotay's honesty.

A. He's "trying to manipulate" "to some degree". Well, hell's bells, the same could be said of anyone in almost any serious discussion. A textbook author could be said to be trying to manipulate students into Belief X to some degree, merely by word choice or what-have-you.

And, with "manipulate", this is basically just prejudicial language in the place of an argument . . . a type of shade-throwing at which Oragahn excels.

B. Noting that Chakotay is "hiding" something from Annorax, and moreover a huge "secret against him", is more soap-opera prejudicial language, and warping the context, besides. A more honest phrasing is that Chakotay warned Annorax of his impending doom without spilling all the beans of how it would happen (thereby allowing him to prevent it). In a situation where a badguy can be stopped by battle, a warning of doom to avoid battle is not nefarious as Oragahn tries to spin it, but spilling the whole plan like a Bond villain would be incredibly stupid.

More specifically, there are many things Chakotay didn't tell Annorax, such as Neelix's secret to leola root stew. The only relevant "secret" was the plan of Annorax's defeat. Thus, to declare Chakotay's honesty non-existent regarding the warnings of doom because he kept the secrets of how the doom would occur is rather circular, and just generally stupid.

C. That Chakotay is trying to talk Annorax into giving up is itself claimed as proof of his dishonesty. This is rather like a nefarious prosecutor trying to claim that a defendant producing a defense against the prosecutor's case is worth an extra charge of perjury, inherently, simply for disagreeing with the prosecution.

This is especially noteworthy because we've had a circumstance in this thread where Oragahn has claimed the reverse. I've gone on at length describing the dishonest and factually invalid claims Oragahn has made on the "bluff" claim, including noting its explicit purpose for Oragahn insofar as trying to nullify Chakotay's next sentence, but when I referred to it in the last couple of posts as a dishonest argument he protested the label.

Now, I am very comfortable calling it a dishonest argument, and feel I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oragahn is being knowingly dishonest in arguing it. Oragahn, on the other hand, cannot publicly acknowledge that, so tries to paint it as a nefarious prosecutor sort of situation in principle, with me as prosecutor.

But how the hell can he protest that when it is exactly what he is doing to Chakotay (albeit Oragahn's doing it with far, far less (i.e. zero) factual basis)?

Further, if arguing with a purpose is dishonest by default, then doesn't Oragahn's explicit attempt to attack Chakotay's honesty in order to nullify his next sentence mean that Oragahn is dishonest by default?

Sure seems that way to me. Of course, I am also 'with a purpose', here . . . and, alas, so are you. You damned dirty liar!

So, to conclude, I hope Oragahn continues to repost his stupid loaded question, because every time he does so it'll just be more obvious troll grandstanding. As for me, I will continue to not answer it.

(Or, if his honesty failures rub off on me, I'll start asking him similar questions like "when did you stop beating your mother" and grandstand the crap out of his refusal to give a specific date . . . because, of course, that means he still does it, amirite?)

EDIT: I just noticed that he's calling that a "perhaps less loaded" version of the question. If so, holy crap.

EDIT EDIT: The version above it is "Would you claim with a straight face that if you had been Annorax, out of all the tactically realistic options you'd consider based on what already happened (like, again, Voyager's crew having "adapted" to the chroniton torps and resisting more than well the TWS' beam), mutiny would be the likeliest option you'd think of in reaction to Chakotay's words?"

Note the yes-or-no but poisoned with "would you claim with a straight face", and the nonsense of a question referring to Oragahn's mindreading claims when my whole point is that his mindreading is both pointless and inherently dishonest. Oragahn can no more disprove my fervently held belief that Annorax was having a sex fantasy about Chakotay than anyone can disprove Oragahn's nonsense, because the man didn't respond to the warning except to ignore it.

Now sure, if Chakotay had spelled out the intricate details, it might've changed Annorax's behavior… shooting his disloyal crewmembers, for instance. But the whole conversation is stupid to even have, and having it only lends credence to Oragahn's mental masturbation. Similarly, having a conversation about the exact mechanics of Annorax's sex fantasy with Chakotay . . . zero-gee butt-sex in front of a big window versus mutual fellatio: which best to show the vengeful Time that he'd found love again? . . . is equally absurd.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Wounded much? :)
Simply proving that your latest suggestion backfired. Not my fault. Just think more next time.


No, you didn't understand. You may now want to imply that all my arguments are self-defeating via some logical paper bag I can't escape, but what you actually said is that every time I post I give you another round to play, and that your goal is for me to tire. Indeed, I don't even see how your phrasing could possibly be a reference to bad argumentation on my part, what with anything I do supposedly allowing playing more rounds. The goal of debate is not playing rounds, but fact-finding… formulating defenses of truth and defeating attacks upon it. For you, however, it seems to be the continuation of debate without end.

Hence my statement that you are a confessed troll.

More to follow…


2046 wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:

If anything, I may have not made it 300% super-blatant because it didn't seem to me that I had to spill it out in big colourful toddler letters and say, why, yes, in the vast majority of battle situations, a captain wouldn't engage his forces unless he could deal damage to the enemy and eventually gain something in the process, even if it were suicidal.
Nor may I have pointed out out the obvious —that a good lie can be sold because it also contains a truth somewhere down the line; otherwise, it's just a bad lie— in such a clear way.


II. The Strategic Side-step

As noted previously, dishonest trolls don't respond like normal people. Above, Oragahn even reveals the technique of lying via a cloaking truth. Let's look:

A. Chakotay's warning

Earlier, I said "Chakotay warned Annorax that Janeway wouldn't attack unless she knew she could do some damage . . . this was perfectly correct." Oragahn responded that "This part was perfectly correct. This point is included, I don't deny it. It's a dual thing. The statement is true. The implication is not. Limiting oneself to the first part only is missing the just as important other element."

I noted his admission that Chakotay's statement was valid when Oragahn's insertions of things like "on her own" (not in the text of the episode) and "implications" of mindreading weren't included . . . that being his attempt to explore how Annorax felt about what he heard and how it related to his childhood and his sex fantasies of Chakotay. (I kid, but still.)

Afterward, he backpedaled on this admission while claiming to have always maintained it (confused yet?) and, when challenged to prove that he'd maintained it, started posting irrelevancies.

See, admitting that Chakotay was right in warning Annorax that Janeway was attacking because she knew she could do some damage means that the coming attack should be assumed to do some damage. And indeed, it did, and Janeway did indeed believe that it would because, per the episode, she believed the weapon-ship's defenses would be brought down and that her firepower was more than adequate to the task.

When challenged, however, Oragahn started posting irrelevances about whether he's said leaders are likely to attack in situations of certain death. That has approximately jack all to do with the whole point, but it is just enough resistance typing (with a lot of blowhardisms to aid in covering up the non-answers to the challenge) that he thinks he'll look good. (This also goes along with my earlier repeated complaints about how Oragahn was prone to reimagine his own words when needed.)

So, what did Oragahn say he said?

1. He once said Janeway wouldn't "stupidly engage" her ship in a suicide attack with no hope of damaging the enemy.
2. A "blatant lie makes for a very poor bluff".

These are his pieces of evidence that he always said what he now claims not to say but which he previously said, or something.

But see, merely acknowledging that Janeway isn't suicidal isn't the same as acknowledging that Chakotay's statement was factually valid. It was factually valid as a warning not because it said something about Janeway, but because it posited that a threat would do damage . . . and it did.

But again, Oragahn is posting that stuff about Janeway not being suicidal as honest truthfulness which, he thinks, covers the lying he's actually doing.

B. Ignorance and Projectionism

Quote:
"None of that makes any sense. You do know the plan involved taking the temporal core offline, yes?"

So not only now you are actually backpedalling and thought that, well, after all, what Mr. Oraghan said did make sense. But since that would perhaps (probably) embarrass you, you also decided to project your own failure onto me and went for the claim that I am the one suddenly admitting to the full of common sense idea of not engaging one's forces lest damage can be dealt to the oponent (or more).


The above is unmitigated bullshit and Oragahn knows it. His post involves clear ignorance of what's occurring, to wit: " At this point, Chakotay was convinced that Annorax had to be stopped, either from the inside (the mutiny plan), or hopefully from the outside.
He was aware that Voyager survived the temporal weapon so his remark was appropriate and could have very well been true, considering Trek's favourite trope of solving problems within an episode (the crew is that clever at finding solutions in short amounts of time)."

Oragahn clearly suggests that Chakotay was hoping the weapon-ship would be taken via mutiny or else destroyed by some cleverness of Janeway and crew, as opposed to the actual plan featuring the disabling of the ship's temporal defenses from within while Janeway attacked from the outside. Or, more briefly, the plan was A + B, and Oragahn was yammering about uber-A as opposed to uber-B as if he didn't know A, B, or A+B.

Naturally I said his post made no sense and reminded him of A+B . . . or, as said in the episode:

"CHAKOTAY: It'll require precise timing. You and me working from within.
PARIS: And Captain Janeway attacking from Voyager."

Now the little troll is trying to pretend that I haven't always held the same view. What a liar.

C. Pure nonsense

Quote:
You could, for a change, be welcome to substantiate your accusations by proving that my claim ever rejected both the concepts of "non-contextual general truth" and "the necessary truth in the lie". But you would amusingly fail, for my claim of a bluff obviously required something to actually sound true for Annorax to catch it.


"What sort of meaningless double-talk is this?"

------------


By the way, I did err in one part:

Quote:
Quote:
... but if you ask a stupid circular question which I explicitly refuse to even acknowledge you copy and paste it with a big Q and pretend you're thereby scoring points, as if you forgot my refusal just like you forgot the rest of Star Trek and this thread.


There, thank you! :)
Of course it is rhetorical. When you say it's circular it's because you do know very well the only one honest answer you could give to it.


Obviously, I meant "loaded", not "circular". That's my bad. Oragahn even sorta catches it when he later edits his question to be "less loaded".

Of course, there is no "honest" answer to a loaded yes-or-no question, except refusal and attacking the precepts of the question.

Quote:
afraid of answering it. ;)


Oh, look how cuuuuute. The troll asking cowardly loaded questions (for only one afraid of the truth loads the questions dishonestly) pretends it is cowardice to refuse to answer them.

Troll.




I'll snipe the unnecessary and tedious academic blah about what trolling entails, for there is likely a thousand definitions on the internets already.

So, hoppity hop, let's deal with some of the stuff he wrote.

First of all, just bringing a correction to an umpteenth strawman:

RSA wrote:
Let's unpack. As background, of course, Oragahn is simply trying to cast any doubt he can on Chakotay's honesty in a particular statement to Annorax, because Chakotay's next statement to Annorax features a concept that Oragahn is intent on rejecting by any means necessary. (This is not a character attack on Oragahn, as he explicitly stated this.)


The hell I stated such a thing. I wonder sometimes why I even bother replying at all since RSA is competent enough to manage the two sides of this "debate" within the confines of his brain, regardless of any real input from the external world.

Moving on...

So, it seems the best counter-argument thus far has been that I cannot ask a question with a negative in it. Why? Because reasons and hurt feelings I suppose. Such as, for example, "how do we know this fella isn't hiding a gun in his jacket?", which according to RSA suddenly becomes a totally invalid question that isn't worth responding to.

Of course, I could just reword it to remove the negative part. I wonder, then, if RSA would be happy to answer it.

"How do we know for sure that Chakotay isn't trying to manipulate Annorax to some degree since we know that he's hiding a hugely decisive secret against him and is also talking Annorax into giving up?"

Becomes:

"How do we know for sure that Chakotay is totally candid with Annorax since we know that he's hiding a hugely decisive secret against him and is also talking Annorax into giving up?"

Tadaaa.
Candid, of course, as not being deceitful, manipulative, perhaps lying or even bluffing. Or, as defined here:

"Characterized by openness and sincerity of expression; unreservedly straightforward."

A source which perhaps unfortunately also defines the word as such:

"Not obscuring or omitting anything unpleasant, embarrassing, or negative."

But mister wahwah is going to complain that there's negative in there too, probably.

Because, surely, once crammed into my question, it would read:

"How do we know for sure that Chakotay is not obscuring or omitting anything unpleasant, embarrassing, or negative?"

What would RSA do? Complain that it's a loaded question again because that's exactly what Chakotay is doing?

RSA has already transformed my question into its positive version and he knows it leaves him no escape. Not because I'm devious and trying to set a trap, but simple because that's exactly what happens in the episode.
To RSA, there is just no way whatsoever Chakotay could be manipulative against the interests of Annorax. Which is just funny because at this point of time, he's in agreement with Paris who simply didn't give a crap about Annorax' broken heart and stuff and was really willing to put an end to the Krenim genocidal program.

It is true, also, that under this form, my question sort of autoresolves itself as it appears to contain its own answer.
Now, does it prove that RSA was right, or that no matter how you try to formulate that question, you're always going to end with the chance that Chakotay may not be straightforward with Annorax?

Aside the "you can't use a negative!" defense, there's also "your question is loaded!" so he rejects it too. Or, actually, writes an entire book in order to... to do what exactly? Not answer? Yes, that seems to be the point of his long tirade.

Was the question loaded? I'd say it's actually hard not to have it loaded when you think of it.
How could it be less loaded? By being shorter?

"How do we know for sure that Chakotay is totally candid with Annorax?"

That's it.
Adding elements to the question that provide a much necessary context, namely reminding him of the context and crucial facts, is suddenly cornering him. So he's not feeling good because he does know where this is leading him.
That's called truth, right?

If one wants to call that rhetoric, what can be done? It justly serves to show how far this has to be brought down for the truth to be made clear.

All this just to give us one single answer!

My position on this?

— How do we know for sure that Chakotay is totally candid with Annorax, since we know he's hiding a hugely decisive secret against him and is also talking Annorax into giving up?
— We don't. We can't know for sure.

Aaaaand that's about it.


One could argue that Chakotay knew he was not being straightforward with Annorax, but aside from not revealing that Annorax would be betrayed, for the rest he was honest and he was not going to use any opportunity to confuse Annorax in order to have him stand down.

Well, I'd disagree with that and say it's a wasted opportunity.
To me, it's absolutely clear that by giving Annorax a bit of tactical information but ommitting a massively important factor, assuming Annorax heard Chakotay and listened to him, Annorax couldn't get anywhere close to the truth, but in fact far away from it.


It goes without saying that I prefer my former question, probably because it actually was less broader in scope and thus the reason why RSA really did all he could not to answer it:

"Would you claim with a straight face that if you had been Annorax, out of all the tactically realistic options you'd consider based on what already happened (like, again, Voyager's crew having "adapted" to the chroniton torps and resisting more than well the TWS' beam), mutiny would be the likeliest option you'd think of in reaction to Chakotay's words?"

I didn't even need a huge paragraph of this fella dissecting every single word. Just a yes or a no.
That's also the source of RSA's discomfort. A Yes means our views are so different that we'll never agree, but would also mean that RSA goes with the "Annorax is incompetent" option. A Maybe is 50/50 and to RSA that would already be too much of a concession. No means that I am right.
There is precisely no other reason why RSA has spent all of his energy to avoid this question, and only started to pretend answering it the moment it was reformulated into a more general one he could disassemble through his sophistic prism.


A final form of my question that would include Chakotay and be as specific as possible would be (I guess he's going to complain about the figment of negativity included threin):

"Would you claim with a straight face that there is no chance that Chakotay would be aware that —by delivering a statement that contained a random general truth but totally lacked the pivotal contextual element that was about to make the whole difference between light and day in the coming battle— he was actually leading Annorax to a much likely false conclusion?"

Yes means Chakotay really is candid, totally unaware of anything, even a bit dull here perhaps, for not realizing that what he said would confuse Annorax and have him believe something certainly opposite to what would come biting him in the bottocks.
Perhaps means that Chakotay could be aware of that, but we don't know.
No means that Chakotay had to be aware of the consequences of his words to Annorax.

Second and third option would most likely be rejected by RSA for the following reason:

Is it being manipulative to know, to be aware that because of what you say but, above all, because of what you also don't say, you know that chances are high that you're leading the person you're talking to into a wrong understanding of the situation, an understanding that is obviously detrimental to said person?

All in all, RSA's take on this is that Chakotay is really that honest and also incredibly and totally oblivious to the implications of his statements.
Which is just dumb, frankly.



Point A.

There begins a short piece of literature on the use of "manipulate", with handwaving such as a textbook author manipulates his audience, etc. Which is funny because surprises in plots often involve the author retaining the crucial information for a later time, not divulging the truth and thus knowing he's likely to have his readers reach different conclusions than the correct one, or literally plants false clues and rewords things in a very specific way as to really confuse the audience on purpose, to an effet similar to what one observed through the movie Usual Suspects.
Obviously, in all of these cases, said author would have been clearly deceitful and manipulative, but that's probably why we also read their books to begin with, based on reviews and promises of twists and reversals.


Point B.

RSA thinks his spin doctoring on Chakotay's words is more accurate and honest. Really? Or perhaps honestly wrong, yes?

"A more honest phrasing is that Chakotay warned Annorax of his impending doom without spilling all the beans of how it would happen (thereby allowing him to prevent it)."

Chakotay barely warned Annorax at all regarding the impending doom. Impending doom is a clear idea, it's a certain end. All we actually hear Chakotay do is provide tactical information about potential risks, which is wholly different than saying, in some way or another, you're so about to die bro.

Then, trying to add substance to his precarious claim and in order to make ridiculous the notion of not being open about crucial truths, RSA goes on saying such silly things as Chakotay is also hiding a ton of totally irrelevant things, "such as Neelix's secret to leola root stew" or the colour of his socks and so on, thinking this has any effect on the topic at hand.
One's got to be a fool to really think this stands as a good rebuttal.


Point C.

Sorry but that one is going to be short too.

"That Chakotay is trying to talk Annorax into giving up is itself claimed as proof of his dishonesty."

Nope. That part only serves to show that Chakotay is trying to get from Annorax something Annorax doensn't want to relinquish. This just serves to prove that Chakotay has a strong goal, going head to head with an equally strong resolute man who will not bow down. This sets the spectrum of how far could Chakotay go to actually obtain what he wants from Annorax. It combines with the rest of the question to highlight the idea that Chakotay wouldn't be shy of a manipulation to reach his goal and save his skin.



Ext. Point C (because it's the longest one).

Reuses the same silly defense that I'm forcing an interpretation of Annorax' silence. It's not like I already said that said silence is irrelevant, right?

1. First, because if we use that silence as an argument, as RSA attempted to do, I've shown him that it backfires (he hates that): I could use that to also mean Annorax didn't attribute much value to the tactical and technical accuracy of Chakotay's words. In simpler terms, according Annorax, Chakotay was full of shit so there was no point replying.

2. Secondly, because the silence obviously comes after Chakotay's words and that's just throwing in another superfluous parameter used as a smoke screen. Chakotay isn't going to formulate a statement on the basis that his interlocutor may or may not answer, listen, pay attention or shit. Sorry for the flash news here, but when someone talks to someone else (or actually types a message like here), it's obviously understood that the person on the receiving side could actually be listening (or reading).
As a side point, you can see how RSA's defense is just utterly stupid when one has to remind him of such basic facts. Well, of course, considering his regular amount of sniping and dodging, I guess RSA just took my question a bit too literally and really projected his ego onto Annorax.

3. Thirdly, because the silence changes nothing to what Chakotay would be thinking before and as he'd be voicing his thoughts, which is what matters above everything else. A simple reality that RSA dodged by saying there's no point reading his mind. Another fool's rebuttal, I suppose.
After all, wouldn't that be a wonderful defense in a court, right? Oh, what's the point of knowing if he's lying or not, we can't read his mind, it's stupid to do so.
To which a court would actually weigh all elements and testimonies and try to know what were the chances (probabilities) that he was lying.
In this case, trying to assess the value and reliability of Chakotay's statement based on what happened, on what he knew, who he was talking to and what he tried to achieve.
As I said:

I wrote:
even if Annorax suddenly became deaf without anyone else noticing, it wouldn't change a thing to what Chakotay could reasonnably expect Annorax to think if the later would actually pay attention to Chakotay's words as a competent commander would.








Another thing.
Calling me all sorts of names, thinking I'm someone else hiding in clothes, looking into ten years old threads to build a case against me is certainly one thing.

Quote:
(Or, if his honesty failures rub off on me, I'll start asking him similar questions like "when did you stop beating your mother" and grandstand the crap out of his refusal to give a specific date . . . because, of course, that means he still does it, amirite?)


That, however, is perhaps going a lil' bit too far and maybe RSA really wants to go for a walk and take a breathe.




Quote:
Hence my statement that you are a confessed troll.


Wishful thinking.
I guess we're going to add that ontop this other pile of my supposed endless admissions and concessions too? :)



II/

Point A.

Globally, RSA wasting time trying to obfuscate something very simple.
That part it nuts. It's not even relevant to the point, it's trying to nitpick on I things I may have said.
From that mess, I can see that RSA pushes the same spin doctoring on my statement, trying to make it sound like I admitted that Chakotay was honest, simply because what he said was a general truth that would apply to a considerable amount of battle conditions.
He, as usual, conveniently decides to ignore what Chakotay hasn't revealed to Annorax though but that won't disturb RSA in his fantasy of admission on my part.

"These are his pieces of evidence that he always said what he now claims not to say but which he previously said, or something."

You're confusing yourself.
As I said —and proved— the notion of a truth being necessary to a lie is nothing new in my argument.
It's sad you need to continue writing whole paragraphs on stupid attacks I already debunked.

Quoting myself (cause amalazy):

I, Grand Supreme Commanding Lord of the Thousand Stars and Ruler of the Great Dominion of Struble wrote:
Now you seem to have convinced yourself that I have agreed that the statement about Janeway was a 100% non-weighed truth with nothing implicit, which is of course ridiculous only on the merits that I already said that a lie needs a nugget of truth to be a good bait.

That's just a new card you're recycling in the vain hope that we won't see that you're doing it just to avoid facing the implications of the words spoken by Chakotay to a competent commander.


And since I'm a prophet it seems, I added:

I, same Grand Supreme Commanding Lord of the Thousand Stars and Ruler of the Great Dominion of Struble wrote:
One can easily imagine that your future wave of sophisms is going to focus on finding about any form of argumentative contortion just to avoid dealing with reality.







Point B.

That is RSA once again twisting things.
It's quite annoying, all those times literally quoting me out of context, perhaps hoping I wouldn't be willing to go check former pages to see what he was up to, only to bring a quote back and settle things neatly.

This is all starting here with him claiming that it was a new thing that I recognized that Chakotay's statement held an amount of truth; which you have seen above, he actually spin doctored into me admitting that Chakotay was clearly honest and not withholding crucial information.

From there, he somehow... I mean, do we need to get there too?
Oh bother.
From there, he decides to build another attack, quite irrelevant because it doesn't really change much to what the crux of my position is. He's probably confused because of the way he actually cuts posts into confetti.

You can look it up a few messages above what I really was alluding to, here.
Fella seems to think that when I said he was backpedalling, it was in reference to that little sentence I quoted from him and which I didn't even put in quotation tags. It was, in fact, just a sidenote, a reminded of his way of dealing with my statements.

The real bread and butter here is all related to point A, wherein RSA thinks the notion of a portion of truth being present in a statement is necessary to a good lie.
Yes, we also have to cover such basics. The guy seems to be born yesterday. *sigh*

He simply decided that it was never part of my argument. I told him to substantiate his claims, he did nothing as usual and I even quoted myself proving him wrong.

Which therefore brings us to his latest post (still reading?) and his nonsense about A+B, or -A, since he does have to win a point on something really irrelevant, doesn't he?
Something new that was never relevant thus far and won't change anything but he really has to ARGUE!
Well, let's throw him a bone here.
What he adds refers to what I typed in a message on page 2, here

So a long time ago, on a page far far away, I happen to have said "At this point, Chakotay was convinced that Annorax had to be stopped, either from the inside (the mutiny plan), or hopefully from the outside."

That is in opposition to his former attitude regarding what to do with Annorax, which put him at odds with Paris who had a more down to earth way to deal with things. After all, and that's important, that sentence is also stuck in a series of posts, before and after, where I make neither mistake nor secret into pointing out that Chakotay is aware that the mutiny is the plan, alongside my claims of bluff.

So it would be really odd to consider, then, that I totally switched positions in the midst of a single post.
There is simply no reason for Chakotay to totally abandon the HOPE that Janeway could have also found a way to beat the TWS, despite the fact that all he knew for sure is that the only certain solution thus far was the mutiny and that for all he actually knew, Janeway would not be able to scratch the ship if the TWS had its defenses up. That's why it's nothing more than "hopefully" and conveys no certainty. But perhaps the sentence sounded like he banked a lot on that too? If that's so, then I should have used a stronger adverb I guess.
Nevertheless, it is a correct supposition to make, based on what happened before (stuff Annorax would know too), but this does not neglect the fact it could only be a wish, whilst on the other hand the only certitude to be had was that a mutiny was about to break out and only then Janeway & Pals could start dealing some damage.

Now, I hope RSA is not suddenly claiming that the entirety of his understanding of my position was solely determined by the reading of this single sentence, all winds and sails contrary to virtually an infinite amount of times when I made my position clear about what I thought Chakotay could have been trying to achieve, like deceiving Annorax.



Point C.

No substance. Claiming pure nonsense to a fact is not going to work much.
So quoting myself;

I wrote:
You could, for a change, be welcome to substantiate your accusations by proving that my claim ever rejected both the concepts of "non-contextual general truth" and "the necessary truth in the lie". But you would amusingly fail, for my claim of a bluff obviously required something to actually sound true for Annorax to catch it.


And there's nothing to add to that.


Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:23 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6822
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Also, I'm getting sick and tired of this feuding between 2046 and Oragahn. You two need to ratchet it down a few notches or you both are going to get a one day ban. Right now consider this a warning. I know you two well enough to know that you both can argue intelligently and with appropriate evidence. No excuses.
-Mike


Just so we're clear, I believe it apparent that Oragahn is acting as a troll, as per his behavior and statements to that effect in this thread.


Such as?
Sorry if I don't react well to fakery, your pretense of superior moral attitude. I tend to have little patience for that kind of BS.

Quote:
As I review older threads in which he participated and I did not, the same dishonest tactics and refusal to budge from defeated positions (replete with shade-throwing, position re-imagining, and other sliminess) are apparent now that I have seen what to look for.


I'd love to see those threads too.
-- seriously, pal, you've got nothing else to do???

Oh but that's cool. So you are literally going to claim that everytime I defended a point and insisted on one, I was trolling. And you'll go as far back as you need to in order to prove that. Well, good luck in your quest, pious knight!

There's one thing amusing though. Because I'm me and others are others, it also means that everyone else who, on this forum, has been doing the exact same thing —and you can take a look at the threads back from the more intensive years when we were ALL really going full throttle— for honest reasons.
So here we go. All these SW threads, ST ones too, battlezit, stargape, all of it! Even throw the WH40K in for good measure! Who knows?
Oh, plus some random political things too that I have forgotten!

This absurd obsession of yours really, really needs to stop.
This accusation of trolling is all the more flamboyant considering what happened in the past, on this board, when I was one of the few to adopt a hardline anti-troll approach but refused mod powers.

Quote:
Sure, he's better than your basic obvious troll, but it's still the same behavior in a nicer, less jet-black hat.

That said, I have also sinned in this thread by (a) defiantly refusing to disengage, especially after insults were lobbed, thus feeding the troll and (b) dropping any pretense of respect for him and his ways. One could also argue that by condensing his points and not responding point-by-point to his voluminous dancing around (save for an earlier post in which I went through it bit by bit regarding his tangle with SonOfCCN) that I have left myself open to complaints, but I haven't the time to parse every bit of his intentionally vague and self-contradictory scattergunning. Usually people just sort of leave him be or find areas of commonality at which to call it even, and only rarely does he get as insult-happy as now or receive as good as he gives. This is, after all, not that sort of place.


a) you opened hostilities, need I remind you of that? By claiming from the very begining that I was ill intended and looking for flames? And even after Mike's intervention, you couldn't help but reproduce your same pattern such as polite aggression in the other thread about Starwars nerfed firepower.

b) yes, one could always rename what you were doing, AKA sniping, into a dozen flowery ways and even try to legitimize it. But it changes nothing to the fact that it was hurting the debate. And don't pull the verbose thing on me considering the blocks of text you also produce.

Quote:
I recognize that you'd be hard-pressed to go through the pages of discussion in detail and catch all the nuances amidst all the noise, meaning only that your job is difficult. I also recognize that you'd rather avoid picking a side. However, the situation is also untenable. Even if I fell on my sword and self-banned for awhile, it would, per the history, only be a matter of time before he picked another squabble, and of course now that his trollery is so visible I would be hard-pressed not to call him out on it, meaning the "feud" is permanent until he changes his ways. I could exit forever, but I rather hate to leave the place to a troll or make him feel his trolling is rewarded, which will just spawn more of it.


Dude, don't leave me alone, nobody talks to me here.
In fact, strike that.
Nobody besides the two us really type anything here.
I love you, though.

...

Was that poetry?

Quote:
With apologies, I have no real suggestion or advice, but all I can say is that something has to change. Your warnings have fallen on deaf ears, as instead of shaping up he only continues, and with no action forthcoming I respond as well (or poorly, as the case may be).


You're talking about your ears too?

Remember when Mike asked both of us to shut up?

And then, that:
viewtopic.php?p=57296#p57296

I wrote:
So, an ad hominem after all, one that directly mirrors a silly accusation you threw several times in the planetary defenses thread. Not only your kudos hardly were of the nice kind —more of the "I didn't expect you to be able to spell potato based on former debates, kudos" kind— but you certainly did have to drag former personal issues into this new thread. *sigh*
Just stop there. thx


Quote:
Obviously, then, the most likely outcome is dual banning, but a day will change nothing. From my perspective a month won't, either, unless he returned honest and non-trolling. But really, who changes?

The best outcome, then, to my mind, is for everyone to see what he does and recognize it for the dishonest and slimy behavior that it is, so that at least when tried he can be more easily shot down. As such, my next messages back and forth will all be based on pointing out his skeezy techniques. I can try not to respond emotionally (e.g. references to "bullshit", showing exasperation, et cetera), but that's about all I can promise.


You can't use that word. I used it first.

Quote:
Of course, in the meantime, this will have him screaming bloody murder, throwing out smokescreens and accusations and so on in an effort to get me to engage on that low nonsense and thereby cloak his behavior by making it seem mutual. This is, after all, what he has been doing throughout, and everyone knows I can get perturbed by such bullshit. (We all have a weakness.)

So again, I have no advice. In a viciously-policed forum his personal bullshit used as smokescreen might get shot down a bit quicker, but y'all are forced to do anti-spam duty most of the time. So, this merry-go-round seems likely to continue so long as he remains an active troll and I remain someone who resists them.


An effin' hero! :)
<3

Quote:
Whatever the case, it is obvious that no one else is posting, and that as I said originally his bad behavior (and, I grant, my increasingly-brutal responses) are sullying the board and its proper tone.

Of course, by even posting to you about it (heaven forbid I had PM'ed) he'll pretend that I am seeking help from others, the same grandstand-y nonsense that he's tried throughout the thread. But, all I wanted to do here is explain to you what's going on out of respect, and apologize for not being able to provide you a way out.


Are you done?


Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:56 pm
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5723
Reply with quote
All right. I'm done. Both of you get a one day ban to (hopefully) cool off and rethink this feud you've both developed towards each other.
-Mike


Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:41 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6822
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Mike DiCenso wrote:
All right. I'm done. Both of you get a one day ban to (hopefully) cool off and rethink this feud you've both developed towards each other.
-Mike


Noted. We'll work on that.


Also, I made an error in my last post pertaining to the topic:

"The real bread and butter here is all related to point A, wherein RSA thinks the notion of a portion of truth being present in a statement is necessary to a good lie."

Should read as :

"The real bread and butter here is all related to point A, on the notion of a portion of truth being present in a statement is necessary to a good lie, which RSA claimed to be absent from my argument in earlier pages."


Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:23 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6822
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
As an interesting supplement to the topic of lie by ommission (as opposed to a lie by commission wherein one makes active use of false statements), here's a supplementary piece of evidence, substantiated with an article referencing a study of significant value.

A little explanation of a LbO first:

RW wrote:
Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception. In the case of the former, an example of this would be a car salesman claiming a car to have amazing fuel economy while neglecting to mention that it has no engine and is completely immobile. In the case of the latter, it could be a situation in which a misconception exists that the claimant is aware of but fails to correct, such as a person who wanders around a hospital dressed as a doctor, offering treatment while failing to mention that she is in fact just getting a kick out of pretending to be a doctor.


Now the article.

Quote:
People Don’t Consider Lying by Omission to Be Any More Honest Than Plain Old Lying


Is a lie by omission still a lie?

Well, it depends on what your definition of “is” is. In a study recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a team of researchers investigated a form of dishonesty known as “paltering,” or using truth as misdirection — a strategy made famous by one Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Consider this exchange the researchers offer up as an example of what paltering looks like, between Clinton and PBS NewsHour’s Jim Lehrer in 1991:

Quote:
Lehrer: “No improper relationship” – define what you mean by that.
Clinton: Well, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a
sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship.
Lehrer: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?
Clinton: There is not a sexual relationship – that is accurate.


The key to paltering, the study authors note, is that it doesn’t actually involve any untrue statements — at the time Clinton uttered the words, the relationship in question was over. “There is not,” then, is technically accurate, but intentionally worded in a way that ignores the context of the question and obscures the greater truth.

Past research has shown that people are more willing to lie by omission than they are to tell an outright falsehood, and over a series of six experiments, the researchers found that paltering is no different — to the teller, it feels more ethical, like something between the truth and a total lie. (They also found that it’s incredibly common: In one survey administered to Harvard business students, roughly half admitted that they had previously used paltering as a negotiation strategy.)

The problem is, those on the receiving end don’t feel the same way: Across the various experiments, people who learned that their conversation partner had paltered to them said they considered the move to be just as ethically rotten as telling a bald-faced lie. “A palterer may focus on the veracity of her statements, whereas a target may focus on the mistaken impression that was conveyed,” the authors wrote. “As a result, palterers may perceive their behavior to be moral even as targets perceive palterers to be dishonest and immoral.” In other words, telling some highly literal, incomplete version of the truth may ease your guilty conscience, but it won’t help your case if you’re caught in the act.


Note that in this case, Clinton was using a present tense despite the interviewer refering to a past event.

To palter is defined as: To talk or act insincerely or misleadingly; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie.

A short document summarizing the study is available here too. It provides its own definition of paltering: "the active use of truthful statements to
create a false impression". However, whilst the article referencing the study was conflating both lying by ommission and paltering, the study's authors actually make a difference: "We distinguish paltering from both lying
by omission and lying by commission."

It further refines the difference:

Quote:
Prior deception research has distinguished lying by commission,
the active use of false statements (e.g., claiming the faulty trans-
mission on one’s car works great), from lying by omission, the
passive act of misleading by failing to disclose relevant informa-
tion (e.g., failing to mention any information about a faulty trans-
mission). We make a novel contribution to the deception literature
by identifying a third, and common, form of deception: paltering (a
term initially highlighted in this context by Schauer and Zeck-
hauser [2009]). Rather than misstating facts (lying by commission)
or failing to provide information (lying by omission), paltering
involves actively making truthful statements to create a mistaken
impression. Though the underlying motivation to deceive a target
may be the same, paltering is distinct from both lying by commis-
sion and lying by omission. Unlike lying by omission, paltering
involves the active use of statements, and unlike lying by com-
mission, paltering involves the use of truthful statements. Like
lying by omission, paltering can involve failing to disclose relevant
information, but unlike lying by omission, paltering involves the
active disclosure of true but misleading information: paltering
enables would-be deceivers to actively influence a target’s beliefs.


The difference between LbO and paltering may sound like splitting hair though. Since LbO does not involve the active use of false statements because that's the trademark of LbC, we see that LbO involves an equal amount of disclosure of truthful statements; that is, correct information (the statement must be providing a minimum of information to exist).
To be honest, I don't find any meaningful difference.
Nevertheless, their definition of paltering is of relevance here.
Combining this with the facts from the episode Year of Hell, it is absolutely clear that Chakotay was paltering. One can simply not even claim Chakotay was candid and unaware that he was deceiving Annorax, since Chakotay's statement was directly tied and related to the information he was ommitting whilst using a general truth.


Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:00 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1828
Reply with quote
At this late date I won't be doing point-by-point rebuttal in this closing post. Given the absurdities and dishonesties I have already pointed out ad nauseum I feel confident that the insults toward me or any reader's intelligence above, pre- and post-ban, would be suitably obvious to an observant reader. That I left him to rot, posting to himself into August apparently, was simply to avoid feeding the troll.

Suffice it to say that despite whatever efforts at obfuscation, the facts remain what they are, and the rest is mere noise.


Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:23 am
Profile WWW
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6822
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
At this late date I won't be doing point-by-point rebuttal in this closing post. Given the absurdities and dishonesties I have already pointed out ad nauseum I feel confident that the insults toward me or any reader's intelligence above, pre- and post-ban, would be suitably obvious to an observant reader. That I left him to rot, posting to himself into August apparently, was simply to avoid feeding the troll.

Suffice it to say that despite whatever efforts at obfuscation, the facts remain what they are, and the rest is mere noise.


I question your reasons as to why you thought this last intervention of yours, absolutely devoid of any substance, was in any way necessary.
By all means, it does certainly qualify as pure noise.


Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:01 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.