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…
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
"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
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:
... 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.
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.
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.
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?"
"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?"
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
Hence my statement that you are a confessed troll.
I guess we're going to add that ontop this other pile of my supposed endless admissions and concessions too? :)
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.
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?
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.
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.