View Single Post
Old May 17 2010, 02:49 PM   #2631
BurntSynapse
Lieutenant Commander
 
BurntSynapse's Avatar
 
Location: Patagonian Chile
View BurntSynapse's Twitter Profile
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Sarek of Vulcan wrote: View Post
Star Trek (2009) is as believable as any other incarnation of Star Trek.
I would be happy to learn of any evidence that on a per-dollar basis, any Trek property had an equivalent number of inconsistencies per minute. Honestly.


Sarek of Vulcan wrote: View Post
There doesn't need to be a comparison.
Life itself is not, technically speaking, "needed." Neither is anything we would consider most virtuous or helpful to a flourishing of our lives. The TrekBBS, for example isn't "needed", yet this is no argument against its existing...so I try to avoid that commonly used mental/verbal concept because I think it encourages lazy thinking on my part, and makes voicing poorly formed objections to others seem acceptable.

Sarek of Vulcan wrote: View Post
You're trying to compare two fantastic (not in reference to an indicator of quality) stories that contain elements of science and reason which give them a level of believability, but suffice to say, one is not more believable than the other in that regard.
I'm afraid merely asserting this does not suffice for the attentive mind. Claiming anything with elements of both fantasy and believability is as believable as any other thing is unjustified.

Sarek of Vulcan wrote: View Post
It's like saying "I know Christianity is wrong because Judaism is right".
There must be some difference, since I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would support such a claim, nor I think, can I be fairly criticized for not providing concrete examples in my blog as well as here. I believe that equating the presentation of copious evidence with trivial fallacy as you do here is an error you should retract in the interest of fair discussion.

Sarek of Vulcan wrote: View Post
You have no verifiable data to support it beyond mere supposition.
When a character in a film claims X, and the visuals show Y, this would appear to be evidence of internal inconsistency most would consider "verifiable data". If you disagree, please explain.

Sarek of Vulcan wrote: View Post
You can point out plot holes, and people can point out plot holes in the movies you enjoy.
It is whether we have the courage to recognize such failings in ourselves and what we love most (fave films, for example) that is the hallmark of maturity, reason, and wisdom, IMO.

Last edited by BurntSynapse; May 17 2010 at 03:47 PM.
BurntSynapse is offline   Reply With Quote