View Single Post
Old November 8 2010, 11:15 PM   #67
Fleet Captain
Re: Some speculation about the Romulans and the Borg invasion

rfmcdpei wrote: View Post
Earth has almost seven billion people. I kill all but seventy million of these. This doesn't threaten the survival of the human species.
Yes, rfmcdpei, this does not threaten the survival of the human species. 70 million people is MORE THAN ENOUGH for the species not to be biologically endangered.

If these 70 million people belong to only one culture, though, all other cultures will be extinct. But this one culture is under no threat of disappearing.

Apropos this, since, apparently, I have to spell this out: When I say vulcans, I mean vulcan species&culture as in NOT romulan species&culture. When Spock, in star trek XI says 'vulcans' he means vulcan species&culture aka the same thing.

In star trek, the vulcans and the romulans are treated as two separate entities, despite their kinship; when trek characters use the term 'vulcan species' they include in this concept only the vulcans and their culture; similarly 'romulan species' is referring only to romulans.

Which is irrelevant since the writers have now clarified that line, stating explicitly that refers to the total number of Vulcans saved on-planet.
Hardly irrelevant. Like any retcon, this is to some extent forced, it doesn't quite fit with the movie.

Generalising from borrowing those snippets to ~'everything from the rihannsu books that's not already contradicted is part of the lit continuity' is a poor argument, based on a logical fallacy.
It would be a logical fallacy if I said that the Rihannsu books were incorporated entirely. I didn't.
rfmcdpei, generalising from a few snippets (and I mean snippets - they don't even cover 1% of the concepts introduced in the rihannsu books) to everything that isn't contradicted is an obvious generalisation (a rather large one, too) aka a logical fallacy.
Do I really need to post a link detailing how generalisation is a logical fallacy?

Or that you could find counterarguments that I could, again, refute, generating a lenghty discussion that will never go anywhere, being, essentially, a waste of time?
With respect, if you don't like having your arguments disproved with specific citations, you don't have to make them. I'm the person providing citations, including URLs. And you?
Actually, it is - I don't like having my time quite so pointlessly wasted.

About your 'citations' - they are quite useless, as well; at least the ones addressed to me are:
For example, a repeat of your generalisation about the rihannsu books is really not needed.
Or you trying to be pedantic about species/culture, when it's obvious there is no confusion about the concepts.

Last edited by ProtoAvatar; November 8 2010 at 11:28 PM.
ProtoAvatar is offline   Reply With Quote