The Worst Decision by a Starfleet Cpt/Cdr.
- Thread starter Azure-Dynamo
- Start date
You earlier accused me of inflexible thinking. This is too good to be true.
I've explained how the "correlation does not imply causation argument" is flawed and your response is.. No it isn't.
There go those goalposts again
Now give me an example of how a world geared towards adults proves that children are less valued. And remember, A and B exist therefore B exists because of A... is a fallacy. We've established that.
Adults use their influence to shape their world for them and not their children
This is the most fun I've had in days. And I had sex today.
You earlier accused me of inflexible thinking. This is too good to be true.
I've explained how the "correlation does not imply causation argument" is flawed and your response is.. No it isn't.
There go those goalposts again
Now give me an example of how a world geared towards adults proves that children are less valued. And remember, A and B exist therefore B exists because of A... is a fallacy. We've established that.
Adults use their influence to shape their world for them and not their children
This is the most fun I've had in days. And I had sex today.
You showed me absolutely nothing. It is I who showed you your errors. If you really are laughing at the notion that behavior betrays sentiment, then you can't be talked to, as that is what I would label common adult knowledge. No, I won't do this by your "remember" rules. You don't get to direct how I shape my thoughts, especially with this erroneously applied notion. We know, and I do NOT have to conclude, that behavior is deeply and identifiably connected to sentiment. Your additional fallacy here is in thinking I was concluding that. We KNOW that already. It is reality. I am applying that KNOWN rule about reality to the world we see around us.
I can give you many examples that prove out B exists because of A. It is no fallacy in the real world. Lack of heat exists with Ice, and produces ice--ice, B, exists because (at least as a necessary condition, if not sufficient) of A. Holes in people exist simultaneously with bullets, and are caused by those self-same bullets. I give you a snow cone, not to show my influence, but because I like you. Value you more than the person I didn't give the snow cone to.
This is really complicated stuff, isn't it?
I won't say this is too good to be true. It's sad that this has to be explained. That you're laughing because of your own self-perceived and unshakable belief in your own cleverness is just sad.
There's not much point in continuing this if you really are going to stand by the pretty outre notion that sentiment and behavior aren't directly correlated. That's the position you're left defending, and you can do that all you want, but it's too basic a denial of consensus reality to go on with.
Last edited:
Yes. They would say it.
But, again, notice that in the one instance where this actually happens in the real world with enough lag time between being informed of the problem and the action it produces to allow for thought, we enshrine in law that the adult's life matters more. And even if there isn't lag time--in an emergency situation, a doctor MUST act to save the mother and not even the latest-term unborn if it conflicts with saving the mother.
I have no problem with that. But it IS reality that we choose the adult.
Whenever I hear things like this, I am reminded of a quote from Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" about human behavior vs. the Bugs. In the book it asks the question about how many times do you read a story about two people drown trying to save a child? As the book goes, not very logical, but very human.
I'm sure for every instance of the adult being chosen, I can find similar number of children being chosen over the adult. It isn't a simple numbers game, or a logic problem to solve. There are many factors connected to the essence of the people involved that impact the decision.
I'm sure for every instance of the adult being chosen, I can find similar number of children being chosen over the adult. It isn't a simple numbers game, or a logic problem to solve. There are many factors connected to the essence of the people involved that impact the decision.
I'm just gonna keep repeating until it stops being funny (which is never)A (society is geared to adults) does not therefore prove B (children are less valued than adults). This is a... Fallacy (see link). You have seen A and concluded B because logic has failed you. To counter this, you must provide evidence that confirms your conclusion but which isn't just repeating the same fallacy over and over again in the hope that no-one will notice
Can B be caused by A? Of course, but that doesn’t mean it is. Believing so (which is your position) is the fallacy. Either provide evidence to back that claim (which isn’t merely another reiteration of correlation implies cause) or you have no meaningful argument.
Your argument is that society values adults over children because, look...society is geared towards adults. That is fallacious reasoning.
Last edited:
They would do it too. In emergencies people tend to save children first. Emergency workers definitely save the children first.
Foetuses are not children.
A late-term fetus, one ready to be born, is as much a child as one out of the womb 5 minutes later. I am all for a woman's right to choose--or rather, in this case, protecting the adult ahead of the child--but I am not going to lie to myself about what we are doing. Late term, it is infanticide protected under color of law. The child could breathe and live on its own were it delivered, and that's all I need to consider it a child.
If you are wondering about religion: I am an atheist. Just thought I'd put that out--I know many people have a religious agenda on this. I don't.
And we're going to have to disagree on what people would actually do. Emergency workers are not a representative sample of the public at large, any more than police are. EMTs are trained--I assume--to save children first. Police are trained to run toward danger--quite contrary to the usual human impulse. On that model, I might guess that EMTs are trained to do something that, in fact, conflicts with their basic, human nature.
Last edited:
Then please explain why this child (which could apparently live without the mother) is being murdered to save the mother?
Where exactly are these child killings occurring? Have you considered reporting them?
I posted one in the Prime Directive thread, as PD was heavily involved in this bad decision.So... how about those bad decisions by starship captains, hmm? I remember discussing those once upon a time.
Starfleet and/or Dougherty decided to relocate the Bak'u from their home without their consent because their population was relatively small, especially in comparison to the billions of Federation citizens who would benefit from the planet's resources.
Kor
It was so bad that a Paramount executive brought it up O_o
From a memo to the Star Trek Team:
The point is that we are supposed to fall on the side of the 600. That is the "moral" choice our heroes make, and we "should" agree.
Why should we fall on the side of the 600 and agree with the Star Trek heroes? Logic matters more than morals. If we have no reason to agree with a decision, we should not.
@PhaserLightShow
Last edited:
The point of Picard's "how many does it take" speech was supposed to be that the value of lives shouldn't be reduced to mere numbers, and that the destruction of a culture should not be justified in such a manner.
To me, his speech sounded like an angry Tootsie Pops commercial. "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many licks does it take, Admiral?"
Kor
But each life has the same value. So more lives means more important.The point of Picard's "how many does it take" speech was supposed to be that the value of lives shouldn't be reduced to mere numbers.
To me, his speech sounded like an angry Tootsie Pops commercial. "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many licks does it take, Admiral?"
Kor
@PhaserLightShow
