Some folks seem to have issues with something designated as a warship, being called one.
Discovery Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Some folks seem to have issues with something designated as a warship, being called one.
You don't actually back anything up. You just restate your premise as if that's the only answer. It doesn't help that you have a *very* tenuous grasp of what cruisers or destroyers actually are before you extend them to some (but apparently not all) trek ships.
Says one of the people unable to back up the claim they made. They are warships son, they call them such. They can boil the life off a planet and carry freaking torpedoes. Yeah, I forget the police carry nukes to deal with normal issues and such
Edit: I am gonna move on, I will keep calling a warship a warship and you can keep lying about it to yourself. its all good.
Says one of the people unable to back up the claim they made. They are warships son, they call them such. They can boil the life off a planet and carry freaking torpedoes. Yeah, I forget the police carry nukes to deal with normal issues and such
Apparently you like straw men too. How about you rewind back to my original post? The one where I said these ships are used primary for exploration and having 25% of the crew assigned to the science mission seemed reasonable. I *never* went into secondary functions, like combat.
Then you started making stuff up, and now we're at the point where you're making up things *I* never said.
FYI *you're* the one making the big claims here and thus *you're* the one with the onus to prove his case.
Last edited:
And I pointed out as a heavy cruiser it was not devoting 1/4th its crew to science. And you started with the BS about it not being a warship when in TOS it was meant to be just that. You are making crap up, I am using what we see on screen and what we are told.
Edit: And I am done now, I am not responding to you any more on your fantasy as we have been asked to stop derailing.
Edit: And I am done now, I am not responding to you any more on your fantasy as we have been asked to stop derailing.
Citation required. See, a navy cruiser has exactly zero science officers. Enterprise has far more than that. Dozens at minimum. That makes your argument a lousy example unless you can back it up with...wait for it...sources.
lol for all intents and purposes, I didn't.
Please don't change other people's quotes, as we consider the trolling. If you don't agree, you can either say so politely, or leave the discussion alone.
Or a car, if you're in a police department, or a long range exploration vessel, if you're in Starfleet.
Yes, they're scientific research vessels that are built for combat. USS Discovery is the ultimate example of this. The ship is capable of carrying out 300 discrete scientific missions at once -- a Starfleet record -- and is ALSO one of the most effective combatants in the Klingon War.
Do you ALWAYS get this angry with people who don't glorify the military?
The Shenzhou looks way too big at that size. The hanger bay doors at the back must be absolutely enormous.
Personally I think the original Connie is actually too small (and have felt this way about it always, even in TMP it just looks too small in the flyby shots), but the Shenzhou should be only slightly larger than a Miranda imo. Discovery looks a little too big as well.
Personally I think the original Connie is actually too small (and have felt this way about it always, even in TMP it just looks too small in the flyby shots), but the Shenzhou should be only slightly larger than a Miranda imo. Discovery looks a little too big as well.
Let's take a step back here and review the argument and show where his evidence falls then, yes? His argument boils down to the following:
P1) Starfleet has used terms like "cruiser" and "frigate to refer to it's ships.
P2) Starfleet is a military, some kind of space navy.
P3) Cruisers and Frigates exist in real world navies.
Conclusion: Starfleet cruisers must share characteristics with naval cruisers, specifically their compliment.
He's cited evidence of the first premise. I'd argue that theyve used these terms so sporadically that we don't even have a list of types, nevermind what their role is. But, for the sake of argument, I can treat this as a given (assumed to be true).
Second premise isn't strictly relevant. What Starfleet is, is a matter of semantics (most of which doesn't matter here), so we'll also treat that as a given.
Third premise is given, because no one is disputing it.
So, right now, we're all agreeing (for the sake of argument) that every one of his premises are true. So what's the problem?
The problem is the conclusion, which he hasn't proven because it is a fallacy of equivocation. Just because two things are homonyms, it does not imply similarities between the objects themselves.
An example if this fallacy:
P1) Banks of rivers are sandy.
P2) Sand is full of rocks.
C) Therefore, commercial Banks are full of rocks (financial or literal).
There is nothing in common between a river bank and your financial bank other than the name and that you can find both of them on Earth. There is nothing inherently in common between a US Navy cruiser and the starship Enterprise just because they have a common term. Floating gun ships are not starships.
If that wasnt obvious to all, go back to the original personnel issue: navy cruisers have no science staff. Starfleet "crusiers" do, so they're disimilar right off the bat.
Now, his more recent claim, that the Crossfield class is outgunned by the Constitution because that latter is a cruiser while the former is not is also groundless, for a different reason: no evidence of the premise. We don't know what the armament of the Crossfield is or how it compares to the Constitution.
It is the specific armament (not the type designation) that dictates capability.
Last edited:
Let's not. You're arguing against an emotional position, not a logical one. If you were having a discussion with someone who believed that rocks are sacred and should be treated with reverence, then your attempt to claim that "banks are not full of rocks" is deeply offensive and you deserve to be mocked and derided for saying so.
Really, among Americans in particular there are three kinds of issues that trigger people beyond the ability for rational thought:
1) Sex/reproductive rights
2) Religion
3) The military
You can and should explain your position as clearly as you can, but once soembody's triggered, the listening ends.
Last edited:
You’re making a big assumption there.
G
Gonzo
Guest
I have no problem with Starfleet being a military organisation but then again I am British and don't consider the term military to be a dirty word.
Starfleet performs all of the functions a modern combined army/navy/air force would, some of their ships have varying levels of weaponry and scientific loadout depending on its purpose but they are all called into action when needed, some are clearly more suited to that than others but in a time of war it's all hands on deck.
Space is a dangerous place, it could be argued that the NX01 first launched with minimal weapons and was primarily a ship of exploration, didn't take long before they armed it to the teeth and added the Makos, of course we don't call them Makos any more we call them red shirts, they tend to die a lot.
The D had families onboard and was considered an exploration and ambassadorial vessel, we all saw how that ended and even Picard himself acknowledged the lesson, we then got the E which is a very different kind of vessel.
Starfleet is a military organisation because it has to be, not because it wants to be.
Well, I've had this discussion about a dozen times on this board and through its various iterations I've been called a "liar," an "antimilitary hippie," a "communist" a "shithead" and I've had at least two different people making implicit threats like "You should keep opinions like that to yourself if you know what's good for you" and so on. There are only a few other issues where this sort of thing happens with that level of consistency.
The consensus anyone ever reaches is that Starfleet's definition is complicated by the fact that it wears too many different hats at different times for its nature (military vs. civilian) to be easily defined. But that's like arguing about the difference between a bra and a bikini top and saying "Well they're similar, but they're not exactly the same." Then along comes someone insisting that bikini tops are just waterproof bras in posts laced with sarcastic emotes and derisive/dismissive language. Especially in the case where this person is otherwise totally rational 99% of the time (in Mirror Mirror's case) what am i to conclude except something about this issue has triggered an emotional response?
Please explain, for the record, why you believe the bolded part is even remotely relevant to this discussion.
That would have been MY preference, all things considered, but that's not what's actually happened in Trek canon.
Is NASA a military organization?
Because the ESA surely is not. Yet, they have military ranks ("Captain" of the ISS, etc.), a working hirarchy, a long, military-like instruction and training, and perform military like actions (piloting a spacecraft). If we find out an asteroid is heading towards Earth, NASA is going to be our first defense against space threats, and it's going to be the thing they spend all ressources on. Yet "threat elimination" sure as hell isn't the primary objective of NASA. If we one time need to put cannons in space, it's pretty likely we'd put them on some NASA vessel, instead of , say, let the Army built a spacecraft. Will the NASA then still be "not the military"?
I would say so. Especially if they keep their mission profiles and legal status the same.
Based on incidental evidence like a command structure, vessels and rockets under it's command and it's naval way of speaking, people like @Mirror Mirror might conclude that modern day ESA qualifies as 'the military'. But that's entirely missing the point of what a "military" actually is. Enterprise's MACOs surely are a branch of the military. But Starfleet as is depicted (and notably called multiple times!) is actually NOT a military, but rather a strongly hirarchic structured organization responsible for ALL official space programs - militarily ones included. But certainly not being their primary focus.
Because the ESA surely is not. Yet, they have military ranks ("Captain" of the ISS, etc.), a working hirarchy, a long, military-like instruction and training, and perform military like actions (piloting a spacecraft). If we find out an asteroid is heading towards Earth, NASA is going to be our first defense against space threats, and it's going to be the thing they spend all ressources on. Yet "threat elimination" sure as hell isn't the primary objective of NASA. If we one time need to put cannons in space, it's pretty likely we'd put them on some NASA vessel, instead of , say, let the Army built a spacecraft. Will the NASA then still be "not the military"?
I would say so. Especially if they keep their mission profiles and legal status the same.
Based on incidental evidence like a command structure, vessels and rockets under it's command and it's naval way of speaking, people like @Mirror Mirror might conclude that modern day ESA qualifies as 'the military'. But that's entirely missing the point of what a "military" actually is. Enterprise's MACOs surely are a branch of the military. But Starfleet as is depicted (and notably called multiple times!) is actually NOT a military, but rather a strongly hirarchic structured organization responsible for ALL official space programs - militarily ones included. But certainly not being their primary focus.
Was that a star in the centre of the Cheron's hull? a STAR??
Is she carting an entire solar system around in that thing? Are there planets and moons inside it's warp field?
Overall length: 1 AU
Is she carting an entire solar system around in that thing? Are there planets and moons inside it's warp field?
Overall length: 1 AU
Clearly not you can see the size of the windows, plus the preview for next week showed the discovery near it.
Yeah. It was.
You thought the Sarcophagus ship was ridiculous? Well, the joke's on you! Get used to this.
Similar threads
