Not what I argued at all. But, that's ok.
Do you like the Discovery Klingon look?
- Thread starter jackoverfull
- Start date
So you had issues recognizing them as Klingons without people telling you they were klingons? I’ve been asking you this for several pages with no straight answer.
I've answered. Yes, without context. Though I suspected but with no great confidence.
Good.
But they look nothing alike.
You mean other then the noses, heads, eye shape, and skin texture?
Really, the only difference is the points of the Reman's ears and the forehead ridges on Discovery's Klingon's. And that could have easily been chalked up to a minor redesign.
It's like talking to a flat-earther, or a virus denier, etc... I had a long discussion here a while ago with someone who insisted that light has infinite speed. It's beyond pointless. When one side simply argues "art", that's it. It's all inherently subjective then, and all logic can be ignored.
Ah, I see. When "logic" fails we go to ad hominem. "Flat earther"
People are allowed to have different opinions than you on art.
Those other examples you gave are not subjective and are not remotely similar to what is going on here.
Of course, which is why I pointed out that the "art" argument makes further back-and-forward circle rounds pointless.
Which examples? I was asking where the logic is wrong. Can you tell me, since the one I was discussing with cannot?
I meant the part comparing the discussion to arguing with flat earhers.
In all these cases, minds are made up, it's only about personal opinions, and nothing can convince either side otherwise. Discussion is futile, endless circles if you stay in. Picking up the other side's arguments, exactly what they wrote to explain their position, and applying logic to support or attack them is futile, because it's simply ignored. Anyone who questions the other side's points with logic simply "doesn't get it" instead. See the parallels? It's like that infinite light speed discussion - same turn, same responses, same result.
And of course, as I maybe need to underline more, this can apply to either side if you're on the other side. I have yet to experience a productive discussion about such things.
And of course, as I maybe need to underline more, this can apply to either side if you're on the other side. I have yet to experience a productive discussion about such things.
I see your points. I just don't agree. I don't agree at the most basic level. Trek is not a strict history to be recteated like a Civil War reenactment. It is an extrapolation of our humanity and it's future. It demonstrated that the moment the wolfman showed up on Klingon/Romulan ships without a hide nor hair of an explanation.
Now, for some, that's ok. Others want an explanation. It's not a problem to be solved by logic. It is a point of view, an emotional one, supported by engagement with the material. Demanding logic will only result in frustration. Oh, wait, we already have that.
Except there is no choice other than do exactly that, or don't engage in discussion at all. The moment people stop using logical arguments and resorting to personal attacks, is the moment those people hand the opposing side a legitimate weapon that will be used against them repeatedly.
While this is strictly my opinion, I'm pretty sure that all the people in this thread who have stated that they would be able to categorically tell that the DSC Klingons were Klingons (and their ships were Klingon ships) without any context beforehand, are just stubbornly lying because they don't want to admit that that's actually a viable line of thought. They would rather dis other people's opinions rather than to admit they were wrong. Again, just my opinion.
This isn't new in Trek though. No one was going to describe the TNG/movie Klingons as Klingons without context coming in with only TOS background. Discovery's just doing what the franchise did before.
I don’t remember anyone stating that, although some tried to evade the question a lot.
Similar threads
