Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV

That makes no sense. An indicator for X is not X itself. An ingredient for soup is not soup itself.

Sorry, I don't understand how this counters or relates to what I said.

 

Where? Do you understand the difference between the two things I listed in that post? A -> B doesn't imply B -> A.

Moderates, left-leaning people, right-wingers. Again, I couldn't say in which proportions, so I don't know if your claim that it's a strong indicator is true. In any case I've conceded your point. (EDIT: although I will note that deliberately using the phrase to show that you can use it in a different way than it's generally used is not much of a counter.)

 

Oh.

Gotya.

 

No, you really don't. You are utterly unable to understand the point I was making, even after I've explained it to you.

 

Well, finally a post on the topic of Star Trek.

 

Yet an indicator of a vegetable soup, is literally the presence of vegetables.

Also ‘radical behaviours’ do not mean the same thing as ‘a radical’ or ‘radicalism.’ So I was never claiming that it ‘looked like itself’ in the first place. What’s wrong, ‘reading not your strong point?’

That post-WW1 Germany ended up some of histories greatest monsters, because they thought the apparent ‘flow’ of history was putting them on the losing side?

(And apologies to any historians. I’m aware that’s the ‘written in crayon’ version.)

Yeah, I don’t see how that’s the exact opposite of ‘Seeing the opposition as being on the wrong side of history, leads to another Reich.’ Must be my reading skills.

 

Analogies always fail when taken beyond their intended point.

So no, an indicator of radicalism is not radical, necessarily. Completely at random, one purported indicator of serial murder is wetting your bed past a certain age. I don't think anyone would argue that wetting your bed is serial murder.

Oh, I see what you mean. I meant that they thought they would be on the right side of history. That's generally what the phrase means.

 

Serial murder is a pretty sure-fire indicator of a serial murderer. Maybe the flaw is less pushing the analogy, and more just...the analogy.

Also, taking your ‘bedwetting’ example further...why should we accept your designation of a fellow poster as radical, because you could offer one example of a supposed correlation?

I covered that. It doesn’t.

For eg. People bleating about black people or women getting ‘uppity’ by being too present in media, are on the wrong side of history. As in ‘right now, coz the 1950’s are thataway...’

 

Bro, seek help. With that much energy and imagination, you could make up something in your mind (as you've done here) about how any story ever written is political. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

It's not an indicator. It is the thing that it is.

I was asked for an example, so I named one. It doesn't mean that the one example is sufficient in and of itself.

I'd say they're simply wrong. In 20 years, we have no idea what society will be like.

 

...

No? No it’s a not?

A warmonger is not the same thing as a war. A tennis player is not ‘tennis.’

All those comprehension barbs aimed to various people are looking pretty bad right about now. Not that they didn’t look bad before, mind.

 

Please stop playing games. We've already got King for that.

The point is simple: an indicator of something is not that thing, and is not necessarily of the same quality as that thing, like the bedwetting example, which you failed to address.

 

I'd guess the reason we have so many in the pipe is to help support the channel. It's a subscription service with one new show and a bunch of reruns. Compare that to Amazon or god forbid Netflix and I'm gonna agree that I wouldn't be surprised if they were soon tagging out one show after another at least until they have something else to put on the line up.

 

Yeah, I did.

Bedwetting is not the indicator that you’re a serial killer.

Serial killing is.

(Note: no one has ever claimed it’s an indicator of serial killing anyway. It was merely linked to homicidal violence, required being present in conjunction with other behaviors, and even at the time had an iffy hit rate.

It’s also been largely disproven, because it’s been found that very ‘indicating’ behavior was itself more than likely caused by other factors. Like mental illness, being victim of abuse, psychopathy, neglect etc.)

 

The professionals seem to largely disagree with you. But that's besides the point. Smoke is an indicator that there's a fire but it is neither a fire (or fiery) itself nor is it exclusively an indicator of a fire.

No, serial killing definitely makes you a serial killer, it doesn't indicate it. Seems my barbs are well deserved after all.

 

The professionals ‘actually’ don’t. Literally just added it to my post

And I doubt it. You seem to be under the notion that an ‘indicator’ can’t, well...’indicate’ with any accuracy.

Which is...odd.

 

It's not unanimous but it was definitely claimed to be an indicator, contrary to what you said. Whether or not it turns out to be true is irrelevant to my point, which keeps getting dodged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

 

I'm a moderate American voter with occasionally libertarian leanings. None of the nonsense from the Right about the travails of white guys in the modern era resonates with me one iota.

 

I know what it is. It’s original form was considered outdated at best, dangerous at worst. (Because as it turns out, it applied to nearly all antisocial behaviour.)

The sort of thing that’s a barristers wet-dream if the prosecutions witness is stupid enough to raise it.

And I didn’t dodge ‘the point’. Restate it, and I’ll answer it again if you’re so determined.