Paths of Disharmony

[Christopher]

Hardly.
The important fact is that the andorian government speaks for the andorian people, that it democratically represents the andorians.

You don't have the right to decide that some facts are more "important" than others and that the "unimportant" ones can therefore be falsified. Any valid argument must begin with the facts.

You, on the other hand, did 'distort the facts in service to your more abstract point':
Indeed, in the very post you said: "Getting the facts correct is always relevant", you also wrote: "You said the Andorian people voted to pursue joining the Typhon Pact".

And I then went back, double-checked your original comments, and revised my post to be more factually accurate, as you will see if you look at it again. It now says "You said the Andorian people voted to make overtures for an alliance with the Tholians," which is an almost verbatim quote from your comment from post #63 which started this whole thing. So I didn't distort that fact; I initially misremembered it and then took prompt action to verify and correct it. Which is something you have repeatedly failed to take the opportunity to do, despite my efforts to point you to the specific pages in Paths of Disharmony that would allow you to correct your misconceptions.

(PS - Altering your post changes little, Christopher.)

Actually it invalidates your entire claim. And your response demonstrates that you're completely in denial, so I'm walking away.

 

[Avatar2.0]

You don't have the right to decide that some facts are more "important" than others and that the "unimportant" ones can therefore be falsified. Any valid argument must begin with the facts.

True.
I can't arbitrarily decide which facts are 'important'.
The rules of logic decide which facts are 'important'.

'The andorian government represents/speaks for the people of Andor' is a necessary and sufficient premise for the conclusion 'The acts of the andorian government are the acts of the andorian people'.

You don't need as a premise the entirety of 'The andorian government represents/speaks for the people of Andor and is elected or appointed or whatever' for the mentioned conclusion.

Which is something you have repeatedly failed to take the opportunity to do, despite my efforts to point you to the specific pages in Paths of Disharmony that would allow you to correct your misconceptions.

Actually, I've already addressed the 'dialog vs alliance' issue, tangentially - and that, without modifying a previous post of mine, trying to 'erase' a mistake, but in an ulterior post:

"Rapproachement with the tholians/an alliance with the tholians is quite different from 'joining the Typhon Pact' - and is supported by the end of PoD (not just the spoken words, but the attitude of the andorian ambassador and what we saw of the behaviour of the majority of the andorian people and their government)."


Is this not certain (AKA it was not directly and with certainty established in PoD), but merely probable?
Yes.

On the other hand, your claim that the andoriands ONLY want a 'dialogue' with the tholians is also only a possibility - and one contradicted by a lot of circunstantial evidence.
But you want to raise it to a certainty; anyone with a different opinion is suffering from a 'misconception'.

What we know with certainty, Christopher, is that the andorians want AT LEAST a dialogue with the tholians. And, as said, a LOT of events throughout Pod supports the ideea of the andorians wanting more.

Also - the andorians wanting an alliance with the tholians is only one of the points I made (among the least supported ones):
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4871592&postcount=63

PS:

(PS - Altering your post changes little, Christopher.)

Actually it invalidates your entire claim. And your response demonstrates that you're completely in denial, so I'm walking away.

Invalidates my claim? Hardly.
You see, you changing your post does not alter the irony of you saying "Getting the facts correct is always relevant" followed by stating a blatantly incorrect fact.

And about the 'denial' - ad personam attacks, Christopher?

 

[captcalhoun]

Yes, but the Prime Minister is not

yes tehy are. they're elected to be a member of parliament by the constituents they represent and they're elected leader of their party by the party members. by becoming leader and becoming an MP they then get to go to the Queen and ask her permission to form a government.

get your facts right, o font of all political wisdom.

 

[Sci]

I did not contest that the Andorian government represents the people of Andor.

Meaning you did not contest my points in the least.

No.

You said:

I'm talking both about a democratic election (of the new andorian government)

To which I replied:

I don't recall there being an election in Paths of Disharmony. The Presider was ousted and a new one installed, but that seemed to be a decision made by the Parliament Andoria, not the general public -- just like Gordon Brown's appointment as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was made because he was the new leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, not because there had been an election.

The point being, there had not been an election of the new Andorian government. One Presider was removed from office and another installed, without any democratic election. That doesn't mean that there had not been, prior to the start of the novel, a democratic election of the Parliament Andoria, but the shift from one Presider to another did not involve any democratic election.

- also, the Taurus reach data is definitive proof that the federation failed to pursue promicing avenues when it came to defense against the borg. That, when the only pursued avenues were obvious dead ends - considering how useless starfleet ships/tactics were against the borg during 'Destiny', any half-decent computer simulation would have easily shown that the new tactics/new-class ships - like the defiant class - were utterly useless when confronted with a rather small number of borg ships. SUICIDAL - and the federation failed to ask the opinion of its member worlds when it followed such an idiotic policy.

ProtoAvatar, is that you?

Yes, but the Prime Minister is not

yes tehy are. they're elected to be a member of parliament by the constituents they represent and they're elected leader of their party by the party members.

They're democratically elected Members of Parliament, and they're elected Party Leaders. That doesn't change the fact that their position as Prime Minister is not democratically elected, but instead comes from their position holding the confidence of the majority of other democratically-elected MPs.

 

[rahullak]

I think its ProtoAvatar too.

 

[DimesDan]

Yes, but the Prime Minister is not

yes tehy are. they're elected to be a member of parliament by the constituents they represent and they're elected leader of their party by the party members.

They're democratically elected Members of Parliament, and they're elected Party Leaders. That doesn't change the fact that their position as Prime Minister is not democratically elected, but instead comes from their position holding the confidence of the majority of other democratically-elected MPs.

Yes and No Sci.

From an outsiders prospective and browsing wikipedia or the wider web in general you've pretty much summed up what happens.

What actually happens though is that in most general elections, we see who is head of the party we are going to vote for, coupled with what that party stands for and then we mark our vote.

That's pretty much why last year the election turned out why it did, people like me were disenfranchised with Gordon Brown and wanted him out but still wanted Labour in. Dave Cameron came off as Blairlite and we certainly didn't want the Tories back in. As for the Lib Dems, I personally voted for them, on the whole I am happy with the work my MP has done, I am no-where near happy with Clegg selling his soul to sleep with the Tories though.

 

[captcalhoun]

yes, my local Labour MP was highly regarded, but people were writing into our local rag, urging him to stand as an independent so they could still vote for him and NOT vote Labour, who they refused to vote for over Iraq/not liking Brown/the financial crisis or whatever their particular beef was.

he refused, stood as Labour candidate and lost out to the twatface Tory candidate.

who several people are now slagging off in the local rag's letters pages.

personally, i voted Labour in 1997 because i couldn't see the LibDems getting in and wouldn't vote Tory if you paid me (well, maybe if you paid me £1million)

in the subsequent elections, i've voted Labour because tehy did things i agreed with: ending fox hunting, introducing the minimum wage and improving the health service and education. and also because i liked our local MP.

a lot of people, though, don't care about the local MP, they just blindly vote along party lines or they vote for which ever leader they prefer: chinless Eton-educated cock, Scots bruiser or privately educated, earnest young lad who turns out to be a lying, 2-faced shit.