The Worst Decision by a Starfleet Cpt/Cdr.
- Thread starter Azure-Dynamo
- Start date
Um well yeah... Because it highlighted the stupidity of your post. It was wonderful for me.
Meanwhile, your passive aggressive use of the word cupcake demonstrates that you're very very unhappy at having your post highlighted as stupid. This also pleases me.
I look forward to further mocking the shimmering dumbasserry you spout.Hello sanity. How are you. What you've done is conflate the tragic death of a child (in the process of saving a woman's life) with the dribble-covered idiotic notion that we live in a world where deliberately killing children as a method of saving a woman's life... is fine. It isn't. People who think otherwise are glorious statues to moron worship, glistening in the midday sun.
Nope. The world is clearly geared towards adults. What moron would think otherwise? The issue is... Do we put the safety of children ahead of adults in that world? The answer is yes. Using abortion as an argument against that fact does nothing but make you look foolish. A society geared towards adults but which prioritises the safety of children is not mutually exclusive.
You bet.
Last edited:
Not the worst but... makes one think.
The Next Generation - First Contact (episode)
I don't know if it is a good idea to go and say hi to people that are about to reach warp capabilities. In the end Starfleet being there and sneaking around stopped the warp program, at least, for a while.
The Next Generation - First Contact (episode)
I don't know if it is a good idea to go and say hi to people that are about to reach warp capabilities. In the end Starfleet being there and sneaking around stopped the warp program, at least, for a while.
Um well yeah... Because it highlighted the stupidity of your post. It was wonderful for me.
Meanwhile, your passive aggressive use of the word cupcake demonstrates that you're very very unhappy at having your post highlighted as stupid. This also pleases me.
Nope, it means you're a cupcake. Sometimes a cupcake is just a cupcake, cupcake. But your psychiatric argle bargle demonstrates that you're suffering from career envy. So how are the donuts cooking up?
Um...nope. Reading comprehension, anyone? You just can't help missing the point, can you? By probability alone, the two events are as close to similar as we are going to get between a science fictional device melding two people and real-life event. We won't find any exact analogues in the real world, of course, but this is about as close as we can get, both in terms of probability, although the late-term abortion is much more common than a transporter accident, if we can make that judgment of a non-real event. And both include a pause before the act, UNLIKE yours or anyone else's examples of imminent dangers forcing such a choice.
You can stop projecting your political bugaboos on to a comparison that I at least have never freighted with judgment. Or can you?
Are you really that benightedly ignorant of the world that you do not know that there is such a thing as late-term abortions to save the life of the mother? This is not a political tract. It just IS. And all your burbling won't make it otherwise.
You, as far as I can tell. Good that you know yourself so well, cupcake.
Wrong again. Adult life is valued higher. Just because we have extra safety protocols all over the place for children does not mean that they are considered of higher value; they are just more fragile.
No, your denial of abortion as the only reasonable analogue in the real-world to the incident portrayed in Voyager is what is foolish--and also really downright stupid.
I saw you doing this crap in another thread, where you purposely miss the point because, basically, you're a blood-blind bull who has a set of ideas in his head and has never bothered to listen to anyone else for one second, so convinced are you of your ineffable rightness. You're real popular, you know that?
Love and kisses,
V
Last edited:
Ah more gibberish
. I'm more than happy to be a cupcake. Just as I'm equally happy to highlight that your posts are monumentally dumb.Um nope... Nice try but no cigar. I have no issue with your abortion example as an analogy for Tuvix. But you then used it to justify the mentally deficient argument that society values adults over children. That nine month old foetuses were being murdered nonchalantly as a means to save women's lives. You can move the goalpost if you want but I'm still gonna mock the horrendous stupidity of that argument.
Nice try again. No-one is denying abortion happens. Who has done so? I don't blame you for trying to move the goalposts (when people say dumb shit, they often try to style it out... good luck with that) but your argument was (otherwise it would not have been made) that... this proves we don't value children as much as adults. Once again... Gibberish. Unborn children are not systematically murdered to save mothers. Unborn children die as a tragic consequence of saving the mother. Nothing more, nothing less. This does not support the theory that we live in a society that cares more about adults than children (except to a right-wing nut).
Another hilarious attempt to move the goalpaost. Aww bless. I have never argued that society isn't geared towards adults; only that within that society we still value children above adults. That someone could hold these two opposing positions confuses you, does not come as a surprise. And once again, I thank you for the name cupcake. I'm starting to like it.
You actually think societies value adults over children? Where are you from? Old people are also fragile but we don't create cultures that place them at the heart of societal protection. Have a think about why that might be.The Tuvix analogy is irrelevant here. It was your use of abortion to prove that society values adults above children that I found laughable. I'm not concerned with hypothetical analogies to describe the Tuvix situation (there's a million of them) It was your absurd argument made in response to Macleod's assertion that society values children above adults that I took exception to. Using it to justify your argument that society regards the lives of adults as being more important than children's was, is and will always be... dumb.
Appeal to authority? Do I come across as someone who gives a shit about popularity?
I simply enjoying mocking stupidity. You're providing me with a lot of fun. Cupcake thanks you for it....
And why I love them.
Last edited:
Um well yeah... Because it highlighted the stupidity of your post. It was wonderful for me.
Meanwhile, your passive aggressive use of the word cupcake demonstrates that you're very very unhappy at having your post highlighted as stupid. This also pleases me.
Hello sanity. How are you. What you've done is conflate the tragic death of a child (in the process of saving a woman's life) with the dribble-covered idiotic notion that we live in a world where deliberately killing children as a method of saving a woman's life... is fine. It isn't. People who think otherwise are glorious statues to moron worship, glistening in the midday sun.
Okay, my patience has reached an end. You've both earned infractions for flaming. There is absolutely no reason to get so personal arguing over something that's not even real.
Anymore nonsense and I will close the thread.
I swear to God if we never have another Tuvix argument it will be too soon.
Not on Earth. Frankly, this is an absurd claim. You may personally value adult life more than the lives of children, but the society as a whole certainly doesn't. Hell, I'd probably save my dog over most people, but I still do not claim that the society values dogs over people.
Last edited:
I think it is entirely valid claim. In day to day, we show in every way that we make our world for the benefit of adults. I call that valuing adult life higher. The absurdity would be in denying this reality. The simple fact that all of day-to-day life is designed for adults is the proof that we value adult life higher.
Hi, Vandervecken. I have just read this whole thread (wow) and I think I know what you are getting at. It is true that our day-to-day lives are "geared" for the Adult; working, earning, houses, cars, independence, scamming large corporation's IP Addresses (oops, sorry..), etc., but our instinct to protect and reasons for "building" our world and what is in it, in many (most?) cases, is for our children. The Real "Next Generation"©
Having said that, I would submit that, given being put in a (terrible) situation/choice, an Adult would sacrifice her or his life for a child, out of instinct and without hesitation.
Having said that, I would submit that, given being put in a (terrible) situation/choice, an Adult would sacrifice her or his life for a child, out of instinct and without hesitation.
Tabling Adults vs Children for the moment:
Posit: All children are equally valuable and valued equally.
Consequence: People protect their children equally.
Result: Choosing a child to rescue in a hypothetical scenario will be randomly distributed equally.
Conclusion: The value of a child's life overrides circumstances as a rule.
Here's a question:
Scenario I
A woman crashes her car into the lake with her two children X and Q. They are equidistant from her on opposite radii. She can only reach one in time to save it. How does she choose? (They are gender-neutral for this example).
Now while you mull this one over, answer this question first:
What would you expect the outcome of this survey to be (if conducted properly and scientifically)? Would you expect:
Go ahead and answer now before reading ahead. I'll wait.
...
Scenario II
OK? Now let's try the question again, but in this example:
X is seven years old
Q is three months old
Would you expect:
Final Question: Which one does she save?
(Please withhold any spoilers for now).
Posit: All children are equally valuable and valued equally.
Consequence: People protect their children equally.
Result: Choosing a child to rescue in a hypothetical scenario will be randomly distributed equally.
Conclusion: The value of a child's life overrides circumstances as a rule.
Here's a question:
Scenario I
A woman crashes her car into the lake with her two children X and Q. They are equidistant from her on opposite radii. She can only reach one in time to save it. How does she choose? (They are gender-neutral for this example).
Now while you mull this one over, answer this question first:
What would you expect the outcome of this survey to be (if conducted properly and scientifically)? Would you expect:
A) an even 50/50 probability tail
B) a slight tendency toward one over the other (random)
C) a slight tendency toward one over the other (specific)
D) a vastly different skew toward one over the other
E) both drown because the woman loves them equally
B) a slight tendency toward one over the other (random)
C) a slight tendency toward one over the other (specific)
D) a vastly different skew toward one over the other
E) both drown because the woman loves them equally
Go ahead and answer now before reading ahead. I'll wait.
...
Scenario II
OK? Now let's try the question again, but in this example:
X is seven years old
Q is three months old
Would you expect:
A) an even 50/50 probability tail
B) a slight tendency toward one over the other (random)
C) a slight tendency toward one over the other (specific)
D) a vastly different skew toward one over the other
E) both drown because the woman loves them equally
B) a slight tendency toward one over the other (random)
C) a slight tendency toward one over the other (specific)
D) a vastly different skew toward one over the other
E) both drown because the woman loves them equally
(Please withhold any spoilers for now).
Last edited:
In day to day life, we shit and piss more than we fuck but that doesn't mean we value shitting and pissing over sex.
Someone with the most basic of reasoning skills ought to be able to grasp that.
Correlation does not imply causation
With people, favoritism implies sentiment--nearly without exception.
Shitting and pissing aren't expressions of sentiment, usually.
I don't disagree that adults will sometimes sacrifice themselves for children, although I think the numbers would be pretty low for children not of those adults. But I think that, in our hearts, we value adult companionship more than child presence; I would suggest that this is, in part, a result of adult amnesia, the fact that most adults don't remember their childhoods the way they remember last year--it's all sort of collapsed into a memory-mush of brief flashes, and so our ability to empathize with children is limited; not so our ability to empathize with other adults. We simply don't remember what it was like to be children, and so they are a little alien to us. I also think that this is probably a difficult thing for people to admit, that they value adults more than children (excluding their own children). I am not saying that I am automatically right because of that; but I see it as a possibility that should be considered, that people are trained to talk about putting children first, but when it comes to real, internal sentiment, other adults they know well come first. In other words, it goes hard against the grain to admit this; we want to believe, because of upbringing and also much media saturation on the subject, that we are the kind of people who would always save a child first, but are we really? I (obviously) don't think so. And then the fact that we value adults more is reflected in how we have built that world you ably describe.
But that is just a secondary argument, although I stand by it; my primary one was based on late-term abortion, specifically late term, where there is time for reflection in making the decision, unlike the kind of imminent, immediate choice in front of danger than a number of people here have referred to; that sort of imminent decision is really inapplicable to the Tuvix matter, as Janeway DID have time for thought--she didn't have to react from her spine and hindbrain. I don't feel very strongly about reproductive rights/abortion one way or the other, but I can't kid myself that an 8-9 month fetus isn't as fully fledged a child as one born 5 minutes later--that's just too fine a hair for me to split. So I see a late-term abortion as most closely analogous to the Tuvix sitch, and there, ensconsed in law, the adult's life takes precedence.
Last edited:
You're still engaging in utterly flawed reasoning.
A and B exist therefore B must exist because of A is simply not true. If you don't understand why then google it. Extrapolating that we value adults more than children from the fact that society is geared towards adults is nothing more than a ludicrous failure to comprehend basic logic. Society is not geared towards adults because we favour adults, it's geared towards adults because adults are more influential and have more impact on the world than children.
A and B are not connected.
Nope, you are engaging in the flawed reasoning by dressing this up as some highfalutin logic-chopping argument. You are completely wrong, and at no time was I engaging in this putative fallacious reasoning you describe, so we can redact "still" out of that. It is perfectly reasonable to extrapolate sentiment from behavior--many people do it all the time. Google it.
YOUR fallacy here, if you want this in logical terms, is that your A and B logic applies to non-actors in sets, NOT to set elements that can act on their own. Simply, people have known, connecting mechanisms between sentiment and behavior; the two are not previously assumed unrelated qualities. The contrary, we know for a fact that they ARE connected and that one can be inferred from the other. Google that too, I am sure you will find a few pages to bear that out.
Or would you like examples? Here's one. If I go out of my way to make something easier and better for someone, we would often conclude that I favor that someone and value that someone more than someone I don't do that for. Crazy talk, huh?
But thank you for making my point. What is the purpose of influence, if not to make things easier and better for oneself? I am fairly certain it isn't merely to satisfy some chilly and abstract notion of influence for influence's sake. Adults use their influence to shape their world comfortably for them, and not for children, and it is because they value themselves more, not "just because."
Anything else is lip service and emotion without action to back it up. Substantively, where it matters, adults value themselves and other adults more and generally over children.
Last edited:
