Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 4:40:29 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 28, 2017 6:02:40 GMT -7
Except Khan and his followers would try again to take over Enterprise. You could write around that for Apollo happily being transported to Ceti α-V; (although he would try to get into Carolyn's pants, and according to an IDW photocomic, actually DID). Apollo would force Khan to his knees, and that would make one hell of a confrontation story. And then he'd breed with the genetically enhanced humans, making a new race of Greek gods. Good story, nnnnotagoodidea for Kirk.
__________________________________________________________
Zephram: your link claimed the Borg have "a religion of perfection." The writer erroneously tries to equate a technical principle with a common primitive human aspect. Humanity itself might very well be headed down the path of the Borg, either with willing free choice or otherwise. While it might be full on religion for some, for others the principle of artificially evolving your body to fulfill job functions has nothing to do with religion; but with solving a problem. How would working towards Cyborg perfection not be a design principle?
Also, it's important to remember Gene had almost nothing to do with the 3rd season of TOS, and especially not the movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 6:24:37 GMT -7
Meh... beam them back in the Botany bay and tow the stupid thing with the tractor beam.
Such a confrontation would make for interesting fan-fic.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 28, 2017 15:58:40 GMT -7
It could be called a religion fairly. After all what is perfection? It's as variable and as unknowable as God/gods/gahahahhad. Now if their ideal was "efficiency" it would be harder to make that a religion. It's the imposition of the Borg queen that screwed it up, turned it from an unfeeling tech hive into a cult of "perfection". Yet another reason the Borg queen sucks. Another question--does that mean the whole collective by extension had the boys for Picard? resistance is futile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 16:13:40 GMT -7
Of course, in most modern fan fics, Khan and Apollo would become lovers... And they call that creativity.
The Bajorins, especially Kira, are interesting only for their religion. DS9 does show some of the crappy things done in the name of the prophets, or in order to become more powerful within the church. But more specifically it shows what belief can look like. Kira has proof that the prophets are aliens, but her faith will just not let her accept that they are not gods. If people were computers, this would all be very simple, but humans are odd and complex creatures - that's what makes us so fun to watch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 16:17:08 GMT -7
Gorn. Didn't say it was perfect. just good. religion of perfection is a stretch even for 1990's sci-fi writing. rabid. borg queen sucks - just an attempt to add T&A to dull baddies. @ironnerd. ewh... i see apollo shouting "Khaaaaaannn!!!" at the top of the mountain. ewh!
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 28, 2017 19:21:32 GMT -7
It's just a reflection of religion obsession in USA; they try to equate everything to it. If everything is equal, then ludicrous ideas can gain more of a foothold. For those who don't understand statistics: "Perfection" is a mathematical expression. Ready for its value? 100%. That is perfection. As a number, it is measurable. Therefore it cannot be a religion. Or a belief.
Try again, philosopher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 4:57:51 GMT -7
Well... wrong. Words have more meanings than those given in Math Class*. The proof of that statement can be found in almost any dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines "Perfection" as follows:Definition of perfection1: the quality or state of being perfect: such asa : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessnessb : maturityc : the quality or state of being saintly2:a : an exemplification of supreme excellenceb : an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence3: the act or process of perfectingIt's important to note that these are not my personal definitions of the word, but the definitions provided by those who study words and their use (etymologists). The Borg could actually have a religion based around the third definition where perfection is an act or quest to perfect the species. Still it's just one guy's opinion. He could have simply been waxing poetic and gotten carried away. It's also of note that Gorn is very likely to reject most or all of these definitions (there is a pattern of this behavior in past threads - I said one of his trigger words "believe" and he's been on my ass ever since).
I skimmed the article, and found it to be "Not Bad"... but not "Perfect" either. Ex Astris Scientia is a great site to just get lost in Trekines.
Side note... Gorn , I'm not sure everyone else's obsession with religion is the problem. You seem to have a pretty impressive obsession with religion in the real world, and should (as the original post in the thread states) take that baggage to another carousel.
* - It seems as though someone who got a B+ in Universtiy level English would know that.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 29, 2017 9:21:35 GMT -7
There there Gorn it will be ok.
You have cited a percentage without context. Perfection is necessarily subjective, not objective. If you want to say a system is operating at 100% efficiency then we have something to talk about, the objective level of work done or the amount of energy a system loses.
Perfection can be applied to anything conceptually from German shepherd dogs to fig trees to scientific theories, all equally subjective.
The Borg may say they are perfect, there are a number of ways to disagree.
Kind of funny again how you have previously insisted there are no subjective aspects to science, yet here we are. You call me "philosopher" like it's an insult. It's not. Also at least I could tell you the difference between subjective and objective measures that you couldn't work out for yourself.
If the Borg were a religion maybe that's one you could aspire to. After all there is scientific consensus and intellectual conformity, no churches, gahahahhad, or religion, no subjective inferences in their science, and every decision is weighted by evidence. Sounds like the proverbial paradise eh?
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 29, 2017 20:52:06 GMT -7
There, there, ironnerd, I will explain Science for you. Again. "Subjective" in regards to some uses of 'perfection' still has to follow an objective protocol that has been determined by a group of peers. We call this "Hypothesis Development". It uses "Operational Definitions". For example, none of the hypotheses and proofs I put in here are my own. They are arrived at by consensus of Science peers. That is what Science does. It has self-checks, despite what your GOP politicians tell you. Otherwise, it's simply a subjective and usually mutable bullshit appraisal made by any singular Joe Blow, much like the easily falsifiable things Trump says containing the adjective "fantastic".
I state the fact that you're a philosopher so that other readers can easily perceive it. If the Borg had religion, then there could not be anything Scientific about it. That is antithesis to religion, which is held on faith. So, you fail to equate Science with religion again, troller.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 4:51:14 GMT -7
Nope... Were this "AskScience", I would accept that narrow definition of "Perfection", but that does not apply here. This is not a Scientific forum, or a classroom, or a museum. It's a Star Trek Game forum populated by normal people with lives outside academia. That means that we have to look at all definitions of a word and determine the intended use by context. Any B+ University-level English Writing student should know that. The acceptance of the broader definition is especially important in this case since you are referencing a word in an article in another website dedicated to Star Trek as a television series. In the real world (outside of Gorn's fantasies), we have a perfect cup of coffee, a perfect vacation, a perfect mate, a perfect job, a perfect spring morning, the perfect song, the perfect color for a room, and even the perfect jerk. None of these are quantifiable. None of these are numbers. None of these are measurable. Worse yet, they are all highly subjective. My perfect cup of coffee is likely different from rabid's, or JAFisher44's, or cowboy40's. The same could be said for my idea of a perfect spring morning or perfect vacation. What is Borg perfection? Who knows? It's a quote of a quote, and it seems as though Mr. Braga got a little poetic. He may have also been speaking of the pursuit of perfection. I'll ask him next time I bump into him...
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 30, 2017 5:33:55 GMT -7
Believing one's self to be perfect is often the sign of a delusional mind. You use faith and belief but you lack the introspection to admit it, instead you pretend your world view is 100% evidentiary. Keep on "believing" that and I'll enjoy watching your conniptions when you accidentally default to a semblance of basic humanity and let your ideological facade slip.
I'm not comparing science to religion, I was positing a hypothetical situation in which you might make a good Borg. Seems you share the same goals when you get down to brass tacks, only your way of looking at the world is correct, of course. Call me philosopher, I don't mind. I know what I do for a living, (i'll even share my credentials on line---with people I trust) and I enjoy philosophy, no big deal.
@ironnerd "perfection" in a scientific context can refer to a system attaining it's maximum potential and it's still gauche, because the second law of thermodynamics forbids perfection. Despite that I know of at least 2 examples of so called "perfect" energy conversion in biology. The most prominent example has been debated for over 50 years probably because it was first described as "perfect", maybe the first time I remember seeing the word "perfect" in a journal. Lol it's been a while, and dammit I'm old. But just saying "100%" is perfection is meaningless without context. On that score I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 30, 2017 8:26:19 GMT -7
Some people DO go through life wearing blinders... Gorn's are just particularly narrow-field blinders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 10:37:26 GMT -7
Imma go back an unpost that article... U R all WAY to serious.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 31, 2017 2:42:09 GMT -7
Yes, ironnerd, those would be your Operational Definitions. However, nobody gives a shit about your subjective % ratings on ironnerds perfection scale, since it wasn't arrived at by peer review, nor do you have any special influence. Oprah, on the other hand, has influence over millions with her subjective % ratings. It's given meaning by the number of adherents. Operating far above the level of Oprah and ironnerd are the professional associations that arrive at a much more objective % of perfection based upon observation and fact. Where do readers think "the Borg" would fit operationally? rabid may well be employed in Science, but if he talks like a philosopher in here, and displays remarkable ignorance of Science itself, then that's what he is to us. If the label fits... I don't have "a way if looking at the world"; Science tells ME (and anyone else educated in it) how the world looks. Philosopher.
It's not "horse blinders" to say that white is not black, nor is it "a kind of black". Try the reductionism of Science for a change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2017 3:04:24 GMT -7
Gorn... you're wrong. Every dictionary I open proves that you're wrong. You're not at "AskScience" today. This is not a Science-only forum. This is a thread about fictional religions in a forum about a game based on a TV show where humans and aliens all look alike and can reproduce together, intelligent aliens are everywhere, empathy and mind reading can occur across great distances, people travel at warp speed in ships with artificial gravity, and they use teleportation to travel. None of it makes much sense as far as Science is concerned. It's just entertainment. This thread is just entertainment. And this is the second time I have had to point that out to you... how strange...
At this point you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. You also appear to be trying to get me to go off again. You'll disappointed. I said my piece, you read it (so did others), and cannot unread it. I meant it, and it appears to have had an effect so I don't need to say it again. It's not my fault you can't reply in kind without getting your pee-pee spanked by the Mod. You could PM me, but where's the fun in that? No one would see it but us.
Give us your AskScience screen name and I'll pop over there and see your more polished work. I keep asking, but it's never forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 31, 2017 9:14:45 GMT -7
Philosopher is no insult so I suppose you have my thanks. You do have a way of looking at the world. It's called "Scientism".
[
On top of this despite your fits about religion you appear to hold certain theories up as incontrovertible.
The point is that even when you have employed the textbook definition of belief you won't admit it, because your definition of "belief" is ridiculous. Everyone has things they know to be true that didn't originate from peer reviewed scientific articles. Peer review isn't the only source of truth in life. If you don't agree, then great. Go ahead and tout your aberration as a point of pride. Im tired of the argument and I feel bad. You just left me feeling like I threw rocks at Charlie Gordon.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Aug 1, 2017 16:13:57 GMT -7
Haha, I'm not the one who throws fits. It made no effect aside from confirmation and entertainment. I could indeed sink alot lower than ironnerd, and right to his face; but I'm not going to bring this forum down, and I respect JA on top of it. I have no hurt ego issues towards ironnerd; I simply won't allow his bullshit. And there's alot of it. I don't even remember my AskScience username, nor do I care to look it up; I have nothing to prove beyond the statements I make in here that shoot down religion and belief. If you boys don't like the arguing, then stop posting bullshit. I won't have anything to say; the same as I have nothing to say in the aviation or sketchup threads. Where your bullshit crosses my fields of knowledge, I will shoot it down. Philosopher is indeed no insult. It is a simple statement of fact; rabid does not prove anything he says, and is shot down by disproof. That makes him a philosopher. If he's working in Science, it would be interesting to see him actually post as one. ONCE AGAIN: I don't own any definitions. I didn't make any of them up; I am not a philosopher.
_____________________
A writer claimed Borg have a "religion". I say that is just the compulsion of the vast majority of Yankees to shoehorn everything into a religion or a "belief". It's probably ultimately politically motivated and that does indeed make it the fight of every person on Earth. Unfortunately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 16:36:25 GMT -7
I was stumbling around the internet and found this little gem. [ LINK] The idea is that Star Trek itself is a kind of religion. I’m not going to give my interpretation of the article itself, but I can kind of see where it is going. It got me thinking about the fans.
I see some of us as “Trek Orthodox”. We really only like TOS and TAS, and think some of the movies are “okay”. We have the Vulcan IDIC tattooed on our shoulders and greet strangers with the Vulcan Salute.
The “Free Trek Church” accepts TNG, DS9, VOY, as well as all the TOS/TNG movies (even the bad ones). They are more open, and accepting of different points of view. They see TOS as a bit “conservative” and perhaps even restrictive.
The “7th Day Trekkers” dig Enterprise. Most also thing VOY is pretty good, but it’s not normally referred to in Church sermons or ceremonies.
The “Missouri Synod Trekkies” just love all Star Trek. Simply, even bad Trek is a gift. Then there is the “Church of Latter Day Trek”. Widely regarded as kooks by other sects, the Latter Day Trekkers are all about the Kelvin Universe, and see Discovery as the much anticipated “Second Birth” of Star Trek.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 1, 2017 19:20:27 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Aug 1, 2017 20:44:29 GMT -7
This coming from the guy who thinks that Steven Hawking wrote "A Brief History of Time" hundreds of years ago, and posts as reference entire books he obviously hasn't read. @ironnerd Free Trek Church sounds the most agreeable. Is a there a church of 7 or 9? there's on altar worth bowing to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 3:24:41 GMT -7
I'm actually more Trek Orthodox. Though I really like some of the movies (I, II, and mostly IV). It's those Latter Day Trekkers I have issues with. Bunch of hippy weirdos.
"longo vivas tempore et bene sit"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 8:12:43 GMT -7
I don't even remember my AskScience username, nor do I care to look it up Gorn - you remember you got a B+ in univ english, but not your alias when you were an askscience contributor? U smokin bro?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 15:36:58 GMT -7
If you boys don't like the arguing, then stop posting bullshit. I won't have anything to say; the same as I have nothing to say in the aviation or sketchup threads. Where your bullshit crosses my fields of knowledge, I will shoot it down. Hey Gorn ...maybe we can work on that... I may be making a huge mistake, but I would like to invite you over to the Aviation thread. It's a thread where a few of us who love aviation go to just chat and "hangar fly". The great thing about being passionate about something is that you want to share it with everyone, even people you have a difficult time getting along with. I discussed it with the other aviation guru (who totally owned me), and he's cool with it as well. So c'mon over. There is actually quite a bit of aviation experience and knowledge in this forum, and we would like to share it with you (the whole forum as well). I know it's not really your area of expertise, but that's part of the fun of a forum like this - you get exposed to new stuff. Once in a while you even have an "OH!" moment (I know I have). Besides, Roddenberry, Nimoy, and Dorn were/are all pilots, so there is even a Star Trek connection. What do you say?
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Aug 2, 2017 21:51:02 GMT -7
Thanx, I have a brother who is a private aircraft flight instructor. If I have any questions, I will ask him. He demonstrably knows what he's talking about, as I have watched a few videos of his skills at acrobatics in a Tiger Moth.
_______________________
For rabid, where did I say that "Steven Hawking wrote "A Brief History of Time" hundreds of years ago"? Considering I heard the hype about this NEW book and bought it in 1989 and then read it, I highly doubt I ever said that. What references of entire books have I "obviously not read"? I hope you don't mean the recent one "Oasis in Space"? I read AND passed the 2 term course of Historical Geology that shows how easily Organic Chemistry can arise on planets in the Goldilocks zones of solar systems. I would say it's obvious you haven't read it, given your comments about abiogenesis. If you mean "A Brief History of Time", 1989 was 28 years ago, not centuries. Perhaps you need to read math books, as well. Or perhaps you're just lying.
_______________________
Is it possible to say "Only in the USA" in regards to religions based on Trek? I would be surprised otherwise, but then any religious belief can easily adopt to whatever myth is desired.
|
|