At one point, a technology "expert" claims that more complex machines are more prone to failure than simpler ones. This
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 08:13 PM)
Your constant "I never said that" evasions are nothing but an attempt to hide out in the excluded middle, because you know that your silly attempts to exclude the past when comparing less complex electronics to more complex electronics don't work. You demonstrate again that you know nothing about logic.
IS THE MOVIE TALKING ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS THE NUCLEAR AGE OF THE 60S IS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS AGE? YES OR NO?
"The movie's portrayal of technology is fiction."
So now you're claiming that nuclear technology is fiction and not real. The fact is that nuclear technology is real.
Yet another evasion on your part. You know that the technology discussed in the movie was electronics, not the technology of the bomb. You've already admitted that the movie's portrayal of that technology is fiction. At least you showed some awareness that there's a difference between technology and Hollywood's portrayal of it, except where you tried your silly little "nuke technology" tactic. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 08:40 PM)
Actually, "I never said that" means "I never said that." And if I DID say that, you'd be able to quote me. Your constant "I can't quote you" evasions are nothing but an attempt to hide behind false claims that you can't prove, because you know that your silly attempts to exclude actual quotes, either by me or the character, is the only way you can make your point.
"You know that the technology discussed in the movie was electronics, not the technology of the bomb."
First you claimed that ALL technology in movies is "wrong." But now you're
correcting
me about WHICH technology the movie got wrong - nuclear vs electronics. Therefore, the logical inference that you've made by correcting me, which you would not need to do if ALL technology in movies is wrong, is that the electronics technology discussed in the movie is accurate. Thank you for finally admitting it. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 08:51 PM)
I knew you'd refuse to answer yes or no, because you know that a "no" answer is ludicrous, and a "yes" answer destroys your attempt to exclude electronics from a different era. That's why you're hiding out in your never never land of the excluded middle.
First you claimed that ALL technology in movies is "wrong."
Wrong. Here is my exact quote:
Hollywood's
portrayal
of technology is
OFTEN
wrong.
Apparently you don't know the difference between the word "often" and the word "all". Your premise is wrong, so the rest of your argument is wrong, as usual. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 08:59 PM)
I knew you'd refuse to quote me or the character, because you know that quoting me or the character would expose your entire argument as being based on things NOT said, rather than things actually said.
And here's my exact quote in response to your quote:
That's why it's called 'fiction.'
Apparently you don't know that "it's," or "it" refers to
Hollywood
portrayal and not to the movie's portrayal.
Funny how you were so quick to quote yourself which means you know how to quote. The logical inference is that you are not able to find actual quotes by
me
or the
character
to support
any
of your claims. Your claims are wrong, so the rest of your argument is wrong, as usual. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 09:42 PM)
I knew you'd refuse to quote me or the character, because you know that quoting me or the character would expose your entire argument as being based on things NOT said, rather than things actually said.
My argument is based on facts and logic. You originally challenged me to show that less complex electronics are less reliable than more complex electronics, which I did. That resulted in a false claim that no one could have known that that less complex electronics are less reliable than more complex electronics, followed by an attempt to exclude the past when comparing electronic technologies, which also failed. Then you resorted to saying that since the character didn't
explicitly
mention the past, that he couldn't possibly have been comparing past electronic technology to present electronic technology, even though everyone knows that such technology has grown more complex over time, and that the entire THEME of the movie is the danger of the 60s nuclear era and the more complex electronics used in it compared to the previous era. Of course, you can't acknowledge this, knowing it will destroy your whole "you can't compare that which WAS (was meaning THE PAST) less complex to that which IS (meaning the present) more complex" argument.
That's why it's called 'fiction.'
Apparently you don't know that "it's," or "it" refers to Hollywood portrayal and not to the movie's portrayal.
That's a meaningless distinction. You're implying that the movie had no connection with Hollywood (ie the movie industry). In fact, it was produced by Columbia Pictures, which is part of the movie industry (ie Hollywood). Therefore, the movie's portrayal is a
Hollywood
portrayal. No matter how you try to spin it, the statement in the movie that less complex electronics are more reliable than more complex electronics is REFUTED by historical FACT, now and in 1964. As I said, Hollywood often gets its facts wrong about technology, and this is just another example. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 08:23 AM)
Your original point was that today's computers are more reliable than computers from 1964. Your "logic" was flawed from the start. When I pointed that out, you switched it to comparing 1964 computers to ones from 1948. THEN you claimed that was what the character was saying. Every time I've asked you to show me the quote where the character says that, you refuse to and retort that it's "inferred" or "implied" which makes your conclusion based on assumption - not facts.
"You're implying that the movie had no connection with Hollywood"
Displaying yet again that you lack comprehension skills. There's no such implication. I agree that HOLLYWOOD - including Columbia Pictures - makes FICTION. That in no way suggests that everything contained WITHIN fiction is not based on some reality. The 1997 movie Titanic is a fictional story. But there are facts contained WITHIN the fictional story that are real. Therefore, I can agree that HOLLWOOD makes fiction, but that doesn't mean I agree that every single thing contained WITHIN said fiction is not real, or based very heavily on something real.
You're obviously not bright enough to understand the "experts" point in the film so I'm going to use a simplistic analogy (that you won't understand either):
You're gay and are a wedding planner (you being gay has nothing to do with it, I just liked calling you gay). You decide to organize a dinner party at your house and invite 10 of your closest friends. At the same time, you are also in charge of organizing a wedding for the following weekend. This includes securing the location for the reception, co-ordinating and communicating with the people that run that location, securing a DJ or band, the decor and the people that have to execute on decorating, the seating arrangement for the guests, creating a schedule of events during the reception, and all the minutia that goes along with each of these types of details.
The wedding reception would be the complex party, and your dinner party would be the simpler one. Because of the complex nature of the reception - because of all the various moving parts, all the equipment, all the people, which all impact the number of unforeseeable variables - just by the very nature that you are dealing with dozens of more details than your dinner party, there is a greater chance that things could go wrong during the wedding reception than at your dinner party. That doesn't mean that more things WILL go wrong at the reception. It just means that, mathematically, there are more chances for things to go wrong than can go wrong at your dinner party. If you don't agree with that, then you're just a complete idiot and there's no helping you. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 09:31 AM)
Your original point was that today's computers are more reliable than computers from 1964. Your "logic" was flawed from the start. When I pointed that out, you switched it to comparing 1964 computers to ones from 1948.
Of course I did, because it demonstrated that it was true even in 1964, a FACT you're unable to refute. That FACT refutes what's said in the movie, no matter how much you try to tap dance around it.
THEN you claimed that was what the character was saying.
He said less complex electronics are more reliable than more complex ones. Historical FACT PROVES HIM WRONG. That is IRREFUTABLE.
I can agree that HOLLWOOD makes fiction, but that doesn't mean I agree that every single thing contained WITHIN said fiction is not real,
Strawman. I never said "everything in a Hollywood movie isn't real". I said Hollywood OFTEN portrays technology wrong. What the character claimed doesn't fit the FACTS.
I'm going to use a simplistic analogy
Yeah, one that's apples and oranges, ie people vs. electronics. Stick to the historical FACTS that prove the movie's claim wrong.