Mistress Gluon said:
While you put up good points in most other places BW (and that's why I love arguing with you), here, you're reaching, hard. It's blatantly obvious this is hurt pride and bias. Because only hurt pride and bias would want a reason to say "I told you so."
Yeah, the fact that I have a reason to say "I told you so" couldn't
possibly have anything to do with the fact that I
did tell you so, much less every soul within typing distance. No no, it couldn't
possibly be because I actually think I was right, and everything to do with my poor fragile pride being so hurt by...something. What thing, exactly? I dunno, you're so good at telling me what I think...why don't you give this a shot?
I hate to use this particular point as a crutch but, hell, the fact that there are even several people who have agreed with me on this at least gives variable credence to the notion that I'm not just pulling wild, unsupportable notions out of my ass 'cause I just so desperately need to prove one thing or another.
Unless they're all just sheep, of course.
Mistress Gluon said:
However, you're pushing a single training accident as the entire crux of an argument that couldn't even begin to build itself around that. THIS is where I call the bias from, because when bias argumentalist enters the ring, the person who's biased tends to start reaching for anything and everything to validate themselves, no matter how little sense it may make when reread. Especially when they're making odd comparisons.
As long as we're being personal about this, let me go one better.
You have this strange but predictable tendency to label every argument that agrees with yours as rational, and every argument that doesn't agree with yours as irrational. Opinions that you like are automatically smart and packed with reason, and opinions you don't like are either inane ramblings of the sheep-like populace who just can't see things as clearly as you or someone desperately clinging to a view they secretly know is wrong. You like to claim that you alone remain somehow unbiased, while everyone else apparently just lets their emotions overtake everything they say. It never seems to occur to you, not even once, that just because a view is different from yours does not make it the apex of illogic. As for example.
Mistress Gluon said:
You argue obviously from the point of hurt pride only by the point of how hard you're picking it apart. We'll definitely go to another comic called Runaways, where you were desperately defending something that has no explanation, yet you're more than willing to blast something that HAS a rational explanation.
Right here, you bring up the Runaways thread; you don't like what I said, so
cleeeearly it must be because what I said was unexplained and indefensible and biased!
No. My points regarding the Runaways had explanations. I explained them. Just because you don't like the explanations or, gasp, don't understand the explanations doesn't automagically mean they weren't there. You may even think they're
wrong, which is completely viable, but I
gave them. If I blasted a "rational" explanation, then it's because I genuinely disagreed with it.
I've said it before; I really don't care so much if people think I'm right. What I care is whether or not others know that
I think I'm right. Make no mistake; I think I'm right. Everything I say, everything I post, I believe. Every point I make, I've considered. There is no halfway point, no tricks, no catches, no "Oh teehee I'll just say this 'cuz I need to defend something I wanna defend LOL." I'd much, much rather someone just outright calls me wrong or even stupid than for them to accuse me of not being personally behind my own opinions.
I decide my opinions, not anything else; my stances do not change based on their popularity or how desperately I need them to be accepted or how much I feel like refuting someone. You're right about one thing; it's pride, all right. I
already believe I'm right; the only person I'm proving it to with these long-winded essays is myself.
Mistress Gluon said:
I mean, you use that last bit about not understanding their powers.
Take a guess about what the hell they were DOING? I mean, any guess? Because the way you make it sound, as what they WANTED them to do was blow each other apart. You obviously forgot they were training originally, then obviously forgot what training was about, and you're continually not even looking at it past a bias of "Government done ****ed up". So excuse me when I say you don't get it.
And you continually overlook the fact that there's a dead boy on the floor despite the fact that this entire operation was created to prevent just that, to prevent THIS PRECISE EXACT THING from happening. So they did fck up. They did fail. I have no qualms with pointing that out, over and over again. Show me any evidence, any sign...
anything to show that they didn't fail in their goal of protecting a child other than continuously accusing me of setting high standards for them. If an organization was formed with the EXPRESSED EXPLICIT PURPOSE of making things safer for superpowered teens, please explain to me how the group has
not failed that purpose when a superpowered teen is lying headless and bleeding. It's a very simple question. Please, tell me how I just don't get it.
If the point was to test out Trauma's powers, it should have been done in a
far more controlled setting. This right here, this situation that we are given? I'm sorry, but it was
not a controlled setting. Considering that Armory was one of the test subjects involved, did they even think about asking her what her worse fear was? Maybe "list of phobias" isn't on the assessment form, but considering that they knew Trauma's powers had to do with fear, don't you think it would have been good to know so that they're not surprised by unforeseen circumstances? That's what an "experiment" is, right Mistress Gluon? Stable and controlled and influenced be as few wild cards as possible?
Did they even think about warning her that her worst fear was going to appear right in front of her? Did they even think about
telling her what his damn power was before telling him to activate it? If they didn't know what his power is (which is pretty laughable in itself), did they even think about asking him to explain it? At the very, very,
very least, every single person in that room -- scientists, mentors, trainees -- should have had a clear idea of just what Trauma could do. That's called
safety! It's
such a rudimentary concept of safety and I'm completely shocked you're even trying to defend this, in this situation where safety should have and was
promised to come first. And if military safety procedures don't include telling a room full of kids exactly how dangerous the weapons that their friends are holding are, then military procedure is bass-ackwards stupid.
Mistress Gluon said:
While the severity of this accident should have been contained immediately (from this, you will recieve zero argument from me. Gauntlet should have jumped in right away, and summoned some backup and containment), this was not unavoidable. I'm going with the idea that you do not understand a phobia, or the idea of actual enlistment. While I know you haven't enlisted (anybody who has knows way better than to make comments like these, and those who have definitely don't want to speak up or lest be consumed by this void horrible), that's NO excuse for how you're treating this. Because it wasn't carelessness, it was *Points to a gigantic neon sign that reads TRAINING ACCIDENT* a TRAINING ACCIDENT. Believe it or not, nobody's perfect, and you wanting them to be only reveals that you have hurt pride, and are looking for any excuse to rub it in their face that they messed up.
How is it being a training accident alone some sort of excuse for an accident of this magnitude? Just because it's an accident doesn't mean that someone didn't mess up. That would have to be an "accident where no one is to blame." This is
not a one of those.
It's hardly rubbing it in their faces if I say the truth, which is that they
did mess up. You've given me no reason to think otherwise, other than "military procedure works like so-and-so." Great. I'm glad military procedure works like that. I'm not talking about military procedure, I'm talking about
this. In
this situation, I see dozens of ways that the situation could have been far safer, ways that I've already mentioned. What does it matter how the military works, considering this is an
extremely different situation than a military operation? If they actually replicated military procedure and expected it to work on all these drafted kids, they'd be even bigger idiots than they were.
Mistress Gluon said:
A single training accident that was fairly unavoidable (definitely go look up the definition for a phobia and military training excercizes in groups and enlistment), it's HARDLY something on the Stamford level where the situation was absolutely controllable, and people made dumb ass decisions.
I know what a phobia is. And the way I see it, this situation was both absolutely controllable,
and people made dumb ass decisions.
What exactly are you trying to say, here? Are you defending their actions? Are you claiming that what happened was just too bad, nothing else? Are you still expressing faith in the process of the SHRA, claiming that it actually hasn't failed? I call me biased for having a consistent dislike of the SHRA, and maybe you're right. So what do you call yourself when you maintain consistent support of it? Since day one you've thrown everything you could think of in support of it..."reaching," as it were. How is it not two sides of the same coin? Oh right, I forget; you don't
actually like the SHRA, you just defend it because no one else does. Well. There's the picture of objectivity. So it's
not just two sides of the same coin, then, because I actually
believe what I'm saying?
Or maybe you're just as biased as anyone else. Yeah, I tried to be nice too.
t:
