www.ditl.org

Are these the same type of weapon?





Are these?





These?





In each case one of those fires paint pellets, and one fires bullets. True in this case the paint gun was deliberately designed to look like a "real" gun for cosmetic reasons, but the point remains that just because two weapons look alike externally, doesn't mean they must BE alike.

Why would Starfleet replace lasers with phasers that look identical? We know very little of how phasers work. For all we know, the only thing required to turn a laser into a phaser is to pull the lasing medium out and stick a fancy new type of phaser crystal in. Starfleet could have done something like that as a quick and dirty upgrade, an interim weapon rushed into service while they designed the Type 1 / Type 2 combination. I actually quite like that explanation myself.

Seems to me that we either believe that the Cage crew were lying/stupid/mistaken/using a colloquialism in calling their weapons lasers, or we assume that two different weapons are externally identical. Whilst both are possible, the first requires a reinterpretation of the facts. The second does not. So the first one is the better theory.

The Cage weapons were lasers. The WALGMO weapons were not. It's the best explanation of the facts.

You make a very good case Graham, it almost convinced me to concede, which is saying something considering how stubborn I can be. I imagine you would've made a decent lawyer. However there are some points I'd like to refute.

Are these the same type of weapon?

Actually in the first two sets the red tip gives them away. At least to my knowledge that's how it's supposed to work with paint ball guns that are virtually identical to lethal weapons, to help avoid confusion in certain situations.

We know very little of how phasers work. For all we know, the only thing required to turn a laser into a phaser is to pull the lasing medium out and stick a fancy new type of phaser crystal in. Starfleet could have done something like that as a quick and dirty upgrade, an interim weapon rushed into service while they designed the Type 1 / Type 2 combination. I actually quite like that explanation myself.

I like that explanation, however it lacks evidence.

Seems to me that we either believe that the Cage crew were lying/stupid/mistaken/using a colloquialism in calling their weapons lasers, or we assume that two different weapons are externally identical. Whilst both are possible, the first requires a reinterpretation of the facts. The second does not. So the first one is the better theory.

The first one is more consistent with the rest of Trek. Plasma weapons seem to be more formidable then real lasers, which we saw early on in Enterprise. We then saw them upgrade to phase cannons and pistols. So for what IU reason would they have to downgrade to lasers again when it was long out of date?

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:Actually in the first two sets the red tip gives them away. At least to my knowledge that's how it's supposed to work with paint ball guns that are virtually identical to lethal weapons, to help avoid confusion in certain situations.

Another way of saying that is that the weapons can be SO identical that they actually introduce a deliberate difference so that people can tell them apart. It would be easy to build the pain guns without the red tip, would it not? The red tip is not there to fulfill any other function than to make the paint guns look more different than they actually need to be.

I like that explanation, however it lacks evidence.

Yes it does. All the explanations we are suggesting lack definitive proof. The question is, which one is the best possible fit to the facts?

The first one is more consistent with the rest of Trek. Plasma weapons seem to be more formidable then real lasers, which we saw early on in Enterprise. We then saw them upgrade to phase cannons and pistols. So for what IU reason would they have to downgrade to lasers again when it was long out of date?

Oh, I don't think we can assume that plasma weapons and phase cannon are superior to lasers. 23rd century lasers may offer some lethality or other practical advantage over plasma and phase weapons. Perhaps they are cheaper, easier to build, have longer range, can be built with a higher power output, or any one of a number of other excuses we could think up.

We can pile speculation upon speculation, but the fact remains; assuming the Cage weapons are phasers requires us to reinterpret something that is directly stated in dialogue. Assuming that they are not simply involves a little speculation about what different weapons look like. The unavoidable fact is that the former is therefore a better fit to the onscreen facts, is it not?

GrahamKennedy wrote: The unavoidable fact is that the former is therefore a better fit to the onscreen facts, is it not?

hmm...your arguement has convinced me that the former is the more logical solution. I concede that point. However I still personally belive that my solution is more accurate, and I ask that you and the others respect that.

I will respect your opinion, though that probly doesn't mean much considering I respect almost all opinions.

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: The unavoidable fact is that the former is therefore a better fit to the onscreen facts, is it not?

hmm...your arguement has convinced me that the former is the more logical solution. I concede that point.

Thanks, that's good of you.

However I still personally belive that my solution is more accurate, and I ask that you and the others respect that.

Hey, as far as I am concerned people can believe whatever they like!

stitch626 wrote:I will respect your opinion, though that probly doesn't mean much considering I respect almost all opinions.

It's not you I'm worried about. I'm more worried about Seafort and Rochey. Escpecially Rochey. He's the only person I know more stubborn then me.

Oh I know plenty of people more stubborn than you. People who think the WWII attroceties never happened. ( ) That kinda thing.
There was one person in my world history course who insisted that the US owned China and that the Russians were "little Mexicans with pointy ears". I'm still not sure if he was faking it or not.

I debate creationists for fun. Nobody on this forum even comes close to that level of stupidity and denial.

By creationists, do you mean those who believe in creation or are you refering to the semi-political movement with people who deny all science? I fall into the first catagory, but not the second. (those people are nuts)

stitch626 wrote:Oh I know plenty of people more stubborn than you. People who think the WWII attroceties never happened. ( ) That kinda thing.
There was one person in my world history course who insisted that the US owned China and that the Russians were "little Mexicans with pointy ears". I'm still not sure if he was faking it or not.

Are you sure that's being stubborn? That sounds more like stupidity to me. And I'm not sure if I should be laughing or crying at those people.

stitch626 wrote:By creationists, do you mean those who believe in creation or are you refering to the semi-political movement with people who deny all science? I fall into the first catagory, but not the second. (those people are nuts)

Generally young Earth creationists; those who believe that the Earth (and universe) are approximately 6,000 years old, and that every word in the bible is true, and that the scientific evidence supports this point of view. That last is a not a defining factor of the YEC, but it is a critical one if you want to take part in debate since "I believe it anyway whatever the evidence says" is not a position you can argue with.

Ah, yes. Those people.

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:So for what IU reason would they have to downgrade to lasers again when it was long out of date?

It doesn't matter what the reason was - it was SAID ONSCREEN that they were lasers; hence, they were lasers.

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:It's not you I'm worried about. I'm more worried about Seafort and Rochey. Escpecially Rochey. He's the only person I know more stubborn then me.

Seafort and Rochey don't have a problem with conflicting opinions - how else would they debate? Their problem, and mine, comes from fraudulent, illogical, and self-contradictory statements and puerile attacks.

BTW - Seafort said you were lying in one statement in that he mentioned that phaser effects propagate across the target area. Your counter was nothing more solid than, "No, because I say so," and then you based further contentions on that ignorance of the evidence as if it were fact. Intentionally omitting or ignoring fact is lying.

Um...Mikey, this debate is already over. I conceded to Graham.