Warbler

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

That said, I am not so sure that the cops wrongfully killing African Americans is happening as often as BLM would have you believe.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

Official canon does Trump everything else. We just disagree on whether or not official canon says that the Kelvin timeline overwrites Prime Timeline. It comes down to interpretation of events of Star Trek (2009).

What do you think the words “alternate reality” mean and why do you think they would use those words if what you’re suggesting is true?

I thought it meant that that reality had been altered due the changed made in history. I thought it meant the reality of the Prime universe had been altered and it turned into the Kelvin universe.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

ChainsawAsh said:

That the Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe and doesn’t overwrite the prime timeline.

Official canon says it, the movie says it, Abrams and the writers say it, but you continue to assert that it’s not the case even while arguing that official canon trumps everything else in other cases.

All of this, plus you refuse to accept the possibility in general that time travel can create an alternate universe

I do that because the idea doesn’t make sense to me.

(which, might actually the most likely scenario, were time travel to actually exist).

It is? I disagree. I think if time travel were to actually exist, it would work like we see in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

I think that is also very possible. What certainly is not possible is that time travel would just overwrite an existing timeline, which is what you are suggesting.

I agree, but I think it more believable than changing history creates a whole other universe.

True. But I still don’t understand the point being made.

DominicCobb said:

ChainsawAsh said:

That the Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe and doesn’t overwrite the prime timeline.

Official canon says it, the movie says it, Abrams and the writers say it, but you continue to assert that it’s not the case even while arguing that official canon trumps everything else in other cases.

All of this, plus you refuse to accept the possibility in general that time travel can create an alternate universe

I do that because the idea doesn’t make sense to me.

(which, might actually the most likely scenario, were time travel to actually exist).

It is? I disagree. I think if time travel were to actually exist, it would work like we see in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

ChainsawAsh said:

That the Kelvin timeline is an alternate universe and doesn’t overwrite the prime timeline.

That is not fact, that is opinion.

Official canon says it,

That depends on how one interprets the events of Star Trek 2009, when it part of official canon.

the movie says it,

That depends on how one interprets the events of Star Trek 2009.

Abrams and the writers say it,

I will accept as fact that Abrams and the writers say it.

but you continue to assert that it’s not the case even while arguing that official canon trumps everything else in other cases.

Official canon does Trump everything else. We just disagree on whether or not official canon says that the Kelvin timeline overwrites Prime Timeline. It comes down to interpretation of events of Star Trek (2009).

But what facts have I refused to accept?

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Holy fucking shit warb this is insane, even for you.

what?

Reading your responses here makes me want to smash my head into a brick wall until my head isn’t there anymore.

But why?

Yes, that is what I said. What is your point?

what?

Frank your Majesty said:

Then there is the closed loop, like in Harry Potter, which makes lots of sense, but allows for some paradoxes and negates free will. Also, alternate timelines can’t exist.

What paradoxes does it create?

perhaps we do agree in a small way.

*sigh* this is just getting worse and worse. https://www.yahoo.com/gma/singer-takes-knee-while-performing-national-anthem-during-044402355--abc-news-topstories.html

I hate to say it, I think it is time stop doing the National Anthem at sporting events for a bit. I am very depressed that I am now thinking that way. 😦

Frank your Majesty said:

I’m not a Star Trek expert, but that is basically how travelling back in time and changing things works in a multiverse without throwing causality out of the window. If the existence of parallel universes is already established and that you can travel to them, why go through the hassle of having to explain a mechanism of how a universe us created by the act of travelling back in time? Where does the energy to create that universe come from?

Other franchises use other time travel mechanisms. Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban is one example of how time travel works without parallel universes, while keeping causality and making at least some sense.

I am not sure of your point, but the time travel in Prisoner Of Azkaban works perfectly imho. That is the way it should work.

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

You demonstrate the problem of time travel in fiction. Skynet sends a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner in order to prevent the existence of the guy that will eventually defeat Skynet. But if the terminator were successful, John Conner would never exist and wouldn’t end up defeating Skynet and therefore Skynet would have no reason to send a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner.

Right. This is why I prefer T1, because the time travel makes sense - it’s single-timeline, closed-loop, no-paradox travel. Skynet was unaware that it worked like that and hoped they’d change the past rather than cause it to happen.

But it doesn’t make sense. Skynet should have been smart enough to realize that if had succeeded in preventing the John Conner from existing, Skynet would then have no reason to send the Terminator back in time and then John Conner would exist, then he wouldn’t and then he would and then he wouldn’t . . . see the problem? Why didn’t didn’t Skynet?

That is not what Nero and Spock appeared to do in Star Trek 2009, at least not to me.

You demonstrate the problem of time travel in fiction. Cyberdyne sends a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner in order to prevent the existence of the guy that will eventually defeat Cyberdyne. But if the terminator were successful, John Conner would never exist and wouldn’t end up defeating Cyberdyne and therefore Cyberdyne would have no reason to send a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner.

I wonder what movie has the widest aspect ratio in cinematic history?

Handman said:

Steven Hawking believes it, that’s good enough for me.

multiple universes? yes.

time traveling back in time and changing history creating a whole other universe? that doesn’t make to me.

Tobar said:

Warbler said:

pretty sure Star Trek Online and comics are not canon.

*sigh*

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

The thing is, it just doesn’t make sense that another universe was created. How would going back in time and changing history create a whole other universe? Sorry not buying it.

Read up on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. Once you do, it’s not too hard to imagine how time travel may create a parallel universe.

hmm, I am not sure. Apparently there is an idea that there multiple parallel universes where all possible alternate histories and futures are real. But time travel creating a parallel universe? I am not sure of that. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Of course, obviously I have very little understanding of quantum physics and whatnot.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I thought the current comics were canon, except for things like the Star Trek/Green Lantern crossovers.

I thought only the TV series’ and the movies were canon. But maybe I am in error.

DominicCobb said:

Holy fucking shit warb this is insane, even for you.

what?

darth_ender said:

Made me emotional.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/protester-hugged-nazi-pleads-hate-article-1.3575977

wow. I wish I could be like that. But I’m too lousy a Christian. I would have been one of the people booing the nazi and calling him racist such and such. I would have more tempted to punch the Nazi than hug him.

CatBus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

To some the Confederate flag is about heritage, not hate. Not saying they are right, but that is how some feel.

The heritage canard gets thrown around for more than just the Confederate flag.

Asked about the pin he was wearing during the interview, Fears said “it’s basically just like an SS thing.” Explaining the significance of the pin would require an extensive conversation about World War II, he said. “And it’s my heritage, I’m German.”

Yup, just heritage. Nothing to see here. The fact that they single out the most racist possible symbols of that heritage is just a coincidence I’m sure. The Nascar folks were evenly split between the Confederate flag and William Faulkner to represent Southern heritage, and just randomly picked the flag with a coin toss, I’m sure.

I see your point, but the Confederacy and Nazi Germany are a false equivalence.

There’s a difference between false equivalence and an imperfect analogy – otherwise you could say false equivalence for any analogy. If someone said a bird was as blue as the sky, you couldn’t really say “false equivalence, the sky is airy and the bird is all feathery”. You have to consider the quality for which they’re being compared – the blueness. As far as foundations firmly rooted in brutally racist ideologies, Nazis and Confederates are pretty close. But there were differences: the Confederacy was more focused on forced labor camps than extermination, the Confederacy was much more limited in the scale of its military ambitions to only attacking the United States, and Germany was a legitimate nation, to name a few.

Probably the closest modern analogue for the Confederacy I can think of is ISIS. A group of fanatics with delusions of statehood, trying to enforce a brutal medieval philosophy already abandoned by the rest of the world on the population unfortunate enough to live under their control, with surprisingly capable military commanders for an otherwise backward operation, but ultimately doomed to lose the fight they started. And even then there’s a few differences.

The Nazis wanted to conquer the world and kill all the Jewish people and others that were not like Aryans. The Confederacy wanted a country of its own. Some(probably most) wanted to preserve slavery(which I absolutely agree was an evil and racist goal). Some felt the states were allowed to secede from the US. Some preferred a government where the states had much more power to decide things for themselves(and yes, that includes, but not exclusively, the slavery issue).

I think the Confederacy and the Nazis were a bit different. I think the Nazis were much more evil.