There’s no need to be angry just because you’re mistaken.
I think you are very much mistaken there.
when your arguments get rejected, you try to make me angry by saying "calm down"? that is pretty pathetic discussion tactic.
VISOR:
no proof it can match the visible spectrum of human eyes, in spite of your lies and unfounded assumptions
causes pain and headaches
can malfunction
can get lost or stolen
can be exploited by romulan intelligence to turn you into zombie
no reasonable person consider that superior to human eyes, which is why there weren't people standing in line to gouge their eyes out and replace them with visor.
i don't plan to run in circles with you until xmas, so bye and welcome to my blocklist
Incorrect. There have been humans born with an extra come in their eyes due to a mutation, and those people could see extra colours. There are people who get damaged lenses on their eyes that let them see a bit of ultraviolet.
there is no way to know what they see and how it differs from normal sight.
Data called them superior too.
yeah, this whole discussion started by me pointing this fact and the consequent contradiction. nice circle you have there.
It’s not wrong to call it superior.
the only person in the world who was qualified to decide that abandoned it as soon as he could. that makes it very wrong to call them superior.
An insect that sees ultraviolet light doesn’t see it how we see it
It was showing a representation in the visible light spectrum of what the visor can detect
the insect's brain evolved to process insect's available sensory input, so did human's. so geordi would see exactly the same reducted picture that we see on the viewscreen, because that is the only thing our brain knows how to do.
and you are still narrowing this discussion to subset of the facts. there is still the fact of visor being piece of technology that can be lost, malfunction, causes occasional pain and allows its wearer to be hacked by romulan intelligence. i don't call that superior to my eyes.
anyway, i don't think we will progress further in this discussion, so until next time 🖖
There’s also nothing there that shows or says he can’t see the visible light spectrum.
there is, it is exactly there on the screen, his perception of visible spectrum is just one step above nothing. would you want to see like that? accompanied by occasional technical problems and pain? would you call that superior to your eyes?
He would see it differently than what appears on the viewscreen.
that is just unfounded assumption, if you want to argue like that, you can make up literally anything and the discussion loses sense (not that the level of sense was very high anyway 😆)
would you want to see like that? i mean if you were born blind and this was your only option, it is definitely better than nothing, but other than that, it is hard no from me.
Geordi wanted to be able to see [naturally], but his visor is superior to human eyes in that it can see things that humans can’t naturally see.
we are nitpicking here, but if i amputate your hand and stitch can opener at its end, you can now do something normal human hand cannot, but i don't think anyone would call that superior, or prefer it to their own hand.
if geordi decided that after considering all factors, he would rather have normal eyes, then that is definition of "not superior" to me.
and just a reminder that this is the extraordinary experience we are talking about. i am definitely choosing my eyes 😆
Geordi made it clear more than once that not only would he rather just be able to see, but that his VISOR caused him constant pain
it was also suggested that his visor was "superior to human eyes". star trek is habitually inconsistent about its world and sometimes it is better not to think about it too much.
They’re just out here with scholarly citations for every single thing they’ve ever said and didn’t reply because they couldn’t immediately cite a paper with a counter argument.
there is big difference between not having scientific citation and not being able to say why you say things.
"i am just saying words man, why do they have to mean anything...?"
The reductio ad absurdum fallacy occurs when someone tries to prove an argument false by misapplying the premises or making false and absurd conclusions from the argument. It is similar to other fallacies, such as the appeal to ridicule, the straw-man, and the slippery-slope fallacy.
I always assumed that in case of red alert, you drink some antidote and you undrunk yourself in 30 seconds