More from Idazmi7 (Sort of)

Some time ago, I ported my Idazmi7 Response pages from my old site to this one, because, as I mentioned at the time, I wanted to ensure there was a challenge to the statements and remarks of Idazmi7. I felt his arguments were painfully flawed, and I stand by my counters to his arguments, and my approach (such as putting my response on my site, rather than in a YouTube video of my own).

Yes, I add some commentary to the original exchange, but the original exchange is still there, unaltered, for anyone to see. It was not possible to continue the discussion directly with Idazmi7 at the time, because he blocked and muted me pretty quickly. I would like to assure people that the only reason I would block someone is if they start being stupid or downright evil (and of course, promoting illegal activities, but that’s a given).

At any rate, as far as I am concerned, I fulfilled my obligations to Idazmi7 by posting the link to my pages (or attempting to at any rate) on the comments on his videos, so that he would be aware of them and could respond if he so wished.

Recently, I reposted that link – in no small part due to the fact it changed – my Wix site is still up but no longer current. Upon reposting the link, a rather lively discussion ensued.

One thing I have learned from the latest discussion (and I should point out that it has not been with Idazmi so much this time, but rather with a person called Justin), is that it’s apparently ‘cherry picking’ if I point out examples of low firepower or performance from Federation vessels. However, Justin hasn’t troubled himself to find examples that support his view of good shields and firepower. He insists they are out there, but it’s too much effort to find them, and instead I guess I should just take his word on it.

Sorry, but that doesn’t fly.

I have pointed out examples from numerous episodes (Survivors, Pegasus, Tears of the Prophets, the films Nemesis and First Contact, to name but a few) that support my arguments.

It would also seem that it’s ok to twist character statements. Han’s remark in A New Hope (Han is expressing surprise that the Empire has destroyed Alderaan, saying that ‘the entire starfleet couldn’t destroy the whole planet, it would take a thousand ships with more firepower than I’ve…’). Han is not making a definitive statement on the size of  the Imperial fleet, yet this off-the-cuff remark is held up as such by Trekkies determined to ignore the obvious. The Empire built Death Stars, feats of engineering and construction that dwarf the Federation’s abilities, and it stands to entirely logical reason that the Empire could build a large fleet if it wanted to (and indeed, given the flippant nature of Han’s comment, could already have a large fleet).

It is also canon that the Empire has 1 million star systems under its control (as per the canon A New Hope novelisation). That’s a lot of resources and also a huge labour force. This, again, dwarfs the Federation (stated in First Contact to have 150 member worlds). Despite this, and despite the feat of constructing moon-sized battle stations, we are to apparently consider the Empire to be incapable of building a significant fleet, because Han made one, off-the-cuff comment. Riiight.

I could go on at length, as this is but one of several issues where things like facts, evidence and logic are ignored in favour of vague statements of abilities rarely or never seen. One of the commentators (going by the name ‘Sci Fi Guy’) on the video talks about the Genesis Device as an example of the Federation’s planet-destroying abilities (in a bid to show how the Federation can challenge the Death Star). The Genesis Device is A: a chain-reaction device and B: never seen again, and certainly not put into action during the Dominion War, where, if it has so much potential as a weapon, it would surely have been used.

We get similar arguments about attacking whilst at warp. One poster, called Gramps Ford, pointed out a handful of examples of ‘warp strafing’, as a means for Federation ships to attack targets that are at impulse (it’s worth noting that Gramps provided the examples, but Justin, whom I was asking to provide evidence, flat-out refused), but these examples are from TOS, and warp attacks on targets outside of warp are never seen again, even against big, lumbering targets (such as Borg cubes in Best of Both Worlds and First Contact), or when the Klingons attack Deep Space Nine in Way of the Warrior and A Call to Arms.)

The ongoing point I raised about Federation accuracy has never been addressed. The pro-Trek debaters frequently refer to the apparently poor accuracy of Imperial ships but are quite prepared to overlook glaring examples of Federation accuracy. Their misses against slow and large targets in Way of the Warrior and A Call to Arms took place at near point-blank range (and for all the talk of how fast and agile Federation ships are, they typically close to within only a few KM of the enemy, barely do any maneuvering, and present nice easy targets. Even if Imperial accuracy is as bad as claimed, at the ranges Federation vessels like to fight, they’ll take a battering).

Finally, there’s the ongoing use of big, juicy Red Herrings, that Justin complained about. I pointed out how  the Death Stars represent remarkable achievements of engineering and construction, and serve as evidence that the Empire is far superior in this area. His reply was that the Death Stars were destroyed, but this has no bearing on the feats required to build them! This is a dodge, an evasion, and a pretty weak one at that.

Well, that’s all I have to say regarding this latest episode. I’m sure, once one of the interested parties sees this page, they will jump up and down at how I’ve twisted their words, added fluff to proceedings, how I should have made my own YouTube video instead of writing this, etc etc etc. I wonder though, if any of them will actually make a concerted effort to discuss things properly, using facts and evidence.

You can see Idazmi7’s video (and the discussions of it) here.

Star Trek vs Star Wars

2 comments

  1. I love Han Solo to death, but he should never be considered a expert witness on SW technology. The dude lacks creditability all the way around when you put him under scrutiny: 1. was unable to repair his own hyperdrive 2. Stated the destroying a planet is impossible, when in fact that we just witnessed the feat. I know that may seem mean spirited, but the truth is, Han is more sarcastic rather then “matter of fact.”
    Another tactic Idazmi7 has I have come into contact when addressing the SW vs. ST debate is to delete his comments and attempt to ignore his lack of understanding or creditability. He pointed out DS9 “The Dye is Cast” how much better the ST universe is at conducting planetary attacks, but does not wish to address Imperial ability to attack a planet (or destroy it), While we never see planetary bombardment in the Movies, its stated that the fleet move out of Hyperspace outside of the Hoth system in order to shoot at the planet well outside the range displayed in ST as a whole. He attempts to bury links, claims to state nothing but facts, and makes a poor attempt at claiming fallacies in other arguments. Only when he becomes so overwhelmed with proof that he lacks any and all creditability, that he removes every single comment (I mean them all) and pretends it never happened.

    1. Firstly, thank you for your comment! It’s not often I get feedback, so I greatly appreciate it!

      As far as Idazmi7 goes… it does not surprise that he deletes comments that contradict him. At one point I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and write him off as ignorant of Star Trek and Star Wars… but it seems clear to me he is more interested in lying through his teeth. The only credibility he has comes from people who have similar approaches to him, and he probably has an inflated ego that comes from surrounding himself with yes-men.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *