Sovereign class

[Sionnach Glic]

Okay, due to the insane length of this reply, I'm splitting it into two parts. The first one will deal with Thorin's reply, the second will deal with the other posts.

Good, wasn't it?

Very good. Almost as good as when you changed the definition of 'military' to the dictionary, then to primary purpose, then to time spent doing military operations.

I used the term resources to try and make it simpler to understand. Starfleet does not spend 100% of the time doing military operations. A part of it does.

The point stands that 100% of the time there are military operations going on.

When you say Starfleet, you mean all of Starfleet. The entirity of it.

Yes, and from your earlier wording, you implied the same.

When you say Starfleet, you mean it is a whole.

Yeah, becuase clearly you have secretly been saying 'a part of Starfleet' yourself.

If I were to say the population of the earth are sleeping 100% of the time, that is wrong.

No, that statement would be correct. It's simple logic that this means only a part of the population, the same with Starfleet.

Only a part of Starfleet is doing military operations at any given time. What you said is categorically wrong. Starfleet refers to the whole. To refer to a part of it, you must explicitly state that.

You should take your own advice here, as I have never seen you say 'a part of Starfleet' in any of your posts.

I did not. I have maintained all along that we don't know what defines a military - please don't accuse me of saying otherwise.

You are right there, and I apologise. However, you were basing your arguments that Starfleet is not a military on what their primary role is.
I have already proved that Starfleet's primary role is military operations. Afterwards, you quickly started saying that what they did most commonly defined what they were.

You just did.

Brilliant. I was pointing out why I was going to stop replying to that particular point.

This time you went to the dictionary.

Don't complain. You are the one who brought the dictionary into this in the first place. I was quite happy debating without it until you tried to use a (completely unsourced) definition (and quickly tried to get all dictionary definitions thrown out the window when I brought up conflicting evidence) to try to claim that Starfleet was not a military.

The main/primary role could equally be argued as to what role you are most often seen to be doing.

Except, the English language disagrees with you there. So, no it couldn't.

Who's playing with semantics now?

How is pointing out Starfleet places higher importance on military operations than civilian operations possibly semantic?

Importance is what you place more emphasis on. As we're constantly told, and constantly see, that science and exploration are more often on the cards than military operations. Far more often.

Again, you're confusing 'importance placed upon' with 'time acted upon'. Both are different, and the former is what I am saying.

Correct - this time you have not said that all the ships (thus all of Starfleet) are undergoing military operations.

Yeah. Too bad you didn't make that specification in your own posts.

Which fizzled out and I decided not to bring it back.

It was not 'fizzled out' when I asked for an apology. I asked for one in several different replies sent to you. In every reply you sent to me afterwards, you completely ignored it.

I said you have read what I said, then questioned what I have said when the answer is in what you just read.

Considering your sentance contained you saying two exact oposites, my confusion is quite understandable.

Since we don't know whether the pefect definition of military includes the word devoted.

And he complains about me being semantic.

Because the Royal Navy spends 90% of their time in some sort of militaristic operation, the other 10% in civilian roles, while Starfleet does it vice versa. I would define it by what it is doing most.

So, if the US navy, without changing the armament or crew complement of their ships, suddenly sent all their ships out to map the sea floor you would consider it a civilian organisation?

Now who's accusing who of ignoring posts?

Me. As you clearly ignored the proof I put down that Starfleet places higher importance on military operations.
And note that I actualy apologised for mistaking what you said above. Unlike yourself.

Starfleet would prefer their ships to be doing scientific missions.

Irrelevant what they would prefer their ships to be doing. We have seen time and time again that Starfleet drops all civilian operations when a military operations comes up. Ergo, they place higher importance on military operations.

They are not trained completely in security - I bet most security officers probably still have a 50/50 with more civilian roles.

Proof? They are refered to as 'security'. Not 'security/science'.

You have resorted to it a fair few times - backing up your own arguement with it.

My arguments do not rely on semantics. As you will see if you look in any other thread I have participated in. I am using semantics here as you are using them to try to discredit my proof.

If you don't wish to discuss definitions and semantics, then don't, but as you clearly are carrying on about it, regardless of who first brought it up, then stop complaining. You are carrying it on just as much as I.

You are continuing to use it. My own use of them has been in reply to your own use. If you wish to stop the semantics, then stop using them.

Not because it doesn't include space, but because any modern day armies don't spend most of their time picking fruit or walking to the North Pole. Starfleet does. [At least the equivilent].

No. Your previous posts quite clearly tried to discredit the definition of 'armed forces' becuase they didn't include the word 'space'. I'd advise you to read what you type. What the hell, I'll post it here for you to read again.

The definition of 'military' is quite simple. It's merely the fact that you insisted on getting into semantics that mucked the whole definition thing up.

The definition of military is not quite simple. As this 30 page thread shows, and as every dictionary 'definition' that has been posted either suggests another word (armed forces), uses the word military to define the word military, or defines it as the army, navy, and air force - all of which have no real relation to space.

The European Space Agency controls that. Again, not a military organisation, whether or not they stick a couple of guns on it.

Sorry, but a simple ' ' dosen't even cover that statement.

Much better.

My meaning in the above statment is quite clear, again you insist upon using semantics to ignore what I was saying. If France, completely independant of the ESA, sent up armed warships into space, the organisation that controls them would fall under the heading of 'armed forces'.

My old one which I changed for yours, and yours alone, benefit.

My benefit? I'd hardly call changing the definition from the dictionary, then to primary purpose, then to time spent doing military operations to be for anyones benefit but your own.

And my old one didn't show that Starfleet was a military,

Yes, they did. That's probably why you changed your own one.

Because we clearly both disagree about the meaning of primary role.

No, becuase clearly you disagree with the real world definition of 'primary role'.

You then proceeded to change it back just so you could raise a point when primary role means what you have chosen it to mean. That of highest priority.

I changed it back to show that you attempted to dodge the fact that Starfleet's primary role is military. And I have not chosen it to mean anything, I have used the English definition of it.

Tough. We both know it's true.

Says the guy who won't even provide evidence to back it up. If we both knew it was true, we wouldn't be having this debate. If it's as simple as you claim, then why are you avoiding posting a quote?

*snip US military history*

Irrelevant. You implied that what they call themselves is important. You then attempt to disprove this by stating what the US military does.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.

However - I've noticed a mistake on your part. You have just said that it's not proven Starfleet recognises itself as a non military organisation. You have now just said that "The same is true for Starfleet" - meaning that you have accepted that Starfleet recognises itself as a non military organisation.

No, I said that "The same is true for Starfleet. Whatever they may choose to call themselves."
And as I pointed out below that statement, Starfleet clearly considers itself a military organisation.

No, they don't. They say it wasn't a military reason. They didn't say they are a military.

But, acording to you the Federation has no military. So what could they possibly be refering to when they say 'it's not a military decision' but themselves?

Why exactly wouldn't it?

Because the Discovery is not a warship. Becuase merely carrying the warheads does not make it a warship. Becuse NASA does not deploy warships to patrol space. Becuase NASA does not orchestrate wars. Because Starfleet dose not concern itself with combat.


Okay, I really see no point in considering this debate any longer. It has become clear that you are merely making up your own definition, and ignoring the realistic definitions.

It fits the real world definition.
It fits the roles.
It fits the definition of the English language.
It fits the definition in the dictionary.

If, Thorin, you insist on making up your own, seperate, definition for a military by yourself then fine. You can choose yourself whether or not to call Starfleet a military. But there is no point voicing this, as I have already shown above that it fits every definition but your own.
If you wish to end this debate, I have no problem.

[Jim]

An excellent explanantion. However, if the TOS era was in fact one of commerce and therefore some sort of money, why would Kirk have been so befuddled in STIV, as Jim pointed out?

Quite simple - Kirk wasn't confused by the existence of money per se, but by its form. It's likely that physical cash has been replaced completely by electronic transactions. With no experience of handling transactions except by a retinal scan/thumbprint/PIN, perhaps without even a bit of plastic, it's understandable that he'd be confused by people demanding he had over bits of metal or paper.

Even to a lesser extent, if you travel to another country you do not necessarily know what coin/bill is what... and we use coins and bills. If we just used credit cards or gold pressesed latinum, we would not exaclt know what "exact change" on a bus meant.

[Mikey]

Still a LITTLE hard to swallow - representation is after all representation - but it's better than anything I've got.

[Thorin]

Very good. Almost as good as when you changed the definition of 'military' to the dictionary, then to primary purpose, then to time spent doing military operations.

Wow. You've just made up a load of cock 'n' bull there. I haven't changed the definition of anything, I haven't changed any of whatever it is you'ret alking about there.

The point stands that 100% of the time there are military operations going on.

Well done. Starfleet as a whole is not, however.

Yes, and from your earlier wording, you implied the same.

Thankyou.

Yeah, becuase clearly you have secretly been saying 'a part of Starfleet' yourself.

Thankyou.

No, that statement would be correct. It's simple logic that this means only a part of the population, the same with Starfleet.

No it doesn't mean only a part of the population. When you say anything, you mean the whole of it, not a part of it.

You should take your own advice here, as I have never seen you say 'a part of Starfleet' in any of your posts.

When have I said Starfleet spends 100% of it's time doing civilian duties? Making things up now...

You are right there, and I apologise. However, you were basing your arguments that Starfleet is not a military on what their primary role is.
I have already proved that Starfleet's primary role is military operations. Afterwards, you quickly started saying that what they did most commonly defined what they were.

You have not proved Starfleet's primary role is military operations at all. Primary role is, in my eyes, what you are doing most often. What your overall 'goal' is. What you should be doing. I did not quickly state what they did most commonly - I said before I even put primary role, that primary role = most common. So in the first place whether or not I had put primary role or most common would not have made a difference - and you know this as I had already explained that I took the definition of primary role as that of most common.

Brilliant. I was pointing out why I was going to stop replying to that particular point.

Okay.

Don't complain. You are the one who brought the dictionary into this in the first place. I was quite happy debating without it until you tried to use a (completely unsourced) definition (and quickly tried to get all dictionary definitions thrown out the window when I brought up conflicting evidence) to try to claim that Starfleet was not a military.

I threw them out of the window because that's where they should be. They were all invalid - don't try and accuse me of being biased on this because we both know they were all invalid. I only added that definition as to see whether for an organisation to be classed a military, does it need to be devoted to defence.

Except, the English language disagrees with you there. So, no it couldn't.

Really? I don't see where it says otherwise. I'm taking primary role to mean most common - whether you like it or not.

How is pointing out Starfleet places higher importance on military operations than civilian operations possibly semantic?

Because you are discussing the meaning of primary role when you know perfectly well that for all the context it was used in in my post, it could be interchangable with most common.

Again, you're confusing 'importance placed upon' with 'time acted upon'. Both are different, and the former is what I am saying.

All in universe things we've seen and heard place a higher importance on science missions. If there was a choice on patrolling the neutral zone, or undergoing a science mission to find some metallic ore, both with about equal benefits, they'd go for the more peaceful option as that's most important to them.

Yeah. Too bad you didn't make that specification in your own posts.

Again, I have never, ever, said that [all of] Starfleet spends 100% of the time doing civilian duties.

It was not 'fizzled out' when I asked for an apology. I asked for one in several different replies sent to you. In every reply you sent to me afterwards, you completely ignored it.

PM me if you want to bring that back up.

Considering your sentance contained you saying two exact oposites, my confusion is quite understandable.

You read my sentence. And then asked a question about that very sentence, even though the answer was in the sentence.

And he complains about me being semantic.

We're trying to decide whether for something to be a military it has to be devoted [at least 50%, realistically], or can do anything for 90% of the time. So surely the entire issue revolves around this? And I got that definition from a define: on google... you accused me before of not telling you where I got my source from even though I did.

So, if the US navy, without changing the armament or crew complement of their ships, suddenly sent all their ships out to map the sea floor you would consider it a civilian organisation?

If it was long term, only 10% of training was devoted to combat, while 90% was devoted to sea floor mapping, and then there was a load of scientific equipment on board (outnumbering the weaponary), yes, I would.

Me. As you clearly ignored the proof I put down that Starfleet places higher importance on military operations.
And note that I actualy apologised for mistaking what you said above. Unlike yourself.

If you wish to discuss it then PM me. I didn't ignore any proof and I addressed it with an actual quote - and have done again above here. Importance =/= priority. So again, you're accusing me of ignoring posts.

Irrelevant what they would prefer their ships to be doing. We have seen time and time again that Starfleet drops all civilian operations when a military operations comes up. Ergo, they place higher importance on military operations.

They place higher priority on military operations. If the benefit was the same for scientific or military operations, they'd go for scientific ones. Because it's more important to them.

Proof? They are refered to as 'security'. Not 'security/science'.

Because they all seem to have a fair understanding of how a ship works. Otherwise anyone could be a member of Starfleet security (no jokes - please), it would just require teaching general military things without any ship/universe workings, etc etc.

My arguments do not rely on semantics. As you will see if you look in any other thread I have participated in. I am using semantics here as you are using them to try to discredit my proof.

Nothing is proof. Proof means without doubt. There clearly is doubt.

You are continuing to use it. My own use of them has been in reply to your own use. If you wish to stop the semantics, then stop using them.

But I'm not complaining, I'm not bothered whether we carry on going on about various definitions (and you brought up the definition of primary, not I), but you clearly are bothered.

No. Your previous posts quite clearly tried to discredit the definition of 'armed forces' becuase they didn't include the word 'space'. I'd advise you to read what you type. What the hell, I'll post it here for you to read again.

The definition of military is not quite simple. As this 30 page thread shows, and as every dictionary 'definition' that has been posted either suggests another word (armed forces), uses the word military to define the word military, or defines it as the army, navy, and air force - all of which have no real relation to space.

Which I wrote not meaning because it didn't say "space force", but because there is just no equivilent now to Starfleet. There is no organisation that spends 90% of its time picking fruit and walking to the north pole, and spends 10% of its time fighting. If you converted the navy to space, it would be a military - space has nothing to do with it. So if Starfleet spent 100% (or anything upwards of 50%) doing navy-esque things, then I would consider it a military. But it doesn't.

Sorry, but a simple ' ' dosen't even cover that statement.

Much better.

My meaning in the above statment is quite clear, again you insist upon using semantics to ignore what I was saying. If France, completely independant of the ESA, sent up armed warships into space, the organisation that controls them would fall under the heading of 'armed forces'.

Any organisation that sent something up to space would be controlled by non-military organisations. So no, I wouldn't put them under the heading of armed forces.

My benefit? I'd hardly call changing the definition from the dictionary, then to primary purpose, then to time spent doing military operations to be for anyones benefit but your own.

I have no idea what you just said.
But if you're referring to the fact that I changed primary purpose to most common, I did it for your benefit, as, even though you knew that as I wrote primary purpose I meant most common, being pedantic you decided to take primary purpose as a different meaning.

Yes, they did. That's probably why you changed your own one.

No, they didn't. Read again. It didn't.

No, becuase clearly you disagree with the real world definition of 'primary role'.

No, I don't. And you know exactly what I mean when I say primary purpose - you don't need to be so pedantic about it. If it's interchangable - which you knew that is what I meant, then in your mind (!) couldn't you have changed it to "most common", without resorting to having to look up the definition and even then proving nothing.

I changed it back to show that you attempted to dodge the fact that Starfleet's primary role is military. And I have not chosen it to mean anything, I have used the English definition of it.

Starfleet's primary role is not as a military. You have not used the English definition, I didn't see highest priority anywhere. I saw importance, which could also mean what you place highest emphasis on. What you'd prefer to be doing.

Says the guy who won't even provide evidence to back it up. If we both knew it was true, we wouldn't be having this debate. If it's as simple as you claim, then why are you avoiding posting a quote?

"Do you remember when we use to be explorers" ad infinitum.

Irrelevant. You implied that what they call themselves is important. You then attempt to disprove this by stating what the US military does.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.

What they classify themselves as is important, if it's also backed up by what we else we see. There is clearly a lot of doubt about whether they are a military or scientific organisation. The fact they call themselves a scientific organisation, then, sways us to that classification.

No, I said that "The same is true for Starfleet. Whatever they may choose to call themselves."
And as I pointed out below that statement, Starfleet clearly considers itself a military organisation.

They've stated numerous times that they're explorers.

But, acording to you the Federation has no military. So what could they possibly be refering to when they say 'it's not a military decision' but themselves?

When did I say the Federation has no military? Again, making things up. I said it's intermingled with their science and exploratory organisation. But overall, the entirity of this science, exploratory, and military organisation, I would classify it as a science and exploratory organisation.

Because the Discovery is not a warship. Becuase merely carrying the warheads does not make it a warship. Becuse NASA does not deploy warships to patrol space. Becuase NASA does not orchestrate wars. Because Starfleet dose not concern itself with combat.

If NASA sent up just one ship carrying missles, and it was there all the time - thus a portion of NASA is always undergoing military operations, would that make NASA a military? Nope.

Okay, I really see no point in considering this debate any longer. It has become clear that you are merely making up your own definition, and ignoring the realistic definitions.

I have done no such thing. Accusations again.

It fits the real world definition.
It fits the roles.
It fits the definition of the English language.
It fits the definition in the dictionary.

I see no such proof of any of this - primary role can be considered what you are doing most often just as much as what your highest priority is.

If, Thorin, you insist on making up your own, seperate, definition for a military by yourself then fine. You can choose yourself whether or not to call Starfleet a military. But there is no point voicing this, as I have already shown above that it fits every definition but your own.
If you wish to end this debate, I have no problem.

As I have shown above, all your definitions are invalid and prove nothing.
And if you wish to end this debate, I have no problem either.

[Sionnach Glic]

Wow. You've just made up a load of cock 'n' bull there. I haven't changed the definition of anything, I haven't changed any of whatever it is you'ret alking about there.

Maybe not the definition of 'military', but you have changed you own idea of what makes Starfleet a military or civilian organisation.

You started by attempting to claim that a completely unsourced (google is not a source, it links to sources) definition of the word 'military' proved that Starfleet is not a military.
When proved wrong by multiple sourced definitions, you immediately threw dictionaries out the window, and started claiming that their primary role is what defines what it is.
When proved that Starfleet's primary role is military, you then switched to how much time was spent doing civilian operations.
When proved that Starfleet spends just as much time doing both, you immediately swithced to how much assets were deployed on civilian or military roles.

No it doesn't mean only a part of the population.

If I say '100% of the time, there will be members of the population asleep' it's quite easy to see that I do not mean 'every member of the population would be asleep 100% of the time'.

When have I said Starfleet spends 100% of it's time doing civilian duties?

You are right there. Looking back over your posts, I can't see where you said that. You have my apologies.

You have not proved Starfleet's primary role is military operations at all.

I have proven that, using both the dictionary definition and the most common use of it, Starfleet's primary role is military.

Primary role is, in my eyes, what you are doing most often.

Fine. You can have your own definition, but don't try to use a personal definition to counter the proper definition.

I threw them out of the window because that's where they should be. They were all invalid -

You have claimed they are invalid for two reasons:
1) They don't include the word 'space'.
2) Your completely unsourced definition conflicts with the five sourced definitions I provided.

That hardly invalidates them.

I only added that definition as to see whether for an organisation to be classed a military, does it need to be devoted to defence.

No, it dosen't.

Really? I don't see where it says otherwise.

Here's a hint; check the dictionary quotes I posted a few posts back.

I'm taking primary role to mean most common - whether you like it or not.

Fine. But I am not debating using your personal definitions. Whether you like it or not.

Because you are discussing the meaning of primary role when you know perfectly well that for all the context it was used in in my post, it could be interchangable with most common.

I am not psychic. How the hell am I supposed to know that when you say 'primary role' you actualy mean 'that which most assets is deployed to'? Especialy when you insist on using your own definition for it.

All in universe things we've seen and heard place a higher importance on science missions.

Then why does Starfleet drop everything when there is the chance of conflict?

If there was a choice on patrolling the neutral zone, or undergoing a science mission to find some metallic ore, both with about equal benefits, they'd go for the more peaceful option as that's most important to them.

Are you refering to Starfleet here, or some captain?
And yes, Starfleet would send them on the peaceful option. Becuase they are more science-orientated than they should be. This does not mean that they place a higher importance on civilian operations.

PM me if you want to bring that back up.

No. If you are going to apologise, you can do it here.

We're trying to decide whether for something to be a military it has to be devoted [at least 50%, realistically], or can do anything for 90% of the time.

What? I've seen the word 'devoted' in relation to operations a grand total of once, in your first post with the (unsourced) definition.

And I got that definition from a define: on google... you accused me before of not telling you where I got my source from even though I did.

Google is not a source. It links to sites which can be used as sources. I typed the very same word into google, and got nothing.
So I'll ask again; what site was that from?

If it was long term, only 10% of training was devoted to combat, while 90% was devoted to sea floor mapping, and then there was a load of scientific equipment on board (outnumbering the weaponary), yes, I would.

Forget the science equipment. I said everything else remains unchanged.
If the US navy sent its ships out on mapping missions, would you consider them to be non-military, despite their armament and their primary roles?

Importance =/= priority.

No, it dosen't. But Starfleet clearly places higher importance on military operations.

Because they all seem to have a fair understanding of how a ship works.

I've yet to see a security guard leap into action with a spanner. From this, we can assume they have purely military training.

Otherwise anyone could be a member of Starfleet security (no jokes - please), it would just require teaching general military things without any ship/universe workings, etc etc.

And where have we seen evidence that they are trained in anything but military matters?

Nothing is proof. Proof means without doubt. There clearly is doubt.

Oh, hello Mister Semantics! I thought I might have missed you this post.
My meaning is quite clear. Replace 'proof' with 'evidence'.

Which I wrote not meaning because it didn't say "space force", but because there is just no equivilent now to Starfleet.

You did not mention Starfleet at all in relation to that. You discarded the definition becuase it did not include the word 'space', you said so yourself.

Any organisation that sent something up to space would be controlled by non-military organisations. So no, I wouldn't put them under the heading of armed forces.

*sigh*
I'll say it again:
If a government controled organisation launched spatial warships would you consider them a member of the armed forces?
Who is in charge of this organisation is irrelevant.

I have no idea what you just said.

Fine, I'll simplefy it for you:
You attempted to use the dictionary to prove a point.
You then got rid of the dicitonary.
You then switched to 'primary purpose'.
You then got rid of that.
You then switched to 'time spent'.
You then got rid of that.
You then switched to 'resources alocated'.

How is this any possible benefit to anyone but yourself?

But if you're referring to the fact that I changed primary purpose to most common, I did it for your benefit, as, even though you knew that as I wrote primary purpose I meant most common, being pedantic you decided to take primary purpose as a different meaning.

I'm not psychic. When you say X, I don't know that you mean Y.

If it's interchangable - which you knew that is what I meant, then in your mind (!)[what the hell is this?-Rochey]couldn't you have changed it to "most common", without resorting to having to look up the definition and even then proving nothing.

No, I couldn't. And 'primary role' and 'most common role' are not interchangable.

You have not used the English definition, I didn't see highest priority anywhere. I saw importance, which could also mean what you place highest emphasis on. What you'd prefer to be doing.

What you consider to be the most important, is clearly the one which you place the highest emphasis on. ie; your highest priority.

"Do you remember when we use to be explorers" ad infinitum.

How does one captain complaining about being sent on military missions prove that starfleet considers itself civilian?

What they classify themselves as is important, if it's also backed up by what we else we see. There is clearly a lot of doubt about whether they are a military or scientific organisation. The fact they call themselves a scientific organisation, then, sways us to that classification.

I'll say it again:
If the US navy called themselves a civilian organisation without changeing a thing, would you consider them civilian?

They've stated numerous times that they're explorers.

They've also stated they are a military.

When did I say the Federation has no military? Again, making things up.

You stated the Federation's military is a civilian organisation, ergo they have no seperate military. How is that making things up?

But overall, the entirity of this science, exploratory, and military organisation, I would classify it as a science and exploratory organisation.

Then why do they call themselves a military?

If NASA sent up just one ship carrying missles, and it was there all the time - thus a portion of NASA is always undergoing military operations, would that make NASA a military? Nope.

No. And I never stated it would.

I have done no such thing. Accusations again.

You are using a completely different definition to the English language. Ergo, you are making your own definitions up.

I see no such proof of any of this - primary role can be considered what you are doing most often just as much as what your highest priority is.

I was not talking about primary purpose. I am talking about military.

As I have shown above, all your definitions are invalid and prove nothing.

You have attempted to invalidate my definitions due to the understandable absence of one word. They are not invalid.

[sunnyside]

Uh I don't get the usual reply buttons and stuff under Rochey's last reply. I think you broke the poor forum rochey.


Out of curiosity how long does it take you to create one of those beasts?

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Okay, I'm not going to argue this anymore. This is now a semantics arguement, and this conversation is going over the same points again and again. I may point out major flaws occasionally, but that's it.

I think it's clear that Starfleet acts as a military, but it seems to be it's secondary purpose. I still refuse to call it a military though.

[Thorin]

Maybe not the definition of 'military', but you have changed you own idea of what makes Starfleet a military or civilian organisation.

You started by attempting to claim that a completely unsourced (google is not a source, it links to sources) definition of the word 'military' proved that Starfleet is not a military.
When proved wrong by multiple sourced definitions, you immediately threw dictionaries out the window, and started claiming that their primary role is what defines what it is.
When proved that Starfleet's primary role is military, you then switched to how much time was spent doing civilian operations.
When proved that Starfleet spends just as much time doing both, you immediately swithced to how much assets were deployed on civilian or military roles.

Unsourced? Have you ever used google define feature? I just checked for the first definition not containing the word military, not in an adjective form, and not saying army, navy or airforce.
I wasn't proved wrong from the umpteenth time. All your definitions were invalid, and your attempt to carry on that I threw them, wrongly, out of the window is holding little ground. If you find me a valid definition, I will accept it. One that doesn't use the word military to describe the military, and one that relates to what we're discussing (ie, not Armed Forces, Army, Navy, etc etc).
I was never proved wrong regarding Starfleet's primary role. I changed only the words for your benefit. And what little good that seems to have done!
And the next point... Starfleet does not spend as much time doing both! A portion of Starfleet does. I'm just repeating what I've said goodness knows how many times before...

If I say '100% of the time, there will be members of the population asleep' it's quite easy to see that I do not mean 'every member of the population would be asleep 100% of the time'.

The very definition of anything means just that. Not a part of it. It's quite easy to see that, is it? Considering you were saying that Starfleet spends all its time doing military operations, you would say that.

You are right there. Looking back over your posts, I can't see where you said that. You have my apologies.

Okay.

I have proven that, using both the dictionary definition and the most common use of it, Starfleet's primary role is military.

I have rechecked your definitions and no where does it prove that a primary role doesn't have a meaning of what you do/are expected to do most of.

Fine. You can have your own definition, but don't try to use a personal definition to counter the proper definition.

I haven't. I was using the defintions that you gave - most important, for example. I was merely clearing for you, which definition I would be using.

You have claimed they are invalid for two reasons:
1) They don't include the word 'space'.
2) Your completely unsourced definition conflicts with the five sourced definitions I provided.

That hardly invalidates them.

I have not invalidated them because they don't include the word space.
I have invalidated them because;
They use the word military to describe military
They use just another name (Armed Forces, Army, Navy etc)
My definition doesn't conflict with your invalid ones. Because those are invalid. They don't describe what a military is. Hell, one of your definitions was an adjective form!

No, it dosen't.

I disagree.

Here's a hint; check the dictionary quotes I posted a few posts back.

*Yawn*
Read above...

Fine. But I am not debating using your personal definitions. Whether you like it or not.

...Read above...

I am not psychic. How the hell am I supposed to know that when you say 'primary role' you actualy mean 'that which most assets is deployed to'? Especialy when you insist on using your own definition for it.

Not psychich? Did I say you were? How you were suppose to know? Because before I wrote, two or three times, primary role = most common = what you do most, or something to that effect.

Then why does Starfleet drop everything when there is the chance of conflict?

Because shit happens.

Are you refering to Starfleet here, or some captain?
And yes, Starfleet would send them on the peaceful option. Becuase they are more science-orientated than they should be. This does not mean that they place a higher importance on civilian operations.

Yes, it does.

No. If you are going to apologise, you can do it here.

I said nothing about an apology. I said if you want to discuss the matter.

What? I've seen the word 'devoted' in relation to operations a grand total of once, in your first post with the (unsourced) definition.

My entire point is whether or not Starfleet can be classed a military; based on two factors.
It spends only 10% of it's time undergoing military operations [thus is undevoted to military 'causes'].
It's highest priority, is however, to defend the Federation.

Google is not a source. It links to sites which can be used as sources. I typed the very same word into google, and got nothing.
So I'll ask again; what site was that from?

What? It was on the URL of google. I've just checked and it says it's sourced from wikipedia. If you type in 'Define:military', google uses a list of definitions presumably hand picked from a load of websites. That definition was the first one that wasn't invalid. You can check for yourself.

Forget the science equipment. I said everything else remains unchanged.
If the US navy sent its ships out on mapping missions, would you consider them to be non-military, despite their armament and their primary roles?

If it was long term, yes. Obviously not if they did it for a couple of days. After a couple of years, maybe, and it was going to be carried on.

No, it dosen't. But Starfleet clearly places higher importance on military operations.

I disagree.

I've yet to see a security guard leap into action with a spanner. From this, we can assume they have purely military training.

I doubt it, to say that they just go on a starship only knowing how to fire a gun and guard doors, is a bit far fetched.

And where have we seen evidence that they are trained in anything but military matters?

Even if they were not, this is again, just a portion of the overall ship's crew. Just because a company has security guards at night, does that make them a military?

Oh, hello Mister Semantics! I thought I might have missed you this post.
My meaning is quite clear. Replace 'proof' with 'evidence'.

Saying you've proved someone/thing wrong is rather different to having contrary evidence...

You did not mention Starfleet at all in relation to that. You discarded the definition becuase it did not include the word 'space', you said so yourself.

My apologies. I have said in my previous post what I actually meant (a lack of an equivilent to a space exploratory and fighting force).

*sigh*
I'll say it again:
If a government controled organisation launched spatial warships would you consider them a member of the armed forces?
Who is in charge of this organisation is irrelevant.

No, I wouldn't consider them a member of the armed forces/military.

Fine, I'll simplefy it for you:
You attempted to use the dictionary to prove a point.
You then got rid of the dicitonary.
You then switched to 'primary purpose'.
You then got rid of that.
You then switched to 'time spent'.
You then got rid of that.
You then switched to 'resources alocated'.

How is this any possible benefit to anyone but yourself?

I didn't get rid of the dictionary. I have said if you find me a valid definition I will accept it. But all your definitions were invalid. You have thus provided me with no definitions.

I'm not psychic. When you say X, I don't know that you mean Y.

See above - I said in my previous post that primary role = most common.

No, I couldn't. And 'primary role' and 'most common role' are not interchangable.

Debatable in an essence, but the context I used them in, and the context of this entire debate, they are.

What you consider to be the most important, is clearly the one which you place the highest emphasis on. ie; your highest priority.

Starfleet places a higher emphasis on scientific missions. Not her highest priority.

How does one captain complaining about being sent on military missions prove that starfleet considers itself civilian?

Because they clearly are explorers. As he just said...

I'll say it again:
If the US navy called themselves a civilian organisation without changeing a thing, would you consider them civilian?

No. But as I have just said, and will say again, there is no doubt as to what the US navy is. If there was a possibility it could be a scientific organisation (for example, spending nearly all it's time on mapping), and then they said it wasn't a military, I would consider them civilian. If it were of course doing it long term. So see above.

They've also stated they are a military.

I don't ever remember them saying that.

You stated the Federation's military is a civilian organisation, ergo they have no seperate military. How is that making things up?

I have stated the Federation's military is a civilian organisation - correct. I didn't say they have no military. Again, I said it is intermingled with the scientific/exploratory organisation.

Then why do they call themselves a military?

Because they don't?

No. And I never stated it would.

And what's the difference with Starfleet? If NASA used this ships to lob a bomb every now and again. But it still mostly used it's resources for going to the moon or fixing satellited etc.

You are using a completely different definition to the English language. Ergo, you are making your own definitions up.

I am not using a different definition.

I was not talking about primary purpose. I am talking about military.

Which there have been no valid definitions (apart from mine, by co-incidence).

You have attempted to invalidate my definitions due to the understandable absence of one word. They are not invalid.

Again, I did not mean because of the lack of the word space. I have already said above why they are all invalid.

[Granitehewer]

Rochey,Thorin, you're both good lads, don't you think that this thread has run its natural course,now?

[Thorin]

Rochey,Thorin, you're both good lads, don't you think that this thread has run its natural course,now?

Yes. But we're both too stubborn to even agree to disagree.

[Teaos]

So long as you arent going around in circles and have new points there is no reason to stop.

[sunnyside]

What the heck are they even arguing about at this point?

[Teaos]

The definition of a military.

Is Starfleet a military.

Is a civilian agency part of the military if it does military related things.

We have a case of the "Starfleet syndrome" here

[sunnyside]

Wait so they're not even arguing what starfleet does, but they're arguing semantics? Semantics of the future?

[Teaos]

Pretty much yeah.