View Single Post
  #74  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:54 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

I never liked The Enterprise Incident and The Pegasus, an episode which is more relevant when we talk about TNG, clearly condemned the actions of Starfleet intelligence. Same in case of the last DS9 episodes, they cleared condemned Section 31's plan. Same in INS, you see Doughtery and the Federation Council making a dire mistake and the movie condemns it. So whether you like it or not, INS is not structurally different from similar DS9 stories.

To repeat my TUC&FC point, you can show Starfleet engaged in all kind of nasty sh*t as long as the characters or the subtext says that it is wrong. Paradise should be in constant danger, it should be something you have to constantly strive for in order to just maintain it.
But when the subtext says that nasty sh*t is OK Trek becomes something which it is not: reactionary crap. I do not wanna talk badly about the dead but Ebert's utilitarian argument concerning INS is an implicit argument for imperialism. Now if we did not talk about an inter- but an intra-society issue I am all for "the needs of the many" type of arguments. I couldn't care less about a bunch of stubborn fu*ks who wanna continue living in Cardassian space. Peace is more important than satisfying the whims of people who wanna continue living in the "Outer Rim" instead of the "Core". But stealing from ANOTHER people, kidnapping them and condemning them to die instead of simply talking with them to gain access to a resource of medical relevance is plain wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Picards pro-Federation stance is admirable but at times he seems remarkably ignorant of the Federations activities. Well, when you're a well fed and luxuriously kept Federation Captain you can afford to have high principles I guess.
And if you are poor you cannot? Bullcrap. Last time I checked it were mainly the down-trodden who changed things for the better in history. Pretending that the rule of law and common decency is a luxury for the rich or implies costs for ordinary people is plain preposterous. It is the other way around, the elites profit from war, not the common men.

As I indicated in my previous post, the implicit basis of this discussion is politics.

Last edited by horatio : 06-03-2013 at 08:02 AM.
Reply With Quote