Why I dont consider Enterprise as part of trek.........

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 11:39 am

Well those babies wont have died if you complet you motion.

lets play with that line of thinking: well why fired any torpedos they may kill the janitorial staff that are not part of the enemy or may be a brick could fly out to the bilding and hit a baby. Maybe some of those people in the building are only with the enemy because they have no chose..... So dont fier at the building at all.

thats a slippery slope falacy. their objective was to destroy the building. that minimum had to be achieved. and they did there was no need to go further.

about the enterprise dogfighting scene, 2 things:

1) enterprise was badly damaged and had been shot at in that very episode. you cant expect them to perform well.
2) as you say they are DOGFIGHTING, we saw how the defiant confused a neggie by getting in close, thats a canon precedent from DS9 (try take that out of canon and you'll die ) the stukas are tiny compared to the enterprise, and the engagement is happening in an atmosphere rather than in space, and at a range that is far closer than the design was intended for. they could easily miss.

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 1:10 pm

Enterprise still maintained power enough to do quite a bit of fancy flying AND reach escape velocity as I recall.

All they needed to do was say 'ok we know were factory is, try getting us high up'

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 1:24 pm

reaching escape velocity with impulse engines isnt exactly fancy flying. they were already moving.

they couldnt fire from a distance, since the earlier attack 'sploded their targeting sensors. i have a feeling due to your hatred and bias against enterprise, that you didnt watch this episode. in which case you are not in a place to criticise it, due to lack of facts.

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 2:32 pm

Functioning in an atmosphere isn't easy for a ship not designed to operate there; Voyager was damaged and got screwed after entering the atmosphere, and they were supposed to go in.

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 8:29 pm

Honestly I like Ent because in a time when all people want to see is big explosions and hot chicks they tried to keep up with the rest of star trek and keep to exploring and peace. In fact i thought it was only bad because I really didn't like any of the characters, but other then that the plots were pretty decent and the time travel was for ratings

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 8:35 pm

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of the episode Dear Doctor?

Just out of curosity...

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 8:42 pm

I thought it showed that when they were out in the big bad universe they make decisions that have huge repercussions and that they really don't know what they were doing. Other then the fact that I thought the acting was annoying it was a good episode because they made a hard decision and in their spot what would you do?

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 8:45 pm

The complete opposite of what Archer and doctor Hitler did and not try to pretend there was a moral decision or a tough choice.

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 8:51 pm

i agree with archer and phlox in this case. later the prime directive would be devised to force starfleet officers to not meddle. no matter what your good intentions are, you shouldnt make those decisions, even if you are able to make the decisions.

its not their place to fiddle with other planets like that. picard gave a good speech in TNG: Pen Pals about how you shouldn't meddle cos its a slippery slope.

it may seem callous for them not to give the cure, but the prime directive would later force them not to make contact at all.

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 8:55 pm

No they could make contact, I think that species was warp capable

[Tyler]

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 8:56 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 3rd, 2011, 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Withholding the cure wasn't callous, it was genocide.

The Case For Genocide Against Phlox And Archer

Ant the Valakians were pre-Warp.

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 9:12 pm

classing what they did as genocide clearly displays an emotional reaction and a lack of understanding of genocide.

the problem in that species wasnt caused by archer (or phlox). if archer had never run accross that ship and was on risa at the time, there would obviously be no case for genocide.

if you have cancer and a glaxo doesnt give you a cancer drug and you die, are glaxo guilty of murder? of course not.

granted the reasons for withholding are different, glaxo want money in this case.

but archer isnt guilty of genocide. his only mistake was making contact with a pre warp race to begin with. its not his place to interfere and play god. who is archer to decide this race deserves to live? forgetting the other race completely. its too big a decision to meddle in. the consquences are vast and could be serious.

the question of whether archer did genocide is easily answered by looking at the definition of genocide (lets use the UN definition to have something concrete). genocide is active, you have to actually do something to commit genocide. archer did nothing.

whether archer's inaction is moral/immoral is an incredibly hard question to answer. simple application of my morals would lead me to believe that the decision is wrong. but the problem is far from simple due to how vast the action will be. the prolonging of an entire species is such a complex action, with so many possible repercussions, i wouldnt want to make such a decision. thats why the prime directive is the prime directive and not an obscure starfleet regulation.

i certainly have no idea what i would do in his place.

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 9:15 pm

Read the site?

[Anonymous]

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 9:20 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on January 3rd, 2011, 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Read the site?

yep, and its argument based on depraved indifference in flawed as it compares an entire race to the death of 1 person.

you cant argue depraved indifference for an entire race.

people die in africa every few seconds, right now as i type this they are dying and i am sounding more and more like al gore speechifying at you.

you arent donating all your money to help them. full action would be to dedicate your entire life to saving these lives, by giving all your money to charity, going to africa etc. you are doing considerably less, ie you are displaying inaction. are you responsible for the deaths? you have the means to save (some of) them, but you dont.

the decision in this case is far too big for 1 man to make. to decide the fate of an entire race is not something i would want to do. the consequences so severe that you could cause untold death, no matter how good your intentions.

---

EDIT: also i do believe depraved indifference is an american legal term too. it cannot be applied to the future and to interplanetary things.

there is no interplanetary law at the time of archer's actions. no law to say what genocide is. i am only working from the UN definition i provided earlier. which isnt even agreed on by everyone on this 1 planet.

[Tyler]

posted on January 3rd, 2011, 9:29 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 3rd, 2011, 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They didn't have to choose a race, Phlox's argument that they evolved to death was flawed. Just like the argument that the others reached the next stage and couldn't continue evolving with them around when the Valakians were the reason they were improving.

Promising to help and creating a cure, only to hold back and lie about it they chose extinction over the co-existence of the natives. They were willingly involved. Genocide doesn't require pointing weapons at the planet.

If they stayed out or failed the cure, it would be just another race to vanish or another Starfleet couldn't save.