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

posted on January 4th, 2011, 6:00 pm

The Prime Directive preventing assistence to only Warp-Capable races (and sometimes not even those) wouldn't apply to the Valakians. Races already exposed to aliens and superior tech are an exception. Was the species from Pen Pals warp-capable? Once a member of that race made contact with Enterprise, even Picard (reluctantly) considered them viable.

pen pals happened much the same way as homeward. a person on the ship already violated the prime directive in the past. picard gave an awesome speech in pen pals which made everyone think twice about how willing they are to help. their actions in pen pals and homeward were violations of the prime directive, but they were damage control. data should have been punished for breaking the prime directive. was he switched off during the academy lesson on the prime directive?

Warp-capable races were only the ones they helped willingly, others had to contact them and ask directly, exposing themselves to aliens exactly as the Valakians had done at least twice already.

it doesnt matter if they ask, interefering with developing cultures is wrong. where do you stop interfering? whats the arbitrary line you cannot cross? the only correct action is to not interfere, to not play god as you put it.

How 'right' it was is still debatable, due to lack of understanding of what actually put them in the position they were in when Enterprise condemned them (I don't remember anything concrete proving it was natural). Building them up and willingly condemning them the way they did isn't as morally clear as minding your own business from the start. Especially after getting to the point of holding a cure in their hand and tossing it aside, that isn't simple interferrence, it's playing god.

telling the aliens that they would help them was definitely 100% wrong. its was a mistake, but it doesnt justify another mistake. the assumption should be that things are natural unless proven not.

whether they decide on inaction at the start or when they have the cure, its still the right choice.

[Tyler]

posted on January 4th, 2011, 6:29 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 4th, 2011, 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pen pals happened much the same way as homeward. a person on the ship already violated the prime directive in the past. picard gave an awesome speech in pen pals which made everyone think twice about how willing they are to help. their actions in pen pals and homeward were violations of the prime directive, but they were damage control. data should have been punished for breaking the prime directive. was he switched off during the academy lesson on the prime directive?

Data breaking the directive wasn't what got them saved, it was her contacting the ship directly and asking. Prior to her asking during the discussion, Picard was content to sit back and watch (whether or not he was happy about it was debatable).

it doesnt matter if they ask, interefering with developing cultures is wrong. where do you stop interfering? whats the arbitrary line you cannot cross? the only correct action is to not interfere, to not play god as you put it.

It matters a lot if they ask, Starfleet is a humanitarian force; assisting others is part of their job. If they've already been exposed to aliens (like the Valakians), they're viable as the directive no longer covers them.

Strange to hear that philosophical question when your impression of the Directive is "Let them die! They're unworthy of saving". The line is debatable and I don't think anything could be reached on something like that, but once you've agreed to help, the line shouldn't be involved. Once you're committed to helping someone, you've already gone too far. It would be immoral to stop when it's a medical problem.

telling the aliens that they would help them was definitely 100% wrong. its was a mistake, but it doesnt justify another mistake. the assumption should be that things are natural unless proven not.

whether they decide on inaction at the start or when they have the cure, its still the right choice.

It was only right if they didn't try when it was still an option. Once they went ahead, they should have gone with moral option. To do otherwise would only make their suffering even worse than if you didn't do anything. Actually making the cure and hiding it just makes it worse; that's no better than holding a gun to their heads yourself.

Archer: "To hell with nature. You're a doctor, you have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering".


On a related note: I generally agree with the Kirk-style Prime Directive rather than the Picard-style one. More flexible and benevolent. Sounds like you prefer the Picard-style one?

posted on January 4th, 2011, 7:55 pm

Data breaking the directive wasn't what got them saved, it was her contacting the ship directly and asking. Prior to her asking during the discussion, Picard was content to sit back and watch (whether or not he was happy about it was debatable).

thats factually incorrect. she sent a message out into the void, not knowing if anybody would get it. data answered. when data told picard he practically blew a gasket. picard wanted to headbutt data. and even then picard almost left her. he decided not to because he was trying to minimise the impact of data's violation.

It matters a lot if they ask, Starfleet is a humanitarian force; assisting others is part of their job. If they've already been exposed to aliens (like the Valakians), they're viable as the

it doesnt matter at all. say they asked for gunz. starfleet cant go around the galaxy giving people presents like santa. nor can they play god and meddle in other planets' affairs. the fact that they asked doesnt change the fact that starfleet shouldnt be changing these people's development.

Once you're committed to helping someone, you've already gone too far. It would be immoral to stop when it's a medical problem.

they werent committed. they said they would. they later made liars of themselves. tough on the aliens. 2 wrongs doesnt make a right.

It was only right if they didn't try when it was still an option. Once they went ahead, they should have gone with moral option. To do otherwise would only make their suffering even worse than if you didn't do anything. Actually making the cure and hiding it just makes it worse; that's no better than holding a gun to their heads yourself.

its nothing like holding a gun to their heads. the first decision to start work on the problem was a mistake, giving them the cure would compound that mistake.

Archer: "To hell with nature. You're a doctor, you have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering".

how about "you have a moral obligation to decide which races get to live and which die. go ahead and change an entire planet's future."

archer and phlox are not people who should be making that sort of decision.

On a related note: I generally agree with the Kirk-style Prime Directive rather than the Picard-style one. More flexible and benevolent. Sounds like you prefer the Picard-style one?

i dont watch much tos so i only know the picard style one. i think its a good idea. stay out of their business until they get warp drive. and even then limit your influence on them.

[Tyler]

posted on January 4th, 2011, 8:32 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 4th, 2011, 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thats factually incorrect. she sent a message out into the void, not knowing if anybody would get it. data answered. when data told picard he practically blew a gasket. picard wanted to headbutt data. and even then picard almost left her. he decided not to because he was trying to minimise the impact of data's violation.

She was trying to get Data, specifically. Even referring to him by name. That is very different to sending it out into the void in a random direction.

Saving them increased the impact, with Data speaking to one person and leaving them to die having no further impact. Calling it 'minimizing the effect' is the opposite of what happened.

it doesnt matter at all. say they asked for gunz. starfleet cant go around the galaxy giving people presents like santa. nor can they play god and meddle in other planets' affairs. the fact that they asked doesnt change the fact that starfleet shouldnt be changing these people's development.

Except that they do, while their reason varies, fact that they actually do it doesn't. Helping a world that was already spacefaring and already being influenced by the presence of outsiders isn't a problem. Under the conditions that a space-faring race had previous contact with others and the risk of contamination was minimal, Starfleet is will to lend a hand.

they werent committed. they said they would. they later made liars of themselves. tough on the aliens. 2 wrongs doesnt make a right.

They were quite commited, even to the point of suggesting staying behind for an extended period to help. T'Pol shut that one down, though reminding them that the Vulcans did that and are still on Earth. The cultural contamination risk was minimal, due to them already exposing themselves to the presence of alien life and cultures with greater tech levels.

how about "you have a moral obligation to decide which races get to live and which die. go ahead and change an entire planet's future."

That's exactly what doctors do. Saving a species isn't the same as contaminating the culture. If you want to see an example of culture contamination, look for the TOS episode where a Federation observer revives the Nazi party on an alien world.

the first decision to start work on the problem was a mistake, giving them the cure would compound that mistake.

Giving them the cure wouldn't have been a mistake; they had no reason not to. Due to their connection to the Menk also on the planet, the people they withheld the cure to help would actually be worse off because of it and would have benefited from Valakian survival. The entire point of not giving the cure was to make life better for the Menk by ensuring the Valakians died out, despite co-existence being what caused the 'evolution' they were trying to allow.

Warp-capability isn't even a concrete requirement, only 'sufficiently advanced and has developed interstellar travel' with Warp being just one option. The Valakians were space-faring and capable of leaving their home system, if slowly.

i dont watch much tos so i only know the picard style one. i think its a good idea. stay out of their business until they get warp drive. and even then limit your influence on them.

In TOS, Starfleet was willing to save a culture as long as the ship they send was able to do so without influencing (or even meeting if possible) the population. Like in TNG's Pen Pals, where they solved the climate problem then erased the memory of the only person aware of what happen, preventing any influence being caused to the natives.

Far more humane, yet still keeping the lack of influence as a priority. In TNG, they won't even help Warp-capable races at times.

posted on January 4th, 2011, 8:56 pm

She was trying to get Data, specifically. Even referring to him by name. That is very different to sending it out into the void in a random direction.

she only knew data by name after he talked to her....

how on earth (or weird alien planet) could she know his name before he spoke to her....

he had to speak to her before she could possibly refer to him by name.

Except that they do, while their reason varies, fact that they actually do it doesn't. Helping a world that was already spacefaring and already being influenced by the presence of outsiders isn't a problem. Under the conditions that a space-faring race had previous contact with others and the risk of contamination was minimal, Starfleet is will to lend a hand.

having previous contact with aliens doesnt mean that you are allowed to meddle in their affairs.  they are a developing race, far less developed than earth, its not earth's place to roam around the galaxy changing things on that scale, it would be arrogant to think we have the right to run aroun doing such things without concern for consequences.

They were quite commited, even to the point of suggesting staying behind for an extended period to help. T'Pol shut that one down, though reminding them that the Vulcans did that and are still on Earth. The cultural contamination risk was minimal, due to them already exposing themselves to the presence of alien life and cultures with greater tech levels.

not that type of committed, committed as in had to do it because of a contract or something. they only said they would. a verbal agreement can be broken easily. its distasteful but archer should have never told these people they were gonna help to begin with.

That's exactly what doctors do. Saving a species isn't the same as contaminating the culture. If you want to see an example of culture contamination, look for the TOS episode where a Federation observer revives the Nazi party on an alien world.

no doctor decides the future of other planets. being a doctor is far different from changing the genetic makeup of a race.

Giving them the cure wouldn't have been a mistake; they had no reason not to. Due to their connection to the Menk also on the planet, the people they withheld the cure to help would actually be worse off because of it.

they did have a reason not to, because its not their place to decide these things for another race.

Warp-capability isn't even a concrete requirement, only 'sufficiently advanced and has developed interstellar travel' with Warp being just one option. The Valakians were space-faring and capable of leaving their home system, if slowly.

how fast do they need to move before they are sufficiently advanced enough? who even gets to make these value judgements? regardless of this, in this case the species in question were far behind earth, its nothing short of arrogant to believe we have to right to meddle in their business.

In TOS, Starfleet was willing to save a culture as long as the ship they send was able to do so without influencing (or even meeting if possible) the population. Like in TNG's Pen Pals, where they solved the climate problem then erased the memory of the only person aware of what happen, preventing any influence being caused to the natives.

Far more humane, yet still keeping the lack of influence as a priority. In TNG, they won't even help Warp-capable races at times.

i prefer tng version, as i prefer tng in most ways. its not starfleets place to interfere, even with warp capable species. certain things they will obviously never get involved in, like wars etc.  other things are more sensitive. they will usually offer food and medical supplies to anyone with warp drive.

in the end it comes down to a value judgement of where the line is drawn on what is acceptable interference and what isnt. when is it not starfleets business? as the vulcans learned, when is your work done, and you can leave? if starfleet truly cared they would stay forever and fix as many of the societies' problems as they could. obviously that is not possible. i think we have exhausted both of our arguments and the time for agree to disagree is soon approaching. for my last thought i will leave us with one of picard's greatest speeches, from pen pals.

PICARD: So Doctor, you draw the line at the death of millions.

PULASKI: Yes.

PICARD: Same situation if it's an epidemic rather than a geological catastrophe?

PULASKI: Absolutely.

PICARD: How about a war? A generations-long conflict that is killing millions. Do we interfere?

There is an uncomfortable silence.

PICARD: (continuing) Now we're less secure in our moral certitude. And what if it's not death. What if it's an oppressive government which is enslaving millions?

He scans the faces of his officers.

PICARD: (continuing) The Prime Directive serves many purposes. Not the least of which is to protect us. It keeps us from allowing our emotions to overrule our judgement.

posted on January 4th, 2011, 9:19 pm

PICARD: (continuing) The Prime Directive serves many purposes. Not the least of which is to protect us. It keeps us from allowing our emotions to overrule our judgement.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEKywn7fhVo&NR=1[/youtube]

[Tyler]

posted on January 4th, 2011, 9:32 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 4th, 2011, 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

she only knew data by name after he talked to her....

how on earth (or weird alien planet) could she know his name before he spoke to her....

he had to speak to her before she could possibly refer to him by name.

She knew his name, and spoke to him directly. Proving she wasn't being random, she was trying to get a specific person.

having previous contact with aliens doesnt mean that you are allowed to meddle in their affairs.  they are a developing race, far less developed than earth, its not earth's place to roam around the galaxy changing things on that scale, it would be arrogant to think we have the right to run aroun doing such things without concern for consequences.

Having previous contact means the directives main purpose as a shield is void. It made them valid as the risk of contamination was minimal. It's not arrogant to help desperate people reduced to begging. There's a difference between helping and playing god, Enterprise started out with the former, which wasn't too big a problem but ended up doing the latter, which was very much a problem.

not that type of committed, committed as in had to do it because of a contract or something. they only said they would. a verbal agreement can be broken easily. its distasteful but archer should have never told these people they were gonna help to begin with.

They said they would, and many people tend to be obligated to do what they say they will. Breaking it makes you no less of a disgrace than breaking a written contract.

no doctor decides the future of other planets. being a doctor is far different from changing the genetic makeup of a race.

Doctors decide the fate of their patients, exactly as their job demands. Planet or individual, it's still a patient and still subject to his oath as a doctor. Disiese or random mutation, a doctor is still supposed to help those who suffer.

they did have a reason not to, because its not their place to decide these things for another race.

By that idea, Starfleet should never help anyone, ever, as they have no right to do anything involving a non-Federation world. They should never do anything involving other race or even exist, as their presence influences the future of the races that joined to make them.

The 'no right' argument is like Rikers suggestion of a divine cosmic plan that 'mere mortals' have no place tampering with. Are you religious, by any chance?

i prefer tng version, as i prefer tng in most ways. its not starfleets place to interfere, even with warp capable species. certain things they will obviously never get involved in, like wars etc.  other things are more sensitive. they will usually offer food and medical supplies to anyone with warp drive.

in the end it comes down to a value judgement of where the line is drawn on what is acceptable interference and what isnt. when is it not starfleets business? as the vulcans learned, when is your work done, and you can leave? if starfleet truly cared they would stay forever and fix as many of the societies' problems as they could. obviously that is not possible. i think we have exhausted both of our arguments and the time for agree to disagree is soon approaching. for my last thought i will leave us with one of picard's greatest speeches, from pen pals.

PICARD: So Doctor, you draw the line at the death of millions.

PULASKI: Yes.

PICARD: Same situation if it's an epidemic rather than a geological catastrophe?

PULASKI: Absolutely.

PICARD: How about a war? A generations-long conflict that is killing millions. Do we interfere?

There is an uncomfortable silence.

PICARD: (continuing) Now we're less secure in our moral certitude. And what if it's not death. What if it's an oppressive government which is enslaving millions?

He scans the faces of his officers.

PICARD: (continuing) The Prime Directive serves many purposes. Not the least of which is to protect us. It keeps us from allowing our emotions to overrule our judgement.

The problem I have with the TNG version is that it lost what it originally was; a shield to prevent others being tampered with. The modern version is often treated like an infallible law passed by God Himself that can do no wrong. People often believe that if you can find 1 thing you shouldn't do, everything else is automatically invalidated by extension, which is what Picard suggests in that episode; no special circumstances, just an absolute. Picards interpritation of the directive is one of the few things about his approach I generally don't agree with.

It was supposed to allow races to develop at their own rate, without being polluted by knowledge and tech from others before they were ready to devlop it by themselves, not give them a reason to watch any races deemed beneath their notice from dying out... the newer, more heartless one just doesn't sit right with me.

posted on January 4th, 2011, 10:01 pm

lol @mal they did change picard into an angry action hero in the films. it annoyed me too, cos i really prefer tng picard.

She knew his name, and spoke to him directly. Proving she wasn't being random, she was trying to get a specific person.

lol ill explain again, she only addressed him by name after he spoke to her. when he spoke to her for the first time, she didnt know he existed. so data did break the prime directive.

how could she know his name before he told her it? obviously she must have been transmitting without knowledge of data. he answered. data even confirmed this in dialogue when he was fessing up to picard and picard's face dropped like his horse's

Having previous contact means the directives main purpose as a shield is void. It made them valid as the risk of contamination was minimal. It's not arrogant to help desperate people reduced to begging. There's a difference between helping and playing god, Enterprise started out with the former, which wasn't too big a problem but ended up doing the latter, which was very much a problem.

in this case, helping and playing god are the same. it is arrogant to believe you can just fly in and start meddling with people's dna and changing the entire course of their race.

They said they would, and many people tend to be obligated to do what they say they will. Breaking it makes you no less of a disgrace than breaking a written contract.

many people break their word. doesnt make them guilty of genocide. archer promising to help these aliens and then not is bad, its just not genocide. archer should feel bad for giving these people hope then going back on it. but thats a mistake they made in order to learn and make the prime directive.

Doctors decide the fate of their patients, exactly as their job demands. Planet or individual, it's still a patient and still subject to his oath as a doctor. Disiese or random mutation, a doctor is still supposed to help those who suffer.

planet and individual are vastly different. doctors cant choose to cure an entire developing race just cos they feel its moral. thats an incredibly arrogant thing to do.

what about if a race has slavery (much like earth) and many many people are suffering and being killed like in an epidemic. are starfleet justified in forcibly changing the régime? starfleet cant go around affecting entire planets so easily.

By that idea, Starfleet should never help anyone, ever, as they have no right to do anything involving a non-Federation world. They should never do anything involving other race or even exist, as their presence influences the future of the races that joined to make them.

starfleet weighs up most choices for quite a while, usually helping those who are warp capable. and even then only helping on specific things.instead of a parent helping a child its more like allies helping each other out. there is usually give and take. bajor is a good example, they were preparing bajor to contribute to the federatino as a member. starfleet helping the valakawaka whatevers is more like starfleet leading them by the hand. of course there are some limited times where the rules are less strict, just like with most rules. but in this case enterprise was right to not interfere. they should never have gone to that planet at all.

The 'no right' argument is like Rikers suggestion of a divine cosmic plan that 'mere mortals' have no place tampering with. Are you religious, by any chance?

i dont agree with riker about a cosmic plan, and im an athiest.

i do not believe in making decisions as if we were gods. how is 1 human (archer in this case, a human not renowned for his wisdom/intelligence) capable of making that decision properly? it would be hubris in the extreme to believe we are capable of making such choices.

i dont believe in fate, but i also believe that humans shouldnt run around the galaxy deciding things like the only reasonable opinion is our own. we're just not that perfect.

The problem I have with the TNG version is that it lost what it originally was; a shield to prevent others being tampered with. The modern version is often treated like an infallible law passed by God Himself that can do no wrong. People often believe that if you can find 1 thing you shouldn't do, everything else is automatically invalidated by extension, which is what Picard suggests in that episode; no special circumstances, just an absolute. Picards interpritation of the directive is one of the few things about his approach I generally don't agree with.

It was supposed to allow races to develop at their own rate, without being polluted by knowledge and tech from others before they were ready to devlop it by themselves, not give them a reason to watch any races deemed beneath their notice from dying out... the newer, more heartless one just doesn't sit right with me.

the tng version isnt heartless, you could see the emotion in that room, so strong it eventually made picard technically violate the directive in saving their world, obviously the directive isnt an absolute as micro-brain worf suggested. starfleet didnt come down on them like a iso-ton of bricks, presumably because they pulled it off without any serious contamination (that they know of). they probably gave picard a speech about not letting it happen again though.

the tng version is a version tempered by mistakes of the past where entire cultures possibly were destroyed by mistakes starfleet made. its a cautious version. totally opposite to tos, but then starfleet was totally different by then as janeway notes. officers got away with an awful lot back then. less accountability, more testosterone, shorter skirts, mistakes were probably made.

agree to disagree?

posted on January 4th, 2011, 10:44 pm

Heh, I think this is turning into one of those agree-to-disagree situations.

I can see where you're coming from Myles, but personally (and this is just my own personal opinion), I'd rather be called arrogant for 'playing God' and saving a billion people from a natural disaster, than have their deaths on my conscience for sitting by and doing nothing if I had the capability to save them...

[Tyler]

posted on January 4th, 2011, 10:51 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 4th, 2011, 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, if being called arrogant was the price for doing what I thought was right, it's worth it.

The Valakians in particular isn't 'just a population' dying; it's an entire species, both present and future. Along with their history.

lol ill explain again, she only addressed him by name after he spoke to her. when he spoke to her for the first time, she didnt know he existed. so data did break the prime directive.

how could she know his name before he told her it? obviously she must have been transmitting without knowledge of data. he answered. data even confirmed this in dialogue when he was fessing up to picard and picard's face dropped like his horse's

I never said she knew his name beforehand, only that asking for him specifically proved she wasn't being random, not anymore at least. That single 'voice from the stars' became her sole focus.

in this case, helping and playing god are the same. it is arrogant to believe you can just fly in and start meddling with people's dna and changing the entire course of their race.

Starfleet does still it, Picard has saved other from extinction multiple times, he had to be pushed into it, but showed that modern Starfleet can still help if the suffering gets to them. Archer didn't agree because he believed he had a right (that's Janeway), he did it because he was asked and it was the humane choice to try and help someone in need.

planet and individual are vastly different. doctors cant choose to cure an entire developing race just cos they feel its moral. thats an incredibly arrogant thing to do.

Not really, a planet is just a large group of individuals. Again, it's the humane thing to do, trying to help the less fortunate. May not be the smartest in the long run depending on how the race later turns out, but the most 'human' thing to do.

what about if a race has slavery (much like earth) and many many people are suffering and being killed like in an epidemic. are starfleet justified in forcibly changing the régime? starfleet cant go around affecting entire planets so easily.

An epidemic is justified, especially one caused by another intelligence. DS9 certainly viewed it as acceptable. It's just a disese outbreak, I'd be more concerned about the species themselves and how they'd react to aliens suddenly showing up to help.

For slavery, it dends on what you mean; a race using slavery on their own kind, or a race enslaved by another. I woudn't get involved in the former, but the latter yes. Another reason I agree with Kirks view that the directive mainly applies to living and growing civilisations, less to those enslaved by others or in a state of 'arrested development'.

starfleet weighs up most choices for quite a while, usually helping those who are warp capable. and even then only helping on specific things.instead of a parent helping a child its more like allies helping each other out. there is usually give and take. bajor is a good example, they were preparing bajor to contribute to the federatino as a member. starfleet helping the valakawaka whatevers is more like starfleet leading them by the hand. of course there are some limited times where the rules are less strict, just like with most rules. but in this case enterprise was right to not interfere. they should never have gone to that planet at all.

Starfleet won't even help it's allies sometimes, even when they have a large stake in the result, like the Klingon civil war. The directive is meant to have an exception where they can get involved in something that threatens their safety, which they knew a Duras victory certainly would do.

The Valakian one was less 'holding their hand' and more of a temporary hold off on death for one crisis. Holding them by the hands would be closer to what the Vulcans were doing on Earth.

i dont agree with riker about a cosmic plan, and im an athiest.

i do not believe in making decisions as if we were gods. how is 1 human (archer in this case, a human not renowned for his wisdom/intelligence) capable of making that decision properly? it would be hubris in the extreme to believe we are capable of making such choices.

All they were really doing was helping them hold off early extinction a single time, something Picard has done with several worlds before. It would be hubris to believe he could make the universe work how he wanted, but here he was only helping a dying race have 1 last chance to survive.

Shame they didn't keep the original ending, which I hear was originally to have Archer agree with Phlox at the end, but still be conflicted about it. Would have helped his speech at the end.

i dont believe in fate, but i also believe that humans shouldnt run around the galaxy deciding things like the only reasonable opinion is our own. we're just not that perfect.

the tng version isnt heartless, you could see the emotion in that room, so strong it eventually made picard technically violate the directive in saving their world, obviously the directive isnt an absolute as micro-brain worf suggested. starfleet didnt come down on them like a iso-ton of bricks, presumably because they pulled it off without any serious contamination (that they know of). they probably gave picard a speech about not letting it happen again though.

the tng version is a version tempered by mistakes of the past where entire cultures possibly were destroyed by mistakes starfleet made. its a cautious version. totally opposite to tos, but then starfleet was totally different by then as janeway notes. officers got away with an awful lot back then. less accountability, more testosterone, shorter skirts, mistakes were probably made.

agree to disagree?

I never said we should act like the only reasonable ones, only that they should try to help others without interferring in the culture itself if it's possible. They don't need to alter the culture of the aliens, and are supposed to be humanitarians.

The people aren't heartless, but it's exactly how the new directive itself comes across; if the planet's beaking up and they're not advanced enough, the directive says "leave them alone, it's not our place". They could easily fix it and not be noticed by the locals.

They made mistakes that even TOS (or was it a book?) mentioned, but Kirk doing it in TOS and Picard in TNG shows it can be done right, just need to be careful about unwanted spectators. TNG Starfleet evidently still has tolerance for such things, considering Picard and his crew still have a job.

Yeah, agree to disagree. Our supported versions of the Directive are from different eras, they could be compatible interpritations but the people behind it are more cautious and less 'cowboys' than the originals, that being the most prominent difference. A little extra caution can have a big effect of someones actions.

posted on January 4th, 2011, 11:05 pm

lol now its agree to disagree i cant rebut the stuff in your post lol. it wouldnt matter anyway, we wont convince each other.

we'll both be long dead before humans actually have to make such a decision.

[Tyler]

posted on January 4th, 2011, 11:09 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 4th, 2011, 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ha! Now I know the perfect way to win any argument!

Yeah. Even if we weren't, one of us would probably be annoyed with the decision.

posted on January 5th, 2011, 2:28 pm

That's something the Klingons (and many pre-modern humans) did better than modern or federation-era humans.

Once you give your word, that's it.  You do everything in your power to uphold it, regardless of inconvenience, discomfort, personal sacrifice...you just keep that word.  With that in mind, you don't agree to things before you have enough information to make a sound decision and in the end, where it matters, you'll receive respect and trust for it, because you will have acted with honor.

Personally, I would have had Archer up for NJP on 'conduct unbecoming an officer' for that little stunt.

posted on January 6th, 2011, 10:29 am

How many times did Kirk break the Prime Directive for something a bit more minor than this?  To me, whether it's classified as genocide or not, knowingly allowing an entire species to die and withholding the cure just because you don't like how they interact with another species (and they didn't say something like "Stop suppressing them and we'll consider helping you.") is wrong.  I'd be more willing to accept it if Archer had tried to find out more about the relationship between those two races (because we don't really know that much).

posted on January 6th, 2011, 12:59 pm

I'd be more willing to accept it if Archer had tried to find out more about the relationship between those two races (because we don't really know that much).

They did; they found the 2 species were co-existing impressivly, especially considering how many others would act in the same place around another races completely unaffected by the same problem. The Menk were learning and progressing because of the co-existence.