Wow, you responded to my post using LITERALLY the exact two arguments I just wrote about, which are both just sloppy slippery slope fallacies.
Well done, sir. That couldn't have worked out better if it was done intentionally.
I especially liked the "you'd HAVE to go to war with two to three powers!" part, that was funny.
because of course giving a cure for a people who ask for it is JUST LIKE fighting massive wars of liberation.
how can I attack logic like that?
You obviously can't with your big lettered words and your lack of an argument.
But you can try to explain why one should help a sick species but not a subjugated species. You might wanna pick up Overlord's point about genocides like in Rwanada to get something going.
The Overlord wrote:
The Cold War is not the same as a plague ravaging a population, the Cold War could have resulted in mass death, but didn't this plague did. As for WWIII. You are forgetting that the amount of effort Phlox and Archer had to put in to stop the plague was minimal compared the effort the Vulcans could have needed to stop WWIII.
Phlox and Archer got involved, they made the cure and then they decided not to give the cure, the broke the PD by getting involved in the first place. Heck the PD didn't even exist back then, so there was nothing really stopping them from getting involved in the first place. They fact they got involved, give the Valakans false hope and then decide not to give the cure to them. That comes off as extremely cruel and callous. As was mentioned before, this is like someone with a jug of water coming across a man dying of thirst and decides not give any of his water to the man and then says that was the moral thing to do.
I think the difference between us is that you talk about cruelty, psychopaths and morals whereas I talk about ethics.
Let me phrase it like this, I agree with you that what the Vulcans or Archer did was cruel or even sociopathic (only so if the society we talk about stands alone, not embedded into a world with many alien species) but it was also the ethically right thing to do. This sounds like a contradiction but I don't think it is. To kill someone is normally morally and ethically wrong whereas to kill Hitler might have been morally wrong but if there was any ethical injunction for my grand-grand-parents it was to kill this man.
Except I don't see the actions of Phlox and Archer akin to killing Hitler to stop the Holocaust, I see more akin to letting the entire German population die because of the Holocaust. I don't see the ethics in Phlox and Archer's actions, because you seem to suggest that all Valakans are responsible for the mistreatment of the Menk, not just the leaders. Should Valakan children be left to die because of the sins of their fathers? I do not think collective punishment is moral or ethical. If Archer and Phlox gave the Valakans the cure, perhaps they would have been so grateful that they would have stopped mistreating the Menk right away, if Phlox and Archer merely suggested it. That would kill 2 birds with one stone, literally a win-win scenario, instead Valakan children are dying in the streets because Phlox used Nazi like pseudo science to justify not helping them.
The problem with this episode is it makes Phlox and Archer extremely unlikable to a large portion of their audience and that was not good for a TV series struggling for ratings.