Thread: Insurrection
View Single Post
Old December 2 2012, 05:25 PM   #51
Vice Admiral
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
That has never been the case. It's always the needs of the upper few that outweigh everything else.
But in the Star Trek universe it isn't suppose to be that way...
The particles were about to be collected by a corrupt Starfleet Admiral and criminal scum that also worked with the Dominion. In the film they also talk about how the Federation didn't know about what happened there (Rua'fo talked Dougherty into ordering the attack on the Enterprise so that the Federation Council didn't get information about what happened there, because it would lead to endless debates).

None of those guys were trustworthy. Dougherty tried to butter Picard up when he said it was going to help billions. The Son'a had the technology, and the Son'a would set the price for the fountain of youth. Only the richest would get a share of it. So the Ba'ku would have lost everything for greed. And THEN it became clear that the Ba'ku were only about to get eradicated because the Son'a wanted the particles all for themselves (because they were dying) AND wanted revenge. That was actually pretty clear.

What's actually "pretty clear" is that you're using loaded emotional terms like "criminal scum" and "corrupt admiral" in place of actual arguments. Whether the motives of the Son'a were as pure as driven snow or not is irrelevant. First, they had just as much of a claim to the planet as the Baku as you and others defending the Baku keep ignoring. You can't defend the Baku's right to the planet while deriding the Son'a rights.

And again, this was not about "stealing" the planet. No one was going to take the planet because it was going to be uninhabitable. SFdebris in his review of the film compares the situation to moving a few cabins that are downstream so that a river can be dammed, thus providing electricity to millions. They're not TAKING the planet, they're moving the inhabitants so they won't be harmed by a process that would harm them.

This is why the analogy to imperialism is a false one that substitutes loaded terms for an argument.

Also, if you reject "the needs of the many" argument, you basically reject the entire basis of democracy, the welfare state, etc. Otherwise, the needs of the aristocratic few should prevail, and their wealth and power shouldn't be touched to give the masses greater control over their own lives. It continues to amuse me to see folks defending the property rights of an entitled few over the greater good for billions.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote