Elias Vaughn wrote:
Next time, do try to read my entire post - including the 'why so' part - instead of ignoring what you don't want to read and assuming some "wait [...]" will cover up the fact you failed to even address my point:
"For an optimistic, positive view of the future, this is a pretty shallow one, rather superficial:
The method of resolving the conflicts changes absolutely nothing to all the death, suffering and destruction endured through the wars.
And the next large scale war/disaster/etc is always around the corner in trek lit these days.
Death happens. The optimism of Trek is that despite the death, suffering, and destruction, the Federation holds true to its principles, and tends to not let death beget more death if it can possibly be helped.
Until the next major war/disaster that inevitably arises almost immediately afterwards in trek lit.
Through this, trek lit nullifies any gain from holding true to one's morals and principles.
As such, it nullifies any pretentions of the presented optimism as being more than shallow and superficial.
You could just as well watch a Sisiyphus being beaten half to death, but always turning the other cheek for the inevitable next beating.
Again and again.
And thinking this an optimistic vision because he always turns the other cheek.
No, I read it all. It just doesn't matter.[...]I find that to be neither shallow nor superficial.
I stand by my original post.
With regard to this dictum of yours, a saying saying comes to mind:
'You can call it a cow, but you can't milk it.'
No matter how much you - or anyone else - affirm support for such dictums, they remain hollow.