View Single Post
Old February 21 2013, 11:37 AM   #340
UFO
Captain
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Re: I hope for more traditional space battles

yousirname wrote: View Post
It [a torpedo from the Narada] punched right through the shields but it didn't destroy the Enterprise. Sulu says: "Shields at 32%. Their weapons are powerful, Sir - we can't take another hit like that."

Now, given that it's torpedoes being fired, how exactly that works, I confess I don't know. It seems to imply that the shields are a factor, though, or why would Sulu report their status? Presumably maintenance crews have been at work in the interim. The Enterprise remains manoeuvrable, while the Narada is not. Why is Nero bothered firing if it won't destroy the Enterprise?
That first attack did a lot of damage to the Enterprise including reducing its speed to warp four. So one torpedo is a significant threat (if Nero had had any). You yourself quote Sulu saying they couldn't take two hits from the Narada even with sheilds up. But you are arguing Nero wouldn't bother trying to take a few more humans (maybe even Kirk and Spock) with him if he could? I don't think so.

Exactly, so how much time is it OK to take from someone? A minute, an hour a lifetime?
Any amount of time is fine so long as the conditions can be expected to remain the same if the events are allowed to play out without pulling the trigger - ie, if Kirk has some reason to suppose that if he doesn't fire, after a few seconds Nero might hail him and say You know what, I changed my mind, then he shouldn't fire.

All of which is to say that this isn't a license to kill people who are currently down in the dumps, since I assume that's what you're worried it might be.
Well I'm glad of that but that is not the problem. You seem to have misunderstood my question. I asked how much time (from their lives) is it OK to take from them? And what gives anyone the right to make that decision just because they are going to die at some unspecified point in the future? I am trying to find the ethical principle you are using here. So far it seems if we are talking a couple of seconds its fine, but what about longer periods? There is not apparent logical end point.

Your suggestion it has something to do with Kirk's impression about Nero's chances of changing his mind are not just subjective and arbitrary but don't address the question. Which is: Why is it OK to kill someone just because their death is inevitable (aren't we still robbing them of their life however short), and does the amount of time they have left change how or if it is "OK". Other factors are not relevant. I would be greatful if you could keep that in mind.


There is no such stipulation. Nero didn't want Kirk's help, but would have probably been happy to accept assistance from a Romulan vessel, had one be handy. In any event, he never said he wanted to die, nor did he imply that he didn't care if he died.
Counterfactuals don't apply. It doesn't matter if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans - there are none around. He has two options: Be rescued by Kirk or die. There is no third way available. Given that reality, Nero makes it abundantly clear that he strongly prefers death.
A) Of course it matters if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans. You are trying to claim he was indifferent to his death. Accepting Romulan help would show he isn't.
B) The issue has nothing to do with his actual options but solely how he felt about his death.
C) His preference for death in that situation does not in any way suggest he is indifferent to it or welcomes it.

On the other hand, if you are saying your policy only applies to people who are indifferent to their impending deaths then it doesn't apply to Nero. Which logically means Kirk had no right to fire at him.

BTW counterfactuals are theoretical exercises. It doesn't matter if the Romulans are really there. All that matters is what Nero would do if they were.


BillJ wrote: View Post
UFO wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
He executed six billion men, women and children. I have no problem with Kirk giving him a parting shot.
And that is a good reason why Star Trek should continue to have a problem with it (in my opinion), as it always (previously) has, as far as I can tell. Only the scale is different. Note, I am not saying Nero couldn't come to a sticky end, just do it right, if that's what's required.
This is what's wrong with Star Trek, or more exactly a portion of the Star Trek fanbase. They bought Roddenberry's 'perfect human' non-sense hook, line and sinker. As much as I love The Next Generation, the characters are mostly unrecognizable as human beings. Thankfully, DS9 and the two other spinoffs did a bit to reel it back in.
I am only talking about the behaviour of Prime Kirk not TNG. As I have said in the past, I am only interested in a "better" world, not a perfect one (which of course is impossible). I shouldn't let your red herrings side track me, but surely there is nothing wrong with having goals to shoot for or inspire us? Most fiction is happy enough to show us standard mark one production model humans. I like Star Trek because it is not just Avatar or Transformers etc. I would like the future to be a little more optimistic than the present. And wasn't TNG the popular one? A rhetorical question of course.

What we got from Kirk was an offer to save his father's killer, likely through gritted teeth and he was promptly told to go fuck himself. Him giving Nero a sweet kiss goodnight with a bucket of photon torpedoes was an incredibly human reaction. A reaction those sitting in the theater seats could understand. Likely the reason the movie was a hit was because the characters in a Trek movie acted like humans again for the first time in a long time.
I would be happy if they just went back to having the characters act the same as in TOS. Ie. from the 23rd century. As we both know, there were plenty of other occasions for the characters to look like "us" (and they took all of them). Why can't Star Trek have it's small point of difference? Or, if most ST fans are not that charitable, then at least don't deliberately orchestrate scenes where they have to do the wrong thing. As I said, they could have had blood and guts and not contradicted previous Trek. However much anyone may like the movie, I can't see a reason to applaud making it less uniquely Trek.
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote