Read & Reread "Greater Than The Sum"- My Opinion (Spoilers)

[Thrawn]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

Plus, no amount of training disguises the fact that men are stronger than women for the most part. And physical strength is important.

It is important now. It was important 300 years ago. It will be important 300 years from now.

So make everyone have to pass a strength requirement. I'm not saying there should be equal numbers of men and women, and we should have different requirements or incentives to make that happen, I'm saying that gender shouldn't matter one way or the other.

[Thrawn]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

Are you so sure about that?

What if we had a book set in the decades after Voyager perhaps and the "matter transmitter" transporters have been completely replaced by "micro warp field" transporters?

You're missing the point, though in fairness I may have argued it poorly. Allow me to restate.

From 1966-2008, a fundamental point of Star Trek was that diversity is a benefit. Every series, in every form, has had this as a central tenet. It is possible that at some point in the future a show called Star Trek will be created that espouses an alternate morality, but given that this has been a bedrock principle of the universe for 42 years, it seems like a silly thing to want.

To better use my earlier analogy, if you want to spend your time complaining every time you read a Star Trek book that the transporters are unrealistic, be my guest! You'd certainly be right about that. Similarly, you can spend all the time you want arguing that Starfleet is a military organization that doesn't make sense, and (though I think you're completely wrong) you may have your reasons for believing that, too.

But either way you're going against a fundamental part of the Star Trek universe that has existed in every single bit of it so far. So why bother?

[Dayton3]

[quote=Thrawn;2042946]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

[

But either way you're going against a fundamental part of the Star Trek universe that has existed in every single bit of it so far. So why bother?

Because I'm the kind of person that looks at EVERYTHING in life and says to myself "I could do that better".

And once again, I don't see what the big deal is. If no one expects such major changes in Star Trek then why get annoyed at my desires?

[JD]

Wow, can you say "Superiority Complex"?

[Thrawn]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

Because I'm the kind of person that looks at EVERYTHING in life and says to myself "I could do that better".

I would never have guessed. [/sarcasm]

And once again, I don't see what the big deal is. If no one expects such major changes in Star Trek then why get annoyed at my desires?

Because I enjoy analyzing, appreciating, and defending this enormous body of work that has provided me so many hours of entertainment and thought. Why else is anyone here?

[Christopher]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

I'm all for a better future.

I just think it would be better portrayed with an all male cast.

Those are mutually incompatible statements. And it's sad and pathetic that you can't understand that.

Besides, how can you be hetero and think that anything is better without women??

Remember, the early years of "Law & Order" (which are considered quite good) featured an all male main cast.

And nobody ever reruns them on TV, except at 3 AM.

Daddy Todd wrote:

---

You guys, lay off Dayton3. He's hetero; says so himself.

I, on the other hand, am gay, and I'm BEGGING you to quit trying to lump him in with us non-hets.

I don't think anyone here sincerely thinks he's gay -- just that it's fun to insinuate that he is because it's bound to irk him.

[cardinal biggles]

At what point does your "doing it better" become "turning it into something it wasn't in the first place," though?

If I were to rewrite X-Men as a paramilitary organization of genetically engineered humans trying to overthrow the government, how would it be X-Men apart from my saying, "Hey, this is X-Men." Similarly, how is this all-male, combat-centered Trek you favor anything like what actually is Star Trek?

[Trent Roman]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

Because I'm the kind of person that looks at EVERYTHING in life and says to myself "I could do that better".

I suggest you start with a mirror.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

[LightningStorm]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

And physical strength is important.

It is important now. It was important 300 years ago. It will be important 300 years from now.

Wrong. Tactics and strategy win wars not strength. It was true 3000 years go, 300 years ago, TODAY, and will be true 300 years from now.

[Dayton3]

[quote=Christopher;2043006]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

I'm all for a better future.

I just think it would be better portrayed with an all male cast.

Those are mutually incompatible statements. And it's sad and pathetic that you can't understand that.

Besides, how can you be hetero and think that anything is better without women??

Remember, the early years of "Law & Order" (which are considered quite good) featured an all male main cast.

And nobody ever reruns them on TV, except at 3 AM.


[quote=quote]

Don't be absurd.

And how are my two statements incompatible?

I don't like working with women.

None of the men in my family liked working with women.

None of the women in my family liked working with women (especially my mother who despised working with women).

So I do not like being around women aside from my wife, daughter, and sisters.

Now most people are not like that I'm sure...but my opinions are what they are. My Star Trek preferences are what they are.

I like Star Trek. The technology and ship designs I have always found intriguing. And I've loved space exploration both in science fiction and in the real world since I can remember. Something my mother was also fascinated by though she thought it was a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I hope that explains some of the things I like about Star Trek.

But shouldn't all this stuff be in another thread somewhere?

[Trent Roman]

I just checked Misc., and there doesn't appear to be a 'misogyny as family tradition' thread yet. Run off and start one. (...with all due apologies to the folk is Misc.)

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

[Dayton3]

Trent Roman wrote:

---

I just checked Misc., and there doesn't appear to be a 'misogyny as family tradition' thread yet. Run off and start one. (...with all due apologies to the folk is Misc.)

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I'm not a misogynist.

I like women just fine.

I just do not like working with them.

Big difference and you know it.

[William Leisner]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

But shouldn't all this stuff be in another thread somewhere?

No. It really should not.

Where it should be is in your psychiatric file.

[Dayton3]

William Leisner wrote:

---

No. It really should not.

Where it should be is in your psychiatric file.

No need to be insulting.

Where is that IDIC stuff from Star Trek we keep hearing about?

[JD]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

I don't like working with women.

None of the men in my family liked working with women.

None of the women in my family liked working with women (especially my mother who despised working with women).

So I do not like being around women aside from my wife, daughter, and sisters.

Ooooookkkk.