The Typhon Pact

[ProtoAvatar]

Everyone has motivations. NOT everyone has motivations that even resemble morality.
I have a problem with Sci trying to excuse actions of monsters with the equivalent of "mommy didn't love them".

[Deranged Nasat]

ProtoAvatar wrote:

---

.Everyone has motivations. NOT everyone has motivations that even resemble morality.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

ProtoAvatar wrote:

---

.I have a problem with Sci trying to excuse actions of monsters with the equivalent of "mommy didn't love them".

And you're greatly misrepresenting what Sci has been saying.

[ProtoAvatar]

Deranged Nasat,
I asked Sci who was responsible for world war 2.
And he responded - these guys were, but only partly, because they did that because of that other thing, they were practically slaves of circumstances!
Sci takes too much responsibility away from those criminals because of some unconvincing premises, ignoring the fact that they made their choices every step of their way, that they could at any time take another road.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

William Leisner wrote:

---

IHMO, the 2387 supernova happened in a parallel timeline. This will remain my opinion until I am dragged off to CBS/Paramount Re-education Camp.

It's my opinion as well.

I've resigned myself to the possibility that subsequent Trek novels will include it, but they don't have to. Not ever. Romulus could endure for a millennium longer in the current state of Treklit. Clearly the bulk of Trek XI exists in a parallel timeline (or, as I also maintain, an entirely separate universe), so there's no reason its "present" couldn't as well.

I mean, if you take Countdown into account, that's what MUST be the case, as it exists in the same universe as ST Online which is obviously incompatible with Treklit anyway.

[Rush Limborg]

How would you react if you saw that in Russian Presidential elections, President Medvedev were running on a platform of, "We don't know if the Americans are going to declare war on us for our oil, but shouldn't we build up our military and our nuclear arsenal enough that we can defeat them?"

If you're like most people, you would take it as an implicit threat to the national security of the United States.

So it is with the Typhon Pact. The Federation needs to present itself as being open to peace and diplomacy, not assuage its inner machismo by making undiplomatic messages of its ability to defeat the galaxy.

For the second time, "Be as strong as the bear" does NOT mean "build up our military and our nuclear arsenal enough that we can defeat them".

"As strong as" is for the purpose of maintaining the balance of power. "Stonger than" is for the purpose of "building up our military and our nuclear arsenal enough that we can defeat them".

You're the one who brought up Reagan, not me.

So I was. But if you study my previous post, I think you'll find that the reference wasn't quite so political. After all, the description of the bear in the ad, I think, fits the Pact quite nicely. To paraphrase: "For some, the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it at all. For some, the bear is tame. For other's it's wild. But no one can be certain who's right."

You take relativism to previously unseen peaks, Sci.

Try multiculturalism, brother.... Nice call.

You clearly haven't been reading enough, then; I am considerably less relativistic than many, many political philosophers and critics who are actually in any way prominent.

A lower peak doesn't neccessarily mean an unseen peak, Sci.

Just being philosophical....

[Deranged Nasat]

ProtoAvatar wrote:

---

Deranged Nasat,
I asked Sci who was responsible for world war 2.
And he responded - these guys were, but they did that because of that other thing, they were practically slaves of circumstances!
Sci takes too much responsibility from those criminals because of some unconvincing premises, ignoring that they made their choices every step of their way, that they could at any time take another road.

Sci isn't ignoring their choices. He/she never said it wasn't about choice. But people make choices because of their experiences, and the details of their specific situation and circumstances. I don't think it's an "unconvincing" view that the economic deprivations in Germany, leading on from the reparations they were made to pay following WWI, contributed indirectly and in part to WWII; I was under the assumption this is pretty much accepted fact. This isn't saying "It was all really the Allies' fault", it's simply saying the actions of many nations contributed to what occurred. As you say, it's about choice: we all make choices- and everyone's choice effects everyone elses'. We are one: politics, like anything involving multiple people, is far too complex to let us hold each individual in a vacuum. This isn't to say everyone bears equal responsibility, but awareness of the effect we all have on one another helps prevent further conflict. My nation acknowledging its role in contributing to the situation in Germany prior to WWII allows us British to remember an important lesson: Treating a fallen foe poorly simply leads to them arising again with renewed hostility.

[William Leisner]

ProtoAvatar wrote:

---

Deranged Nasat,
I asked Sci who was responsible for world war 2.
And he responded - these guys were, but only partly, because they did that because of that other thing, they were practically slaves of circumstances!
Sci takes too much responsibility away from those criminals because of some unconvincing premises, ignoring the fact that they made their choices every step of their way, that they could at any time take another road.

Oh, stop it, already. He's saying nothing of the sort, and you know it. If you want a flamewar so badly, find another forum for it.

[ProtoAvatar]

Deranged Nasat
"But people make choices because of their experiences, and the details of their specific situation and circumstances."

You make it sound as if we're organic robots - input circumstances and obtain the computed decision. Such a view makes concepts such as morals and responsibility (and, implicitly, our discussion) irrelevant, inapplicable to humans.
I don't agree with this notion at all.

Hitler rose to power due to economic conditions (partly) - but what did he do with that power?
"Japan itself had become a major world empire in part because of its desire to avoid becoming one of the many oppressed colonies" - and then graduated to doing some oppression ot its own.

[ProtoAvatar]

William Leisner wrote:

---

Oh, stop it, already. He's saying nothing of the sort, and you know it. If you want a flamewar so badly, find another forum for it.

I think you misunderstood. I have no intention of starting a "flamewar", and my quoted post had no such purpose.
So - be less aggessive, Ok?

[Rush Limborg]

^Nonetheless, ProAvatar, it's not something worth raising heck over....

You make a lotta good points...but frankly, brother, I detect some itchy trigger-fingers. Keep it cool....

[ProtoAvatar]

Rush Limborg wrote:

---

Keep it cool....

Of course

[rahullak]

ProtoAvatar wrote:

---

Deranged Nasat
"But people make choices because of their experiences, and the details of their specific situation and circumstances."

You make it sound as if we're organic robots - input circumstances and obtain the computed decision. Such a view makes concepts such as morals and responsibility (and, implicitly, our discussion) irrelevant, inapplicable to humans.
I don't agree with this notion at all.

Hitler rose to power due to economic conditions (partly) - but what did he do with that power?
"Japan itself had become a major world empire in part because of its desire to avoid becoming one of the many oppressed colonies" - and then graduated to doing some oppression ot its own.

I think what the Nasat was saying is that people have knowledge (sum of what they've learnt, seen, experienced, done, etc.) and they can take action or make choices based on that knowledge (or the application of knowledge).

It doesn't absolve Hitler of his crimes to say that the economic conditions of WWI were a part of his knowledge and experience which was a factor in his later actions. He might well have chosen a different (and peaceful) path given the same knowledge had he applied it differently. (Yes, I believe in free-will insofar as an individual's choices are concerned) Given the same knowledge, someone else in his place might have made a different choice. So he is responsible for his actions. Morality and responsibility are thus very much relevant and applicable to humans as also is experience and circumstance.

[Rush Limborg]

^Exactly. In the same way, the Typhon Pact may have a giant chip on its collective shoulder...but frankly, it's up to them to decide what they're gonna do with it.

To not get ticked off at every single real-or-made-up insult is, after all, a sign of maturity--and it means you deserve to be taken seriously.

Respect, in this case, is earned, not entitiled by mass....

[Sci]

Oy gevalt! I go off to take an afternoon nap and look what happens?

Suffice it to say that I do not think that acknowledging the motivations of bad people is the same thing as excusing their choices. I do think that most people, even bad people, think of themselves as good people and try to devise intellectual systems that justify choices that to everyone else are clearly immoral, and I do think it's important to understand that.

I also think that the fact that Hitler thought he was a good person doesn't excuse his choices or make him an okay guy who just needed love. If anything, I'd argue that that makes him a worse person; at least a sociopath genuinely doesn't understand the idea of morality.

That's pretty much all I have to say in response to ProtoAvatar's arguments. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of flaming me because you don't like me, ProtoAvatar.

[Rush Limborg]

^Don't take it personaly, Sci. It's just business....