Was Picard wrong in I,Borg? - Page 18

RAMA · May 7 2010, 08:03 AM

ProtoAvatar wrote:

RAMA wrote:

ProtoAvatar wrote:

Praxius

When he made his decision Picard WAS CONVINCED THAT THE PARADOX WOULD HAVE WORKED, and he KNEW THAT THE BORG WILL CONTINUE KILLING AND ASSIMILATING TRILLONS, that they are doing this even as he deliberates.
Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS!

There was ALREADY evidence against this...the fact the Borg existed after Data made them sleep and destroyed their ship in BOBW would leave one to believe the Borg would not commit the fatal (and stupid--for any advanced race) mistake of having all their eggs in one basket..so to speak.

RAMA

All this 'evidence' was known to Picard/Data/etc. And they also had an incomparably better understanding of borg tech than our shalllow information.
And yet, in 'I, Borg', Picard&co HAD NO DOUBT the paradox would have worked!

In his subjective forum, Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, despite being certain that he can save them! Essentially, Picard intended to be accessory to GENOCIDE on an enormos scale!

All that so that he won't have to 'use' a single person, Hugh, to destroy his 'culture' - as I said, the episode could even be interpreted in the sense that the paradox would only shut down the hive mind, liberating the drones.
All that so Picard can delude himself, when he watches himself in the mirror, that he always took the perfect moral choice, choosing to ignore the blood of uncountably many that stains his hands, his conscience.

Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it are two different things...the very question is if he made the right choice, and quite frankly its "yes".

As I pointed out before...he could also very well have saved billions of future lives by making the choice..billions of assimilated lives.

RAMA

ProtoAvatar · May 7 2010, 08:34 AM

RAMA wrote:

ProtoAvatar wrote:

RAMA wrote:

There was ALREADY evidence against this...the fact the Borg existed after Data made them sleep and destroyed their ship in BOBW would leave one to believe the Borg would not commit the fatal (and stupid--for any advanced race) mistake of having all their eggs in one basket..so to speak.

RAMA

All this 'evidence' was known to Picard/Data/etc. And they also had an incomparably better understanding of borg tech than our shalllow information.
And yet, in 'I, Borg', Picard&co HAD NO DOUBT the paradox would have worked!

In his subjective forum, Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, despite being certain that he can save them! Essentially, Picard intended to be accessory to GENOCIDE on an enormos scale!

All that so that he won't have to 'use' a single person, Hugh, to destroy his 'culture' - as I said, the episode could even be interpreted in the sense that the paradox would only shut down the hive mind, liberating the drones.
All that so Picard can delude himself, when he watches himself in the mirror, that he always took the perfect moral choice, choosing to ignore the blood of uncountably many that stains his hands, his conscience.

Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it are two different things...the very question is if he made the right choice, and quite frankly its "yes".

As I pointed out before...he could also very well have saved billions of future lives by making the choice..billions of assimilated lives.

RAMA

"Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it"
RAMA, Picard intended to do it and DID IT. This was NOT just a thought, it was materialized in his actions, RAMA.
Picard CONDEMNED TRILLIONS.
He refused to help then, even though he was certain he could have:
'If you see a killer murdering a classroom full of children and you are certain you can stop this killer with no risk to yourself, and yet you don't lift a finger, just watching the scene, YOU ARE IN PART RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN'S DEATH, BECAUSE YOU COULD PREVENT IT AND YOU DIDN'T! You are monstruous!'

'About saving drones:
It was proven theoretically possible.
Practically, it is impossible. When Starfleet is able to save BILLIONS of drones, then it would be possible.
Starfleet trying to stop the borg by saving drones will end in the federatioin being assimilated. Facing the borg and prevailing is already nearly impossible; facing them when encumbered by such a severe limitation will only end in your death.

And since you argue that Starfleet can't touch the borg because they can be saved, then you argue that starfleet had no right to touch a single jem'hadar during the dominion war - like the technologically conditioned drones, the jem'hadar were biologically conditioned, they also had no choice. Yes?'

RAMA · May 11 2010, 03:55 PM

ProtoAvatar wrote:

RAMA wrote:

ProtoAvatar wrote:

All this 'evidence' was known to Picard/Data/etc. And they also had an incomparably better understanding of borg tech than our shalllow information.
And yet, in 'I, Borg', Picard&co HAD NO DOUBT the paradox would have worked!

In his subjective forum, Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, despite being certain that he can save them! Essentially, Picard intended to be accessory to GENOCIDE on an enormos scale!

All that so that he won't have to 'use' a single person, Hugh, to destroy his 'culture' - as I said, the episode could even be interpreted in the sense that the paradox would only shut down the hive mind, liberating the drones.
All that so Picard can delude himself, when he watches himself in the mirror, that he always took the perfect moral choice, choosing to ignore the blood of uncountably many that stains his hands, his conscience.

Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it are two different things...the very question is if he made the right choice, and quite frankly its "yes".

As I pointed out before...he could also very well have saved billions of future lives by making the choice..billions of assimilated lives.

RAMA

"Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it"
RAMA, Picard intended to do it and DID IT. This was NOT just a thought, it was materialized in his actions, RAMA.
Picard CONDEMNED TRILLIONS.
He refused to help then, even though he was certain he could have:
'If you see a killer murdering a classroom full of children and you are certain you can stop this killer with no risk to yourself, and yet you don't lift a finger, just watching the scene, YOU ARE IN PART RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN'S DEATH, BECAUSE YOU COULD PREVENT IT AND YOU DIDN'T! You are monstruous!'

'About saving drones:
It was proven theoretically possible.
Practically, it is impossible. When Starfleet is able to save BILLIONS of drones, then it would be possible.
Starfleet trying to stop the borg by saving drones will end in the federatioin being assimilated. Facing the borg and prevailing is already nearly impossible; facing them when encumbered by such a severe limitation will only end in your death.

And since you argue that Starfleet can't touch the borg because they can be saved, then you argue that starfleet had no right to touch a single jem'hadar during the dominion war - like the technologically conditioned drones, the jem'hadar were biologically conditioned, they also had no choice. Yes?'

Obviously in a war, you accept morally that you have to kill to a certain extent...I would have no problem killing a large number of Borg, if there would be some sort of outcome that would also eventually help the assimilated races of the Borg. I can't accept that you have no rules in war...that would lead down a very dark path..

RAMA

Rojixus · May 11 2010, 04:57 PM

It may lead down a dark path but I think you're ignoring the elephant in the room: War is supposed to be dark, that's why it is war and not a tea party. If we keep sticking to these "rules of war" nonsense, wars will only last longer and cost more lives. It is better for a war to be savage and short than for it to be long and genteel.

RAMA · May 11 2010, 05:05 PM

Rojixus wrote:

It may lead down a dark path but I think you're ignoring the elephant in the room: War is supposed to be dark, that's why it is war and not a tea party. If we keep sticking to these "rules of war" nonsense, wars will only last longer and cost more lives. It is better for a war to be savage and short than for it to be long and genteel.

Um yeah...ok let's go nuke Afghanistan out of existence...

RAMA

Rojixus · May 11 2010, 05:46 PM

Why not? If we did so, we would have been out of there by now. You should never go half-assed in war, you either use all your might or you don't fight at all. Terror must be fought with terror, anything that threatens your existence must be wiped out completely and without mercy. To not do so is the height of stupidity.

RAMA · May 11 2010, 05:56 PM

Rojixus wrote:

Why not? If we did so, we would have been out of there by now. You should never go half-assed in war, you either use all your might or you don't fight at all. Terror must be fought with terror, anything that threatens your existence must be wiped out completely and without mercy. To not do so is the height of stupidity.

Somehow I knew you'd say that...and really there is no point in discussing this with you with that childish, simplistic viewpoint..

RAMA

ProtoAvatar · May 11 2010, 05:59 PM

RAMA wrote:

ProtoAvatar wrote:

RAMA wrote:

Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it are two different things...the very question is if he made the right choice, and quite frankly its "yes".

As I pointed out before...he could also very well have saved billions of future lives by making the choice..billions of assimilated lives.

RAMA

"Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it"
RAMA, Picard intended to do it and DID IT. This was NOT just a thought, it was materialized in his actions, RAMA.
Picard CONDEMNED TRILLIONS.
He refused to help then, even though he was certain he could have:
'If you see a killer murdering a classroom full of children and you are certain you can stop this killer with no risk to yourself, and yet you don't lift a finger, just watching the scene, YOU ARE IN PART RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN'S DEATH, BECAUSE YOU COULD PREVENT IT AND YOU DIDN'T! You are monstruous!'

'About saving drones:
It was proven theoretically possible.
Practically, it is impossible. When Starfleet is able to save BILLIONS of drones, then it would be possible.
Starfleet trying to stop the borg by saving drones will end in the federatioin being assimilated. Facing the borg and prevailing is already nearly impossible; facing them when encumbered by such a severe limitation will only end in your death.

And since you argue that Starfleet can't touch the borg because they can be saved, then you argue that starfleet had no right to touch a single jem'hadar during the dominion war - like the technologically conditioned drones, the jem'hadar were biologically conditioned, they also had no choice. Yes?'

Obviously in a war, you accept morally that you have to kill to a certain extent...I would have no problem killing a large number of Borg, if there would be some sort of outcome that would also eventually help the assimilated races of the Borg. I can't accept that you have no rules in war...that would lead down a very dark path..

RAMA

I have no rules in war? I disagree.

The closest analogy we have for the borg is that of an enemy army on a continuing genocidal conquest - TRILLIONS of victims! It's mindboggling! An orgy of death and suffering beyond comprehension!.
Using the paradox against the borg is allowed by the rules of war. Indeed, considering the number of lives saved - the chances are very high the borg will assimilate the ENTIRE Milky Way in ~10000 years (give or take) using the paradox would be one of the least questionable decisions in war.

RAMA · May 11 2010, 06:01 PM

ProtoAvatar wrote:

RAMA wrote:

ProtoAvatar wrote:

"Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it"
RAMA, Picard intended to do it and DID IT. This was NOT just a thought, it was materialized in his actions, RAMA.
Picard CONDEMNED TRILLIONS.
He refused to help then, even though he was certain he could have:
'If you see a killer murdering a classroom full of children and you are certain you can stop this killer with no risk to yourself, and yet you don't lift a finger, just watching the scene, YOU ARE IN PART RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN'S DEATH, BECAUSE YOU COULD PREVENT IT AND YOU DIDN'T! You are monstruous!'

'About saving drones:
It was proven theoretically possible.
Practically, it is impossible. When Starfleet is able to save BILLIONS of drones, then it would be possible.
Starfleet trying to stop the borg by saving drones will end in the federatioin being assimilated. Facing the borg and prevailing is already nearly impossible; facing them when encumbered by such a severe limitation will only end in your death.

And since you argue that Starfleet can't touch the borg because they can be saved, then you argue that starfleet had no right to touch a single jem'hadar during the dominion war - like the technologically conditioned drones, the jem'hadar were biologically conditioned, they also had no choice. Yes?'

Obviously in a war, you accept morally that you have to kill to a certain extent...I would have no problem killing a large number of Borg, if there would be some sort of outcome that would also eventually help the assimilated races of the Borg. I can't accept that you have no rules in war...that would lead down a very dark path..

RAMA

I have no rules in war? What are you talking about?

The closest analogy we have for the borg is that of an enemy army on a continuing genocidal conquest.
Using the paradox against the borg is allowed by the rules of war. Indeed, considering the number of lives saved - the chances are very high the borg will assimilate the ENTIRE Milky Way in ~10000 years (give or take) using the paradox would be one of the least questionable decisions in war.

Technically, the Borg are not genocidal...assimilated species are recoverable...killing all Borg is genocidal.

RAMA

ProtoAvatar · May 11 2010, 06:26 PM

RAMA wrote:

ProtoAvatar wrote:

RAMA wrote:

Obviously in a war, you accept morally that you have to kill to a certain extent...I would have no problem killing a large number of Borg, if there would be some sort of outcome that would also eventually help the assimilated races of the Borg. I can't accept that you have no rules in war...that would lead down a very dark path..

RAMA

I have no rules in war? What are you talking about?

The closest analogy we have for the borg is that of an enemy army on a continuing genocidal conquest.
Using the paradox against the borg is allowed by the rules of war. Indeed, considering the number of lives saved - the chances are very high the borg will assimilate the ENTIRE Milky Way in ~10000 years (give or take) using the paradox would be one of the least questionable decisions in war.

Technically, the Borg are not genocidal...assimilated species are recoverable...killing all Borg is genocidal.

RAMA

The borg killed BILLIONS! Assimilated TRILLIONS into a living hell! Extinguished thousands of civilizations!
You call this 'NOT genocidal'?
The borg ARE genocidal according to any serious deinition of the term!

And assimilated species are NOT recoverable in any practical way - NO ONE can 'recover' billions of drones. Recovering ONE drone is an impressive feat.

But - I already answered this:
'About saving drones:
It was proven theoretically possible.
Practically, it is impossible. When Starfleet is able to save BILLIONS of drones, then it would be possible.
Starfleet trying to stop the borg by saving drones will end in the federatioin being assimilated. Facing the borg and prevailing is already nearly impossible; facing them when encumbered by such a severe limitation will only end in your death.

And since you argue that Starfleet can't touch the borg because they can be saved, then you argue that starfleet had no right to touch a single jem'hadar during the dominion war - like the technologically conditioned drones, the jem'hadar were biologically conditioned, they also had no choice. Yes?'

And killing enemy soldiers who intend to kill you is definitely NOT genocidal.

Rojixus · May 11 2010, 06:43 PM

RAMA wrote:

Rojixus wrote:

Why not? If we did so, we would have been out of there by now. You should never go half-assed in war, you either use all your might or you don't fight at all. Terror must be fought with terror, anything that threatens your existence must be wiped out completely and without mercy. To not do so is the height of stupidity.

Somehow I knew you'd say that...and really there is no point in discussing this with you with that childish, simplistic viewpoint..

RAMA

I see you have degenerated to personal attacks when you are unable to refute my position. Oftentimes, simplicity is best. It is that Postmodernist "there is no single right answer" nonsense that will be our undoing. Life is not a shade of gray, it is black and white, right or wrong, good or evil. Those who sit idly by and permit evil to exist are evil themselves, Picard was wrong because he allowed the Borg to continue their unethical ways all so he can claim to do the right thing. He has blood on his hands.

RAMA · May 11 2010, 07:12 PM

Rojixus wrote:

RAMA wrote:

Rojixus wrote:

Why not? If we did so, we would have been out of there by now. You should never go half-assed in war, you either use all your might or you don't fight at all. Terror must be fought with terror, anything that threatens your existence must be wiped out completely and without mercy. To not do so is the height of stupidity.

Somehow I knew you'd say that...and really there is no point in discussing this with you with that childish, simplistic viewpoint..

RAMA

I see you have degenerated to personal attacks when you are unable to refute my position. Oftentimes, simplicity is best. It is that Postmodernist "there is no single right answer" nonsense that will be our undoing. Life is not a shade of gray, it is black and white, right or wrong, good or evil. Those who sit idly by and permit evil to exist are evil themselves, Picard was wrong because he allowed the Borg to continue their unethical ways all so he can claim to do the right thing. He has blood on his hands.

I really have no need to refute your position, I consider the fallacy of your argument obvious..the war colleges and academies in the US cover morality in war...I'm afraid your argument wouldn't get much credibilty, intellectually or legally. Aside from the geo-political position, which you seem to not even consider, there is a question of atomic radiation involved, and of course the questionable morality. Its an "all or nothing" position, which is intellectually immature and spurious..much Like George W's proclamation "if you aren't with us, you are against us.." Ugh, the black and white position simple doesn't work, there are so many grays in life. I feel sorry for you if all your decisions are based on this. If this seemed personal, its because people who go around condoning the deaths of millions (especially those technologically incapable of causing us direct harm) don't really deserve a lot of respect in my book. All I can say is I am still glad there are a lot of people in government and in the Pentagon who are rational and don't fall prey to this sort of thinking, because we'd have been wiped off the face of the Earth by now. So this is really the last time I'll discuss this with you..

RAMA

Praxius · May 11 2010, 08:38 PM

Rojixus wrote:

Why not? If we did so, we would have been out of there by now. You should never go half-assed in war, you either use all your might or you don't fight at all. Terror must be fought with terror, anything that threatens your existence must be wiped out completely and without mercy. To not do so is the height of stupidity.

Terror must be fought with Terror huh?

If that's the case, then what principles and way of life are you defending.... and... exactly what makes you any different then those you finger point as the "Evil Doers?"

Answer: Nothing.... you'd be just as bad.... actually if you used nukes and wiped out everybody there without discretion, you'd be worse.

And I'm sure all the neighboring nations dealing with the fallout would be happy with the US.... like Pakistan and India, whom have Nukes too.... I'm sure China would be pleased, and I'm sure Russia wouldn't be impressed.

In fact, you could kiss all your allies goodbye and be all on your own.... and chances are the US would eventually be turned to glass too by one or more of the above nations.

Great plan.... I can see many of the messages in Star Trek have translated so well with some in the US.

RAMA wrote:

Technically, the Borg are not genocidal...assimilated species are recoverable...killing all Borg is genocidal.

RAMA

Exactly..... and since assimilated people into the Borg don't actually die in the process, who's to say it wouldn't be the next evolutionary step?

Then all alien races would be in perfect harmony and all working for the same cause.

Praxius · May 11 2010, 08:40 PM

Double Post

Rojixus · May 11 2010, 11:21 PM

You guys are right, I'm sorry for flying off the handle like that. What I should have said was when it comes to the Borg, there is no negotiation. If you thought you had a sure way to get rid of a dangerous enemy, would you not use it? Picard is indirectly responsible for the death or assimilation of billions. The Borg are not a race. Even if they were, they are wrong to assimilate people against their will. By refusing to use the weapon on the Borg, billions were assimilated when they could have been saved from a fate that is, at least to Picard himself, worse than death. You all may have vehemently objected to my nuclear solution a while ago, but how ethical would it be to sit idly by and let the Borg continue assimilating people against their will?

May 11 2010, 04:57 PM	#259
Rojixus Commander Location: the Dreadfort	Re: Was Picard wrong in I,Borg? It may lead down a dark path but I think you're ignoring the elephant in the room: War is supposed to be dark, that's why it is war and not a tea party. If we keep sticking to these "rules of war" nonsense, wars will only last longer and cost more lives. It is better for a war to be savage and short than for it to be long and genteel.

May 11 2010, 05:46 PM	#261
Rojixus Commander Location: the Dreadfort	Re: Was Picard wrong in I,Borg? Why not? If we did so, we would have been out of there by now. You should never go half-assed in war, you either use all your might or you don't fight at all. Terror must be fought with terror, anything that threatens your existence must be wiped out completely and without mercy. To not do so is the height of stupidity.

May 11 2010, 08:40 PM	#269
Praxius Captain Location: The Land of Moose and Squirrel	Re: Was Picard wrong in I,Borg? Double Post

May 11 2010, 11:21 PM	#270
Rojixus Commander Location: the Dreadfort	Re: Was Picard wrong in I,Borg? You guys are right, I'm sorry for flying off the handle like that. What I should have said was when it comes to the Borg, there is no negotiation. If you thought you had a sure way to get rid of a dangerous enemy, would you not use it? Picard is indirectly responsible for the death or assimilation of billions. The Borg are not a race. Even if they were, they are wrong to assimilate people against their will. By refusing to use the weapon on the Borg, billions were assimilated when they could have been saved from a fate that is, at least to Picard himself, worse than death. You all may have vehemently objected to my nuclear solution a while ago, but how ethical would it be to sit idly by and let the Borg continue assimilating people against their will?

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US