RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,703
Posts: 5,431,647
Members: 24,833
Currently online: 469
Newest member: PlainSimplGarak


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 2 2012, 02:08 PM   #46
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I find that "it's not the Ba'ku's planet, and that's why they have no rights" argument fascinating. United States of America, anyone?


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, anyone?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 02:16 PM   #47
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

BillJ wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I find that "it's not the Ba'ku's planet, and that's why they have no rights" argument fascinating. United States of America, anyone?


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, anyone?
That has never been the case. It's always the needs of the upper few that outweigh everything else.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 02:19 PM   #48
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I find that "it's not the Ba'ku's planet, and that's why they have no rights" argument fascinating. United States of America, anyone?


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, anyone?
That has never been the case. It's always the needs of the upper few that outweigh everything else.
But in the Star Trek universe it isn't suppose to be that way.

And since we're talking about the Star Trek universe...
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 02:23 PM   #49
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

BillJ wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post



The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, anyone?
That has never been the case. It's always the needs of the upper few that outweigh everything else.
But in the Star Trek universe it isn't suppose to be that way...
The particles were about to be collected by a corrupt Starfleet Admiral and criminal scum that also worked with the Dominion. In the film they also talk about how the Federation didn't know about what happened there (Rua'fo talked Dougherty into ordering the attack on the Enterprise so that the Federation Council didn't get information about what happened there, because it would lead to endless debates).

None of those guys were trustworthy. Dougherty tried to butter Picard up when he said it was going to help billions. The Son'a had the technology, and the Son'a would set the price for the fountain of youth. Only the richest would get a share of it. So the Ba'ku would have lost everything for greed. And THEN it became clear that the Ba'ku were only about to get eradicated because the Son'a wanted the particles all for themselves (because they were dying) AND wanted revenge. That was actually pretty clear.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 03:04 PM   #50
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Insurrection

BillJ wrote: View Post
Picard never says anything to Dougherty about them being warp capable.
Actually he did after he picked up the observation team people when he was talking about how he still needed to find out why Data went nuts.

BillJ wrote: View Post
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, anyone?
TSFS disagrees with you.

of Gods and Men also had an interesting argument on the subject as well.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 05:25 PM   #51
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
That has never been the case. It's always the needs of the upper few that outweigh everything else.
But in the Star Trek universe it isn't suppose to be that way...
The particles were about to be collected by a corrupt Starfleet Admiral and criminal scum that also worked with the Dominion. In the film they also talk about how the Federation didn't know about what happened there (Rua'fo talked Dougherty into ordering the attack on the Enterprise so that the Federation Council didn't get information about what happened there, because it would lead to endless debates).

None of those guys were trustworthy. Dougherty tried to butter Picard up when he said it was going to help billions. The Son'a had the technology, and the Son'a would set the price for the fountain of youth. Only the richest would get a share of it. So the Ba'ku would have lost everything for greed. And THEN it became clear that the Ba'ku were only about to get eradicated because the Son'a wanted the particles all for themselves (because they were dying) AND wanted revenge. That was actually pretty clear.

What's actually "pretty clear" is that you're using loaded emotional terms like "criminal scum" and "corrupt admiral" in place of actual arguments. Whether the motives of the Son'a were as pure as driven snow or not is irrelevant. First, they had just as much of a claim to the planet as the Baku as you and others defending the Baku keep ignoring. You can't defend the Baku's right to the planet while deriding the Son'a rights.


And again, this was not about "stealing" the planet. No one was going to take the planet because it was going to be uninhabitable. SFdebris in his review of the film compares the situation to moving a few cabins that are downstream so that a river can be dammed, thus providing electricity to millions. They're not TAKING the planet, they're moving the inhabitants so they won't be harmed by a process that would harm them.


This is why the analogy to imperialism is a false one that substitutes loaded terms for an argument.

Also, if you reject "the needs of the many" argument, you basically reject the entire basis of democracy, the welfare state, etc. Otherwise, the needs of the aristocratic few should prevail, and their wealth and power shouldn't be touched to give the masses greater control over their own lives. It continues to amuse me to see folks defending the property rights of an entitled few over the greater good for billions.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 05:58 PM   #52
Vasquez Rocks
Commodore
 
Vasquez Rocks's Avatar
 
Location: Vasquez Rocks
Re: Insurrection

Merry Christmas wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Further, there's so much to this movie that doesn't make any sense.
in UFP space
Which is why the Sona (likely) approached the Federation Council in the first place. The Federation would have realized that the planet belonged to them as soon as they found out the co-ordinates.

that the Son'a have equal claim to ...
In other words zero claim, which is just as much claim as the Baku had to the planet.

and that the inhabitants aren't primitives.
The Federation were always aware that the Baku migrated there from somewhere else. The only person in the movie who as unaware of this initially was Picard.

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
... but when the where they ASKED about it?
Exactly what should the Baku have been asked about?

Remember ... IT ... ISN'T ... THE ... BAKU'S ... PLANET.

But aren't Artim and the other Ba'ku children natives of the planet, having been born there? Also, the other Ba'ku who aren't over 300 years old like Anij and Sojef, lived their entire life on the planet.

I also don't get how the Federation owns the planet when they didn't exist centuries ago from when the Ba'ku first settled there.
Vasquez Rocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 06:31 PM   #53
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
SFdebris in his review of the film compares the situation to moving a few cabins that are downstream so that a river can be dammed, thus providing electricity to millions.
A comparison that only works if the cabins are in one country and the people wanting to dam the river are from another, or did I miss the part were the Baku joined the federation before the events of the film.

This is why the analogy to imperialism is a false one that substitutes loaded terms for an argument.
Again did I miss the part were the Baku joined the federation before the events of the film, because otherwise its one nation imposing its will on another aka imperialism

Also, if you reject "the needs of the many" argument, you basically reject the entire basis of democracy, the welfare state, etc.
Listen and pay attention THE! BAKU! ARE! NOT! PART! OF! THE! FEDERATION! So the federation has no authority over them at all.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 07:18 PM   #54
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
And again, this was not about "stealing" the planet. No one was going to take the planet because it was going to be uninhabitable. SFdebris in his review of the film compares the situation to moving a few cabins that are downstream so that a river can be dammed, thus providing electricity to millions. They're not TAKING the planet, they're moving the inhabitants so they won't be harmed by a process that would harm them.
There's a village with a fresh water source. A company comes and claims that water source. They remove the village, pour the water into bottles and what was once free has now a price tag.

The Ba'ku wouldn't have had a problem with other people coming and building settlements and get the metaphasic radiation for free without harming anyone and without destroying anything. A planet is pretty huge.

Also, if you reject "the needs of the many" argument, you basically reject the entire basis of democracy, the welfare state, etc. Otherwise, the needs of the aristocratic few should prevail, and their wealth and power shouldn't be touched to give the masses greater control over their own lives. It continues to amuse me to see folks defending the property rights of an entitled few over the greater good for billions.
I rejected it because it didn't apply. The Son'a misused the Federation for their own plans. They wanted revenge on the Ba'ku, and they wanted the radiation for themselves. And by the end of the movie it was clear that Rua'fo would have NEVER EVER accepted "No" as an answer. It was only because the Ba'ku was inside the Federation territory that they even had to deal with relocation and all that shit. Had the planet been somewhere else, they would have just killed everybody. It never was about the many, it was always just about the few Son'a.


And then there's the thing again that the effects didn't last once you left the planet. Geordi says that. He didn't know if his newly grown eyes would last.
Which means they didn't even know for sure if relocation would kill the older Ba'ku.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 08:42 PM   #55
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Insurrection

So I guess me and my 500 cult followers can settle on any random planet we want to in Federation space, have full rights over all it's natural resources and we can even expect Starfleet to protect us from the bad guys whenever we want all without lifting a finger for ourselves.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 09:19 PM   #56
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Insurrection

Star Grinch wrote: View Post
So I guess me and my 500 cult followers can settle on any random planet we want to in Federation space,
And yet what you seem to have a problem grasping was that THERE WAS NO FEDERATION SPACE WHEN THEY SETTLED THERE. The federation did not exist yet and wouldn't for a century, hell it was only a few years to a decade of humans met Vulcans for the first time
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 09:59 PM   #57
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Insurrection

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Star Grinch wrote: View Post
So I guess me and my 500 cult followers can settle on any random planet we want to in Federation space,
And yet what you seem to have a problem grasping was that THERE WAS NO FEDERATION SPACE WHEN THEY SETTLED THERE. The federation did not exist yet and wouldn't for a century, hell it was only a few years to a decade of humans met Vulcans for the first time
But there was a Klingon Empire and the Enterprise Augment trilogy indicated the Briar Patch belonged to the Empire. If that property became part of the Federation through a treaty or was a gain during wartime, it can be shown to have been continuously held.

So I'm not sure the Ba'ku being there before the Federation existed would really matter one way or the other.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 10:41 PM   #58
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
SFdebris in his review of the film compares the situation to moving a few cabins that are downstream so that a river can be dammed, thus providing electricity to millions.
A comparison that only works if the cabins are in one country and the people wanting to dam the river are from another, or did I miss the part were the Baku joined the federation before the events of the film.

This is why the analogy to imperialism is a false one that substitutes loaded terms for an argument.
Again did I miss the part were the Baku joined the federation before the events of the film, because otherwise its one nation imposing its will on another aka imperialism

Also, if you reject "the needs of the many" argument, you basically reject the entire basis of democracy, the welfare state, etc.
Listen and pay attention THE! BAKU! ARE! NOT! PART! OF! THE! FEDERATION! So the federation has no authority over them at all.

so... the basis of your entire argument is that territorial sovereignty is supreme and trumps all other considerations. Really, that's the only basis you've offered. It would be pretty flimsy even if the Baku WERE indigenous, which they weren't. So really, it's not even some kind of "mystical connection with the soil" argument you're offering, it's just pure "finders keepers."

I don't know what to say to that argument except that absolutism on a principle as constantly in motion as territory and borders strikes me as rather silly.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 10:45 PM   #59
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
And again, this was not about "stealing" the planet. No one was going to take the planet because it was going to be uninhabitable. SFdebris in his review of the film compares the situation to moving a few cabins that are downstream so that a river can be dammed, thus providing electricity to millions. They're not TAKING the planet, they're moving the inhabitants so they won't be harmed by a process that would harm them.
There's a village with a fresh water source. A company comes and claims that water source. They remove the village, pour the water into bottles and what was once free has now a price tag.

The Ba'ku wouldn't have had a problem with other people coming and building settlements and get the metaphasic radiation for free without harming anyone and without destroying anything. A planet is pretty huge.

Also, if you reject "the needs of the many" argument, you basically reject the entire basis of democracy, the welfare state, etc. Otherwise, the needs of the aristocratic few should prevail, and their wealth and power shouldn't be touched to give the masses greater control over their own lives. It continues to amuse me to see folks defending the property rights of an entitled few over the greater good for billions.
I rejected it because it didn't apply. The Son'a misused the Federation for their own plans. They wanted revenge on the Ba'ku, and they wanted the radiation for themselves. And by the end of the movie it was clear that Rua'fo would have NEVER EVER accepted "No" as an answer. It was only because the Ba'ku was inside the Federation territory that they even had to deal with relocation and all that shit. Had the planet been somewhere else, they would have just killed everybody. It never was about the many, it was always just about the few Son'a.


And then there's the thing again that the effects didn't last once you left the planet. Geordi says that. He didn't know if his newly grown eyes would last.
Which means they didn't even know for sure if relocation would kill the older Ba'ku.

a planet is pretty huge, but that didn't stop the Baku from kicking the Son'a off of it, huh?(leaving aside the issue of how a group of Luddite pacifists did that, because if we focused on the plot holes, it would be a long list)


Again, the Son'a motives are irrelevant to me as they were to Dougherty. The medical benefits would still help billions of UFP citizens. That the Son'a achieved their revenge in the process is not relevant to the Federation.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 10:56 PM   #60
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
so... the basis of your entire argument is that territorial sovereignty is supreme and trumps all other considerations.
So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.