ultimate reasoning behind prime directive ?

[Arpy]

Re getting involved in civil wars, if the French didn't get involved in our war for independence there'd be no US. If the the UK or whoever got involved in the South's war for independence, there'd be 2 US's. Should the UFP take sides in internal matters of warp capable states?

[Captain Picard.]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

Ideally, the Prime Directive simply prohits Starfleet crews from interfering in the development of less advanced civilizations--to allow them to join the galactic community on their own terms. But like many policies, there are times when it becomes problematic.

From a dramatic story telling viewpoint, it's great for creating moral dilemmas for our heroes.

That did not happen in first contact.

[Dale Sams]

I'm a little confused by the First Contact TV ep...are they supposed to contact the civilization right before they have their first warp flight, or are they supposed to have a big "Welcome to the Rest of the Galaxy" party after they go to warp?

[The Librarian]

One thing that makes "Homeward" a bad example is that by the time the Enterprise had arrived the planet was already pretty much dead. The entire atmosphere somehow turned toxic within a matter of hours. There's probably nothing they could have done away on such short notice. Whining about how Worf's brother saved some people was a bit over the top, but they can't be blamed for not saving the entire planet when they had no opportunity to do so.

It does, however, illustrate part of the reasoning behind the PD, although not in a very good way. Why did Worf's brother choose to save that particular village? Because he liked them better than he liked the next village over. Also because he was screwing one of the aliens, which is even worse. From a policy standpoint this is a horrible reason for interfering or as a basis of who you're going to save, especially when the observer shouldn't have been getting so connected in the first place.

[sonak]

[QUOTE=robau;7485910]I just figure the prime directive is practical in wanting to deal with fellow warp cultures for trading and whatever.

[QUOTE=Dale Sams;7485556]

Arpy wrote:

---

The pd keeps getting labeled as a product of liberal tng folly but it's very conservative an ideal isn't it?

I just read a discussion on that at a liberal board. There were a handful that applauded it. I doubt a single conservative does. Personally as someone who has been a conservative but now holds some liberal views, I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.

off-topic, but yeah, zero-tolerance policies have actually been shown by studies to be ineffective and actually counter-productive. What they're good at is appeasing certain adults by making it seem like "something" is being done, even if it's something stupid and harmful.

[BillJ]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

One of the most blatant Kirk violations, that I never hear lip service given to is "Friday's Child". The Klingon hadn't interfered. He was offering an alliance, but he didn't provide arms or men. Maab's coup seems completly within his culture's boundries and Kirk sticks his nose in. The result is EXACTLY* why the PD exists.

Of course, alls well that ends well.

*Eleen: "I was prepared to die, kill him as well!" Good job, Kirk.

I suspect these pre-warp TOS contact CF's are exactly why the Feds changed their first contact rules.

Well, Kirk wasn't there to observe the Prime Directive. He was there as a Federation negotiator for the mineral Capella IV had.

[Dale Sams]

BillJ wrote:

---

Well, Kirk wasn't there to observe the Prime Directive. He was there as a Federation negotiator for the mineral Capella IV had.

Heh. You mean Kirk had it worked out,: "I save her, save her kid, get rid of Maab and get her back on the throne...and get her to sign over those mineral rights to us." I like it!

[BillJ]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Heh. You mean Kirk had it worked out,: "I save her, save her kid, get rid of Maab and get her back on the throne...and get her to sign over those mineral rights to us." I like it!

It was either that or allow the Klingons to gain the rights and likely roll in and take over the planet in the long run.

[Captain Picard.]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

I'm a little confused by the First Contact TV ep...are they supposed to contact the civilization right before they have their first warp flight, or are they supposed to have a big "Welcome to the Rest of the Galaxy" party after they go to warp?

Yes they travel back in time to visit that man that creates the first worp speed. I remember Gordi explaining to him about how famous he is going to be and he was talking about when he visited his statue when he was a school boy.

[BillJ]

Captain Picard. wrote:

---

Yes they travel back in time to visit that man that creates the first worp speed. I remember Gordi explaining to him about how famous he is going to be and he was talking about when he visited his statue when he was a school boy.

First Contact is also a season four TNG episode. About the Federation making contact with a race getting ready to make their first warp flight. Riker is captured which complicates things.

[Captain Picard.]

Oh yes my mistake thought you were on about the movie

[C.E. Evans]

Captain Picard. wrote:

---

That did not happen in first contact.

The moral dilemma in that story didn't fall upon our heroes, but rather on the civilization they contacted--should they continue forward with warp drive and join the greater galactic community or should they stop and let more time pass until everyone in their society--including the hardline opposition--was ready to move forward?

[JirinPanthosa]

I haven't heard this story of the boy getting suspended because he made a gun. Was it a real gun capable of actually harming someone or a toy gun?

And if it's a toy gun, does it look enough like a real gun to cause a panic? And, did he bring it to school? These are all important. Using a real gun at a shooting range: Harmless. Making a fake gun that looks real and bringing it into school = Yelling 'Bomb' on a plane.

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

I haven't heard this story of the boy getting suspended because he made a gun. Was it a real gun capable of actually harming someone or a toy gun?

And if it's a toy gun, does it look enough like a real gun to cause a panic? And, did he bring it to school? These are all important. Using a real gun at a shooting range: Harmless. Making a fake gun that looks real and bringing it into school = Yelling 'Bomb' on a plane.

This does not belong here. Were you in the wrong forum?

[JirinPanthosa]

[QUOTE=robau;7485910]
I dunno. Are "No-tolerance" policies like suspending six year olds for making a gun with their thumb and finger liberal or conservative follies? I think conservatives howl about most stuff kids get in trouble over that they didn't as a kid.

[QUOTE=Dale Sams;7485556]

Arpy wrote:

---

The pd keeps getting labeled as a product of liberal tng folly but it's very conservative an ideal isn't it?

I just read a discussion on that at a liberal board. There were a handful that applauded it. I doubt a single conservative does. Personally as someone who has been a conservative but now holds some liberal views, I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.

Continuance of conversation