RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,564
Posts: 5,514,193
Members: 25,147
Currently online: 396
Newest member: Wolfspaw

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 9 2013, 11:23 PM   #61
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Timo wrote: View Post
Your so-called point is irrelevant. Mine is that it's not nice to find excuses for genocide, such as "I was elected to push this button".
What you are trying to do is expand the scope of the debate, to bring scrutiny as to whether or not the elected leaders of the countries on Earth today are better or just as worse as the dictators that they have vanquished. THAT is a political argument and not appropriate here, for we are discussing a fictional sci-fi TV series. If you wish to debate that, then bring this up in the Miscellaneous or the Neutral Zone.

Sometimes people become so desperate to be right that they alter the debate context to try fitting it to their argument. Your persistent clinging to the premise of Khan being a civilized leader is to then cite how the democratically elected leaders of today are no different from dictators, that they have been responsible for the deaths of millions as well; thus in comparison, Khan remains civilized and you win your argument. This... is a cop-out.

Khan, with respect to the Federation high officials depicted in Star Trek, is not a civilized leader, and definitely a man that does not believe in equal rights for human beings. He was unjust and uncivilized in his brutal attempt to commandeer the Enterprise, and there was NO GOOD GROUNDS FOR IT EITHER. He and his followers weren't being held in restraint nor being ascertained for possible crimes committed in the past. In fact, the Enterprise SAVED THEIR LIVES. The repayment of being a good Samaritan was to be threatened with death. This is not civilized in the world of Star Trek. And this is why the fundamental question was raised, "Why Let Khan Live?"
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.

Last edited by Gary7; June 9 2013 at 11:38 PM.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 11:36 PM   #62
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

All the above is relevant to the arguments about Khan. It's you who's trying to bring external agendas such as "dictators are automatically evil because of Earth precedent H" into the game...

Khan doesn't believe in equal rights for all men, that's true. That makes him another Washington or Jefferson, then. But just like Jefferson, Khan explicitly refrained from launching wars of aggression (although much like Jefferson, he did rattle his saber on the world stage) or practicing atrocities (although no doubt his actions, like Jefferson's, had dire consequences on the masses involved in said world affairs). It's the deeds that count, not the possible perverse personal philosophies that these leaders may lean to in private or public.

Khan, with respect to the Federation high officials depicted in Star Trek, is not a civilized leader
Says you. Kirk might well say differently.

But that's wholly beside the point, as what Kirk is explicitly saying is that Khan, with respect to just about anybody else, was a civilized leader in the terms of the late 20th century. And while Kirk despises the age and may think of his own leaders in higher terms, Kirk himself is a late 20th century leader in all his actions and beliefs. No wonder, then, that he respects Khan as an adversary, more than he does Kor, and much like he does Flint. (Perhaps he has a superman fetish?)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 11:46 PM   #63
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

I am not bringing in an external agenda. I only cited Hitler and other dictators in response to your attempt to qualify today's leaders as dictators/tyrants. I wouldn't have brought them into scope had it not been for that.

Again... Washington and Jefferson? This is outside the scope of Star Trek.

Within the frame of Star Trek, the context we debate the character Khan who never existed in OUR reality, we see a man of powerful ambition who does not practice it with civilized actions. His attempted take over of the Enterprise, the attempted murder of Captain Kirk (and again, he thought he had already killed him), and the threat to execute every last officer until he gets control of the ship... THIS is all we really know, not some fantasy of what the Khan character actually was in the past. And from these actions is how we really need to judge him. DO you really think after Khan was banished to the planet that Kirk and company continued to admire Khan based on their fictional understanding? He tried to kill people and steal their starship. History often rewrites and exaggerates. Their understanding of Khan was not one of warning... for had he been described for his true nature, they would have been on their guard and not allowed him to covertly awaken his followers and launch a take-over attempt of the Enterprise.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 11:51 PM   #64
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Okay, in those terms we can judge Khan easily enough - as the peer of Kirk. The ambition may be differently directed, but the actions are the same. Kirk is the master of deadly threats, ready to annihilate entire civilizations to get what he wants. He blackmails with lives in several episodes, and like Khan, he thus gets what he wants without actually killing or even in any way harming his "victims". (Except for bludgeoning the head honcho of the week with moves that should hospitalize him, were this not Hollywood.)

But this is just a digression. None of this makes Khan a horrible man in his own time - nor can it be used to contradict the onscreen facts about him not having been one. Kirk threatens to slay billions when he gets cornered. Well, Khan was cornered here. He wasn't cornered when ruling a quarter of a world!

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 11:57 PM   #65
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

So you now sink so low as to call Kirk a murderous power mongering tyrant--a peer of Khan? "A master of deadly threats, ready to annihilate entire civilizations to get what he wants."

I'm sorry, but if you were to start a character poll on Kirk asking this very question, a very small fraction of people on TBBS (including yourself) would check that box for "peer of Khan, spiritual brother".

Clearly, you have a very hard biased opinion of Kirk based on what you said. And you take some of his actions COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT (meaning why did he threaten, which was almost always to achieve a peaceful outcome for all concerned). One cannot debate in a productive manner if one side continually attempts to morph the context in seeking support of their argument. It's like playing chess and periodically adding another row or a few more pieces in an attempt to keep the game alive.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 12:12 AM   #66
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

So you now sink so low as to call Kirk a murderous power mongering tyrant--a peer of Khan? "A master of deadly threats, ready to annihilate entire civilizations to get what he wants."
Those are the facts of the matter. Just check out the numerous episodes where Kirk bargains with lives that are either his to take by tyrannical decree (his crew) or his to take by personal insistence (civilizations on alien worlds).

Just goes to show that tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.

Clearly, you have a very hard biased opinion of Kirk based on what you said.
Naah. You are just blinded by your personal hatred of the character of Khan.

I cite objective facts. You say "dictators must drink blood, it's in the definition", contrary to the description of the one dictator relevant to the discussion.

Mind you, there are two levels to your fallacy here. On one hand, you try to argue that Khan in-universe was worse than the episode dialogue establishes him to be. On another, you try to argue that the writers did not attempt to cast Khan in a sympathetic light. Well, the first argument is blown over by the obvious: that the only pseudo-facts available on the issue favor a civilized Khan, in comparison with his 20th century peers. Anything in contradiction of that is made up, as no episode or movie provides contrary facts on Khan's past. And the second seems to hinge on the idea that villains can't be sympathetic. There's no such idea. Indeed, the very conclusion of the episode, a dramatically interesting twist that reinforces Kirk's benevolence, dictates that the writers make Khan sufficiently sympathetic that a hero could absolve him without becoming stained in the process.

Of course, Kirk does get stained in the sequel, where different laws of dramatic writing have come to be and stains are something to be proud of. Khan changes, too, with the changing times. But in "Space Seed", a 21st century filter on Khan's character gives uselessly biased data, as the writers had different standards to uphold.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 12:38 AM   #67
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Timo wrote: View Post
Those are the facts of the matter. Just check out the numerous episodes where Kirk bargains with lives that are either his to take by tyrannical decree (his crew) or his to take by personal insistence (civilizations on alien worlds).
Since it's your claim, why don't you do the research and pull up the references to exemplify Kirk as such?

Just goes to show that tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.
No, it isn't. Tyranny is in the actions of the alleged tyrant. This isn't a beauty contest.

Naah. You are just blinded by your personal hatred of the character of Khan.
"He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him." You erroneously conclude that I personally hate Khan. I never said that I did. In fact, I enjoyed his character immensely for what it was. But one can appreciate a villain, despite not having desirable personal characteristics. I do not murder people.


I cite objective facts. You say "dictators must drink blood, it's in the definition", contrary to the description of the one dictator relevant to the discussion.
I never said that. Your "objective" facts refer to only select elements, not the whole picture. You take the Khan personality out of context. You find a few positive character references in the historical records, and then hold fast to this man being the Khan we witnessed. You have completely ignored his actions. I've cited them several times and yet you side step citing my quote and responding to them. So... who is the one who is biased here? (Rhetorical question, obviously).

As for the writer's intent... that's not relevant to my argument. I only need to refer to how Khan behaved with his benefactors.



Anyway, it is just as I had said a few posts back. Continuing this debate with you is pointless, because you refuse to stick with the same context. You rely solely on the historical records in the database and the crew opinions that were based on them, rather than the man we experienced. I posit that the historical account was inaccurate, at the very least exaggerated the depiction of Khan. For the man that appeared out of hibernation did not measure up.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 10:28 PM   #68
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Since it's your claim, why don't you do the research and pull up the references to exemplify Kirk as such?
Because I'm quite sure you remember them by rote anyway. It's Star Trek, after all - something we love and cherish to death.

Sigh... If you insist:

Kirk threatens to make a civilization die in war in "A Taste of Armageddon" just for his own personal safety (and a dubious agenda of "people must have the freedom to kill each other"). Kirk goads another civilization to sacrifice themselves for a foreign cause in "Errand of Mercy", and again quotes the agenda of war being a basic freedom (having the gall to praise his democratic government in the context, even!). Kirk again saves his own sorry ass by destroying civilizations in "Return of the Archons" and "The Apple", making excuses he himself considered invalid in episodes like "Bread and Circuses" or "Patterns of Force". Kirk prepares to blow up 429 with the cooperation and consent of just two of them in "Let That Be", just to stop an adversary from adding a few hours to the week's pressed-for-time space voyage, when he himself is ready to add more than that to a similar mission of mercy in "The Galileo Seven" - and when he demonstrates he is too cowardly to really sacrifice his own life even when the future of the galaxy is at stake in "By Any Other Name".

None of this makes Kirk a particularly reprehensible character (well, apart from the "By Any Other Name" thing), as he readily admits he's a soldier and is not just excused but indeed expected to kill, or threaten to. It just highlights that he is a man of Khan's caliber, although Khan is additionally a full-blown statesman by profession, whereas Kirk is just pressed to occasional frontier diplomacy by his profession and therefore a bit less expected to engage in what statesmen do - putting one's own state far ahead of the well-being and indeed survival of other states and their citizens.

No, it isn't. Tyranny is in the actions of the alleged tyrant. This isn't a beauty contest.
Which is what I'm saying. A tyrant is a man with sovereign powers, with the modern connotation of using those powers for cruelty, and Khan's tyranny is dependent on his actions - which the episode establishes as not involving cruelty unbecoming of a 20th century statesman. If Khan is a tyrant in the 23rd century, it's in the role of a besieged military leader, essentially a platoon lieutenant, and for one with objective eyes, this has nothing to do with his alleged tyranny in the 20th century.

The problem here is the one from the old saying - the lack of objective eyes.

You erroneously conclude that I personally hate Khan. I never said that I did.
But if it's actions (or, in the forum context, words) that are decisive, there's no error here.

But one can appreciate a villain, despite not having desirable personal characteristics. I do not murder people.
I hope I wasn't implying quite that - sorry! My argument is that you are attributing the wrong, out-of-thin-air, contrary-to-onscreen-pseudofact characteristics to the villain, and certainly it is not that you would be sympathizing with him. And my great concern is that on the side, you are associating evil with certain very narrow forms of leadership, while the association is tenuous at best and basically serves as an apology for evil outside this narrow frame.

You take the Khan personality out of context.
Cryosleep does that. Khan's personality is described indirectly and directly, for the 20th century and the 23rd, in both cases through his actions. And by this testimony, his actions before and after the cryosleep adventure differ from each other. Which you appear to consider a bug while I take it as a feature.

I'm not categorically opposed to assuming that characters lie or err. But in this context, there's no need to explain the difference in personality/actions by lies or errors, when the simple change in Khan's fortunes is explanation in itself.

As for the writer's intent... that's not relevant to my argument.
It's an argument used to indicate that Khan must be maximally villainous - so pointing out that it's not a valid argument (because the writers would necessarily be motivated to temper Khan's evilness, and because we indeed witness this happening) is important.

I posit that the historical account was inaccurate, at the very least exaggerated the depiction of Khan.
And since Khan is Alexander and Napoleon, this is no doubt true. But the nature of the inaccuracy is the relevant part here. Our heroes admire Khan for being relatively bloodless as tyrants go - which is not what "great men" are incorrectly remembered for in the real world, and certainly not true of the Alexanders and the Napoleons. It very specifically makes him an anti-Hitler in every respect.

In relation to this, let's not misunderstand Spock's line about incomplete records. Spock is speaking about shipping records, trying to excuse his inability to nail down the Botany Bay launch in full detail. He's not talking about an apocalyptic breakdown of archiving. It's Khan's enemies who write the history he is quoting, and they didn't go down in flames and have their history overwritten by Khan-minded winners. If Khan's enemies speak so highly of the man, it's poor support for the idea that he was a monster. Yes, perhaps he was a Rommel, a convenient enemy to whitewash because he so successfully defied other Augments - but he, too, was eventually defeated by the history writers at the conclusion of the war they won, not triumphed around as a helpful ally or conveniently martyred before the final victory.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 01:00 AM   #69
Sran
Commodore
 
Sran's Avatar
 
Location: The Captain's Table
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Big Daddy wrote: View Post
I strongly doubt that the timelessness of the series hinges on one episode. And it needn't be as simple and unpoetic as Kirk simply executing Khan. By your logic, he should have found a kinder gentler solution to the Gary Mitchell problem.
Kirk decided to kill Mitchell only as a last resort. If he had been able to get away with marooning Mitchell on the planet, it's likely he would have done so.

--Sran
__________________
"Many things seem clever to an imbecile." --Captain Thelin th'Valrass, USS Enterprise-- "The Chimes at Midnight"
Sran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 01:16 AM   #70
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Cinema Geekly wrote: View Post
The whole thing seemed odd to me. Imprisoning them and refreezing seemed like the obvious choice. Why take the chance that a random ship stops by, detects life, and goes down for a visit only for Khan and company to commandeer it for their own purposes.

I mean that must have been a viable option. If it wasn't because Khan and his crew so much stronger and more intelligent then they would have simply just taken the ship, why agree to be stranded?
Here's what I would have done (if possible):

1. Put Khan and company in stasis.

2. Install a robot brain/automation system aboard the Botany Bay that will pilot the ship wherever it needs to go.

3. Tow the Botany Bay near a system with habitable planets (or a region of space with them.)

4. Let fly the Botany Bay into said region/system towards planet that would support human life as programmed into robot system (ship arrives, system wakes up crew, crew goes to planet, begins colonization [Enterprise sets up warning beacons in region of space warning passerby not to go near the planet where Khan & Co. are.])

Of course, the best thing would be (if this were the Babylon 5 universe) for Khan and Co. to be tried and sentenced to death (of personality) and for Khan to get the personality of this man and make a difference in the galaxy. But since Star Trek isn't Babylon 5...
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 02:16 AM   #71
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Timo wrote: View Post
Since it's your claim, why don't you do the research and pull up the references to exemplify Kirk as such?
Because I'm quite sure you remember them by rote anyway. It's Star Trek, after all - something we love and cherish to death.
I do love Star Trek, but I don't know the entire canon by rote. From how you word things, it sounds like you do... and you relish a hearty debate no matter what you have to do to incite it, based on your claims that follow.

Kirk threatens to make a civilization die in war in "A Taste of Armageddon" just for his own personal safety (and a dubious agenda of "people must have the freedom to kill each other").
Wow... talk about stretching a glove to fit around a brick. No, what Kirk finds is a DYSFUNCTIONAL SOCIETY whereby a government is purposefully sentencing their people to death as a means of abiding by an agreement not to go to war. Kirk and crew had NO INTENTION of getting involved, per the prime directive. But, Anan decides to include the Enterprise by having it declared as a destroyed vessel. This was not a vessel owned by Eminiar 7. They could have found a diplomatic way to get a waiver. But this is beside the point. Kirk and crew were all sentenced to DEATH! So, you think he and the entire crew of the Enterprise should have herded themselves into the disintegration chambers? Nonsense. But you see... you said "personal safety". Kirk has shown time and time again that he'll sacrifice himself for the good of everyone else. This wasn't to save his skin, but to save his crew mates. And... by doing so, he helped a DYSFUNCTIONAL SOCIETY break their streak of arrested development. If you recall, Uhura ended the episode with "Message from Eminiar Seven, Captain. Ambassador Fox reports negotiations underway with Vendikar. Outlook hopeful." This was Kirk's intention and it came to fruition.


Kirk goads another civilization to sacrifice themselves for a foreign cause in "Errand of Mercy", and again quotes the agenda of war being a basic freedom (having the gall to praise his democratic government in the context, even!).
How can you say this in earnest and still sleep at night? Kirk and company arrive to warn the indigenous people that the bloodthirsty Klingons are on their way to conquer them. They want to help protect them from conquest. Of course there is a higher agenda, meaning the Federation does not want to permit the Klingon Empire from conquering yet another civilization. Whereas the Klingons would enslave the indigenous population (not unlike Khan), the Federation would rather them enjoy their own personal freedom. You apparently forget how the Klingons executed thousands of people in the courtyards. You think the Federation would have done that? Perhaps Khan would have. If you recall, he threatened murdering numerous people aboard the Enterprise and indeed put Kirk to death (saved at the last minute).


Kirk again saves his own sorry ass by destroying civilizations in "Return of the Archons" and "The Apple", making excuses he himself considered invalid in episodes like "Bread and Circuses" or "Patterns of Force".
AGAIN, you are talking about DYSFUNCTIONAL SOCIETIES. Yes, it's not a completely cut-clear-and-dry kind of thing, whereas at the end there is often the introspection of a struggling democratic society versus a so-called "paradise." A society where a computer system keeps the people in full control, effectively stifling creativity. The inhabitants of both worlds were developmentally arrested. Kirk and company "freed" them of that banal existence. And as far as interfering, in both circumstances, the crew make a peaceful arrival and then find themselves trapped with the ship destined to be destroyed if Kirk and crew didn't do something about it. SELF DEFENSE.

It just highlights that he is a man of Khan's caliber, although Khan is additionally a full-blown statesman by profession, whereas Kirk is just pressed to occasional frontier diplomacy by his profession and therefore a bit less expected to engage in what statesmen do - putting one's own state far ahead of the well-being and indeed survival of other states and their citizens.
So again, by repainting Kirk as a selfish individual willing to sacrifice entire civilizations for his own personal agenda, you are then able to compare him to Khan. But this all falls apart, because you've outlandishly distorted Kirk as I've countered in your claims above. And I don't buy that "Cryosleep does that. Khan's personality is described indirectly and directly, for the 20th century and the 23rd, in both cases through his actions. And by this testimony, his actions before and after the cryosleep adventure differ from each other. Which you appear to consider a bug while I take it as a feature." There is nothing established where cryogenic sleep would cause such an personality aberration, to turn a statesman into a murderous megalomaniac.


Anyway, it's becoming plain that you're just toying with me for your own enjoyment. I thought you and I could have a civilized discussion about Khan and his portrayal in the episode, but you've got your own ulterior motives, one of which is to just cajole me into yet another pointless avenue of discussion for your amusement. You may think that with the folding of my hand and walking away from the table means you've won, but... you really haven't. Whereas I would have engaged you in future debates, I'll not be inclined to do so. I prefer debates with the aim of uncovering greater awareness of Star Trek qualities, not promoting someone's own personal agenda.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 06:57 PM   #72
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Kirk and crew had NO INTENTION of getting involved, per the prime directive.
Exactly. But when his own life became threatened, he threw out the rulebook. As usual. Even though the Prime Directive actually says that when his life is threatened and there's no way out, he should die ("Omega Glory").

So, you think he and the entire crew of the Enterprise should have herded themselves into the disintegration chambers?
Yes. He swore an oath to do exactly that when he joined.

Kirk has shown time and time again that he'll sacrifice himself for the good of everyone else.
Certainly not in "By Any Other Name".

How can you say this in earnest and still sleep at night?
Because I don't worship people who order innocents to die for the glory of a foreign flag. I'm very, very sorry if you are one of those people.

You apparently forget how the Klingons executed thousands of people in the courtyards. You think the Federation would have done that?
The Federation did that. Kirk did that. Had the Organians been real mortals, Kirk would have been their factual executioner.

AGAIN, you are talking about DYSFUNCTIONAL SOCIETIES.
Quite so - we are talking about excuses. Kirk kills people for excuses' sake. Which is what soldiers are supposed to do: they kill so that life would be better for the people they kill, by the definition of those who order the killings. But at least some of them do it as if they believe in it, while Kirk usually does it only to save his own ass.

So again, by repainting Kirk as a selfish individual willing to sacrifice entire civilizations for his own personal agenda, you are then able to compare him to Khan. But this all falls apart, because you've outlandishly distorted Kirk as I've countered in your claims above.
Naah. You have merely demonstrated that you are a naiive person who could well be voted the Member Most Likely to Condone Genocide for a Good-Sounding Reason.

The trouble seems to be that you can't recognize TOS for what it objectively is: an ultra-conservative 1960s show about a military man who unquestioningly fights for a single philosophy and mercilessly stomps down others. This sort of action is portrayed in a positive light, and any diversity is labeled villainous. Which is only to be expected of a show filmed at that particular time, at that particular place etc., and nothing wrong with it as such. The problems only arise if one mistakes this for a worldview superior to the one Khan was supposed to represent.

There is nothing established where cryogenic sleep would cause such an personality aberration
You took me too literally. What changes Khan is that he, the prince of millions, is forced to flee into a cryogenic chamber and then carve out a niche for himself again from nothing much.

I thought you and I could have a civilized discussion about Khan and his portrayal in the episode, but you've got your own ulterior motives, one of which is to just cajole me into yet another pointless avenue of discussion for your amusement.
What I'd really want to cajole you into is staying out of politics or armed forces, as you seem to be quite a weapon of mass destruction all by yourself. If I were you, I wouldn't flaunt an ability to find excuses for atrocities...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 08:25 PM   #73
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Because it is the most human option available.

Whether or not there was a death penalty in the UFP (this is a background detail like "Vulcanian" or one of the many hardest substances - one which is bound to vary depending on the needs of a story), it was best for Khan and his people to be left there.

Say there is no death penalty. OK, what do you do with dozens of super-tyrants? You can't just release them, which mean they would have to be detained somewhere. Life imprisonment. Doesn't sound like fun.

Leave them on an out of the way planet, however, and they are not an immediate threat to anyone. Moreover, it offered them a chance for these people to strive and to build.

Spend your life in a cell or spend your life at the beginning of a new world's civilization? This was a place where Khan could be Khan without the whole universe having to suffer.

That and they respected Khan. He was just a man living in a world that had outgrown Napoleons.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 11:24 PM   #74
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Timo wrote: View Post
But when his own life became threatened, he threw out the rulebook. As usual. Even though the Prime Directive actually says that when his life is threatened and there's no way out, he should die ("Omega Glory").
No rule is without exceptions. Kirk and many others have found reason to bypass the prime directives for the good of all involved. But you'll just never buy that, so it's pointless to continue, especially when you keep pointing it back to personal selfish reasons when they aren't.

Because I don't worship people who order innocents to die for the glory of a foreign flag. I'm very, very sorry if you are one of those people.
Distortion and reshape * 1000. That's not what happened.

The Federation did that. Kirk did that. Had the Organians been real mortals, Kirk would have been their factual executioner.
That's completely false. Kirk did not execute anyone, save for a couple of Klingons.

Kirk kills people for excuses' sake. Which is what soldiers are supposed to do: they kill so that life would be better for the people they kill, by the definition of those who order the killings. But at least some of them do it as if they believe in it, while Kirk usually does it only to save his own ass.
You're applying 20th century conventional definitions on a starship captain from the 23rd century. Kirk is not as you've depicted him. Try and find more than a handful of people on TBBS who see Kirk as you do... go ahead, I'd be amazed if you could even find just a few.

Naah. You have merely demonstrated that you are a naiive person who could well be voted the Member Most Likely to Condone Genocide for a Good-Sounding Reason.
Laughable. I have done no such outlandish thing, like condoning genocide.

The trouble seems to be that you can't recognize TOS for what it objectively is: an ultra-conservative 1960s show about a military man who unquestioningly fights for a single philosophy and mercilessly stomps down others. This sort of action is portrayed in a positive light, and any diversity is labeled villainous. Which is only to be expected of a show filmed at that particular time, at that particular place etc., and nothing wrong with it as such. The problems only arise if one mistakes this for a worldview superior to the one Khan was supposed to represent.
Well from your high seat of anti-democracy somewhere in Finland (yes, I do know your location despite the purposeful lack of any details in your profile), you certainly have a penchant for making a show you supposedly love into something demonic. It makes no sense why you're a fan, unless while believing all this crap you are one to condone genocide and blindly follow a man like Khan.

Anyway, you did what I expected you to do, which was to tip your hat on a rather delusional outlook on Star Trek. The Federation does not rule based on tyranny or dictatorships, but instead of the promotion of inalienable rights. Yes, it can't be exercised each and every time because there are exceptional circumstances. In any case, I'm mystified why you even bother to be such a fervent poster about it. You yourself said how much you love Star Trek deeply, so I don't understand how you could look past such "glaring" qualities. It's a paradox.... pa-pa-pa-pa-paradox.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.

Last edited by Gary7; June 12 2013 at 12:33 AM.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 11:34 PM   #75
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Why Let Khan Live?

Big Daddy wrote: View Post
Look at it this way, would you give a group of Hitlers, Stalins, and Napoleons their very own world? Seems to me it'd be safer just to waste them all.
This is called a "human rights violation." (Or, I suppose in the world of Star Trek, a "sentients' rights violation.") People have the right to live, even if they are monsters; killing someone is only acceptable in the act of immediate self-defense or the immediate defense of others.

Better question:

Why not send Khan and company to a Federation prison?
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci 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 08:45 AM.

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