Do you often wish that you were living in Star Trek now?

So mendellin what has become of all the suffering gays in the future? Since they can't coexist with perfection?

 

Totally agree!

This topic initially is about other things, so, let's return to them

 

"Deflector shields failing, captain!"

"Initiate evasive maneuvers!"

 

Let's see:
-life has 2 fundamental features - survive and reproduce. Infertility means many of life's adaptations are non-functional. That's a serious design flaw - the same category as genetic diseases.
-hair loss is due to aging, which is a severe decrease in the body's ability to function and reproduce, leading to death - a very serious genetic disease.

I also find it interesting how most posters complain about the lack of homosexual relations in trek as opposed to, for example, polygamous relations.

 

You're going down a path I suggest you refrain from traveling. It won't just be gay people, but also infertile couples, older couples, among others, and you'll be painting them with this very broad brush that will be dipped in ignorance.

On a side note, I have no problem with polygamy.

 

I don't see medical school or a research grant in your future.

Aside from that, your logic is specious.

 

How am I paining aging and infertility, exactly? Other than biologically accurately?
And do come with actual arguments, as opposed to a badly-defined slippery-slope attempt.

Can none of you muster an actual argument (beyond logical fallacies) to support your beliefs?
Are they to this extent inconsistent?

Well...I must say, you perform below my already lowered expectations.

 

It's not my job to educate you, nor do I have the patience. You could Google "causes of male pattern baldness" and discover one of the most basic and obvious of your several ridiculous errors, if you want to make the effort to learn something.

 

So - I see you can NOT come with an actual argument (BTW, it's about aging as the main cause of, among other more grave conditions, the effect named baldness).
Instead, you hide behind some wanna-be 'cool' dictum (and some vague ad personams - but that's standard).
Ookie-dookie.

 

Your entire reasoning is fallacious, and commits the logical fallacies argumentum ad ignorantiam, as well as "begging the question," ecological fallacy, false attribution, along with onus probandi, and just a touch of special pleading, but please, ignore my advice and continue your current course of discussion.

 

Really?
If true, then you should have no problem in going beyond dictums and detail how and where these fallacies are present in my posts, yes?
Given your lengthy list, you may even analyze just a few of them - do provide quality over quantity, J. Allen.

 

I provide both quality and quantity. Your posts indicate, unfortunately, that your arguments do not have the resources for either.

It is not my responsibility to educate you on the finer points of logical fallacy. You shall have to undertake that task yourself. I have given you the map. Please feel free to use it.

 

And then you proceed to NOT provide any actual arguments, but the usual list of fact-free dictums.
Well...I can't say I'm surprised.

Are you familiar with the mechanics and effects of religious indoctrination, J. Allen?

 

I'm fairly certain that we're having separate conversations, because you're responding with non sequiturs.

 

I think you are confusing Star Trek with heaven.

No one ever claimed Star Trek shows a perfect future, much less a perfect future without suffering. It's a very dangerous place if you're not living on earth. Certainly I am safer right here in my living room in crappy pre-warp earth than I would be on a starship from the amount of them that get blown up.

Star Trek shows a future that we hope science will take us to. Freedom from hunger and opportunities to rise above subsistence needs as humans, replacing them with higher pursuits. People still get sick and die, shuttles still crash, and even though (supposedly) humans on earth aren't raping and killing each other there's now a whole lot of other species eyeing off the pretties who have no qualms about making us suffer.

 

Also, infertility can be a choice, accomplished through drugs or employing barrier devices like condoms.

Why complain about the lack of something that wasn't lacking?

Phlox, a main character, was in a polygamous marriage. And in Data's Day it was intimated that Andorian marriages are composed of four individuals.

 

Yes, because it's a way to nowhere. All this discussion is about our personal preferences. Some people find it funny or cool to watch gay relationships in TV-series and big-screen movies. Some people don't. That's all.

Maybe, the reason is, that polygamous relationships are not so topical, there is no sharp things to discuss.
Nowadays gayness is not an attribute of a person, it's "a red rag to a bull" of a society.

 

I'm not up for Star Trek to do relationship drama of any kind because it usually handles it in an incredibly poor manner. But... Roddenberry was pushing for world that included everyone. Heck, I think Spock is truly a "gay" character if we look at him critically. Rejected by his father for his choices, trying to suppress part of who he is and finally finding acceptance for who he is.

Star Trek included many different ethnic ethnic groups, TNG pushed the boundary by giving us a blind man who flies the Enterprise and a former enemy serving as a member of the crew. A gay character is simply an extension and a natural evolution of what Roddenberry was talking about. Even the TMP novelization hits on the Kirk/Spock relationship.

I have no idea what this even means.

 

No.

Some people prefer to erase gay people from existence. If not from the world, then from depictions in media.

Others want the broad spectrum of humanity displayed.

One group is arguing for a fantasy, while the other is arguing for reality. Do try to see the difference, and realize that we're not just arguing different sides of the same coin.