RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,511
Posts: 5,511,566
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 559
Newest member: dorjthibo12

TrekToday headlines

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

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


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 > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Doctor Who

Doctor Who "Bigger on the inside..."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 3 2009, 12:53 PM   #46
Starkers
Admiral
 
Starkers's Avatar
 
Location: Behind enemy lines
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

Hey hey hey let's have less of the dissing of Escape from New York, don't make me get all snake Plissken on your arses!

It is true that a lot of our genre stuff is dark and depressing (compare Threads to the Day After for further details.) However there is a tradition of British apocolyptic fiction being quite life affirming. Don't know if anyone saw the BBC 4 series of British scifi documentaries but they made an interesting point. American speculative fiction is primarily about destroying the world, the British equivilant is more about how we survive the end of the world. A lot of this is down to surviving the blitz etc.
Starkers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2009, 01:09 PM   #47
captcalhoun
Admiral
 
Location: everywhere
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

i did. very true, too.
captcalhoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2009, 01:19 PM   #48
Starkers
Admiral
 
Starkers's Avatar
 
Location: Behind enemy lines
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

That was a really good series of documentaries (there were three I think) I wish the beeb would repeat them/release them on DVD.
Starkers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2009, 01:28 PM   #49
George Bailey
The Revd's Oldman
 
George Bailey's Avatar
 
Location: Bob The Skutter
View George Bailey's Twitter Profile
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

Starkers wrote: View Post
That was a really good series of documentaries (there were three I think) I wish the beeb would repeat them/release them on DVD.
I remember it, I think. When they did the Sci-Fi Britannia season (or something like that). I love it when they do stuff like that.
__________________
You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider!
George Bailey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2009, 01:29 PM   #50
Ensign_Redshirt
Commodore
 
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
I agree that it's unlikely but it is certainly possible. We can't predict the future. For all we know, such a catastrophe could occur tomorrow or next year. Isn't it prudent that we take precautions in case of such a contingency? Otherwise, it's like not having smoke detectors in the house because you think it's unlikely that the house will ever catch fire.
Actually, I don't have any smoke detectors. And my house catching fire is far more likely than my country turning into a dictatorship. The latter belongs more into the "asteroid hits Earth" category. And so far I havent't really prepared myself for asteroid impacts either.

Anyway, when a catastrophe of such magnitude happens that my country is turned into a dictatorship, the form of a government will probably the least of my problems. I guess I'd be glad that at least some form of government authority is still left.
Ensign_Redshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2009, 01:55 PM   #51
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

Isnt it ironic that, by and large, most of those who support the right to bear arms,for among other reasons, the right to resist government tyranny, are also those who have been most supportive of the infringements of civil liberties which the US have brought in over the last decade? Just a thought ...
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2009, 03:01 PM   #52
Jax
Admiral
 
Jax's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

Makes me laugh that the American Public believe that if the army came to get them that they would be able to stop them no matter how well armed you might be after all its the fricking army. Anyway this situation would not happen in our countries and the nuts who says otherwise about federal government are well just that...nuts

Now what you need is a TARDIS
__________________
If Fidelity to freedom and democracy is the code of our civic religion then surely the code of our humanity is faithful service to that unwritten commandment that says we shall give our children better than we ourselves received
Jax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2009, 07:19 PM   #53
Count Zero
Decidedly something
 
Count Zero's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Awesome
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
The only way to fight encroachment on our rights is to fight every little one by legal means, by protesting, by raising awareness in the media. Thankfully, for all of us living in liberal democracies, these things are possible.
What happens when we're not in a liberal democracy anymore? You're right, the deevolution of a government from democratic to totalitarian is usually a slow process. But what do you suggest the citizens do when they suddenly realize that they are at the tail end of that transformation?
Well, history suggests that they won't do anything. The vast majority will try to get by and just live their lives.
A few people will try to fight the regime, either as terrorists or by civil disobedience/critical pieces of art/protests/counter-propaganda. It depends on the circumstances whether the violent or the non-violent way is more promising.
You know, it's November 9th soon, 20 years ago the Berlin Wall fell. I shudder to think what could have happened if the people taking part in the protests of 88/89 had had guns. I doubt we'd be calling it 'the peaceful revolution of 1989'.


The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
I also have a hard time believing every government in the world would be cooperating with 456's demands. I can't imagine these sorts of alien demands going over well in an Islamic theocracy like Iran.
They sent children to search for mines in their war against Iraq. That doesn't strike me as being particularly fond of children...
Count Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2009, 01:17 AM   #54
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
Isnt it ironic that, by and large, most of those who support the right to bear arms,for among other reasons, the right to resist government tyranny, are also those who have been most supportive of the infringements of civil liberties which the US have brought in over the last decade? Just a thought ...
You do realize that there's a difference between supporting the right to bear arms and being a right-wing Republican NRA gun nut, right?

Jax wrote: View Post
Makes me laugh that the American Public believe that if the army came to get them that they would be able to stop them no matter how well armed you might be after all its the fricking army.
1. Bear in mind that that's just the most extreme worst-case-scenario people talk about and that that's hardly the only reason most of us support the right to bear arms. As I and others have noted, there are other reasons, including self-defense and hunting.

2. If that kind of extreme situation occurred, there's a good chance the army itself might split into multiple factions.

3. I rather think that the numerous civil wars occurring in the developing world are proof that not all countries' citizenries would just go along with whatever the government wanted. Some would, some wouldn't, and not every armed faction would even be fighting for liberal democracy. But the fact is that not every country's citizenry just rolls over for their governments.

4. The United States was born out of an armed citizens' revolt against the government and its army. Apartheid ended because of the African National Congress's armed struggle against the South African regime. The Republic of Ireland exists because the Irish people took up arms against the British. Don't underestimate the potential of the general populace to bring about large-scale social change, in part due to the exercise of the right to bear arms against tyrannical governments.
__________________
"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
Old November 4 2009, 08:46 AM   #55
The Borgified Corpse
Admiral
 
The Borgified Corpse's Avatar
 
Location: Ouch! Forgotten already? You were just down there 20 minutes ago.
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

Bob the Skutter wrote: View Post
The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
^Oh, unquestionably. All I'm saying is that it seems like all of the really thoughtful dystopian future movies of late have been British. There's not a whole lot that's very thought provoking about Escape from New York or even the Will Smith movie version of I Am Legend.
I think that's because of the British attitude. A lot of our genre fiction is dark and depressing, and we like it that way.
Oh there's lots of dark American speculative fiction as well. It just seems to me that the difference is that, when the British do it, it all seems so plausible. In American films, when the world ends, it's usually due to some great inhuman force that humanity must rally around to defeat/survive, such as in Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Waterworld, or the Terminator films. In the British examples we've cited, like Children of Men, V for Vendetta, & "Children of Earth," the real horror seems to be how society tears itself apart after the cataclysm. I think Americans may just generally have a more optimistic appraisal of themselves than the British do. Maybe not. I'm just trying to sort out if it means anything.

Ensign_Redshirt wrote: View Post
Anyway, when a catastrophe of such magnitude happens that my country is turned into a dictatorship, the form of a government will probably the least of my problems. I guess I'd be glad that at least some form of government authority is still left.
Unless that government authority turns on you and tries to take your children for the "greater good." I'm not talking about some vague concepts of "freedom" or "liberty" here. I'm talking end of the line, the government is now targeting YOU; not your neighbor, not some unpopular other, YOU. They are at your door with guns and they want your children. Are you telling me that, if this happened to you, you would prefer to be unarmed and be at the mercy of whatever "government authority is still left"?

Jax wrote: View Post
Makes me laugh that the American Public believe that if the army came to get them that they would be able to stop them no matter how well armed you might be after all its the fricking army.
Put aside what you think the chances of successful resistance are. Don't you have the right to violently defend yourself in those circumstances?

Count Zero wrote: View Post
[
The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
I also have a hard time believing every government in the world would be cooperating with 456's demands. I can't imagine these sorts of alien demands going over well in an Islamic theocracy like Iran.
They sent children to search for mines in their war against Iraq. That doesn't strike me as being particularly fond of children...
It's a grim abuse of children. However, I think there is a difference between risking their lives to advance a war that they hoped to win vs. sacrificing them to a wholly un-Islamic alien race that is blackmailing them.
__________________
Kegg: "You're a Trekkie. The capacity to quibble over the minutiae of space opera films is your birthright."
The Borgified Corpse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2009, 10:04 AM   #56
George Bailey
The Revd's Oldman
 
George Bailey's Avatar
 
Location: Bob The Skutter
View George Bailey's Twitter Profile
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
Bob the Skutter wrote: View Post
The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
^Oh, unquestionably. All I'm saying is that it seems like all of the really thoughtful dystopian future movies of late have been British. There's not a whole lot that's very thought provoking about Escape from New York or even the Will Smith movie version of I Am Legend.
I think that's because of the British attitude. A lot of our genre fiction is dark and depressing, and we like it that way.
Oh there's lots of dark American speculative fiction as well. It just seems to me that the difference is that, when the British do it, it all seems so plausible. In American films, when the world ends, it's usually due to some great inhuman force that humanity must rally around to defeat/survive, such as in Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Waterworld, or the Terminator films. In the British examples we've cited, like Children of Men, V for Vendetta, & "Children of Earth," the real horror seems to be how society tears itself apart after the cataclysm. I think Americans may just generally have a more optimistic appraisal of themselves than the British do. Maybe not. I'm just trying to sort out if it means anything.
I think maybe we have a more realistic attitude about how people behave in these situations. Yes, people band together in a crisis, but you also have people trying to take advantage of it for personal gain.
There's also the fact that people as a group tend to be rash and do things without thinking them through and getting a mob mentality, so you do get people who do bad things for good reasons and vice versa, and personal danger can bring out the worst in people.
I think we have a bit of a pessimistic outlook in life because experience has taught us to hope for the best but plan for the worst.
__________________
You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider!
George Bailey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2009, 11:25 AM   #57
Ensign_Redshirt
Commodore
 
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
Unless that government authority turns on you and tries to take your children for the "greater good." I'm not talking about some vague concepts of "freedom" or "liberty" here. I'm talking end of the line, the government is now targeting YOU; not your neighbor, not some unpopular other, YOU. They are at your door with guns and they want your children. Are you telling me that, if this happened to you, you would prefer to be unarmed and be at the mercy of whatever "government authority is still left"?
Why would the government want to take away my children (if I had any) in the first place? Aside from maybe a military draft, cite an example where this happened in history.

And in any case, even a dictatorship always depends on the support of at least a sizable portion of its population. Either that or at least a sizable portion of the population simply doesn't care. However, when the government starts to randomly take away a large number of children, people start to care. Which means that this government would be finished very soon. That's also the reason why even a dictatorship wouldn't do this.

So, in some way it's a bad thing that the current dictatorships of the world don't take away a large number of children from their parents. Because would they actually go for it, these dictatorships wouldn't be around much longer.
Ensign_Redshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2009, 11:47 AM   #58
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

Sci wrote: View Post
Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
Isnt it ironic that, by and large, most of those who support the right to bear arms,for among other reasons, the right to resist government tyranny, are also those who have been most supportive of the infringements of civil liberties which the US have brought in over the last decade? Just a thought ...
You do realize that there's a difference between supporting the right to bear arms and being a right-wing Republican NRA gun nut, right?
I do. But,you have to admit, the most vociferous defenders of the right to bear arms do tend to be, well, right-wing Republican NRA gun nuts ...
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2009, 12:42 PM   #59
Starkers
Admiral
 
Starkers's Avatar
 
Location: Behind enemy lines
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

Sci wrote: View Post
Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
Isnt it ironic that, by and large, most of those who support the right to bear arms,for among other reasons, the right to resist government tyranny, are also those who have been most supportive of the infringements of civil liberties which the US have brought in over the last decade? Just a thought ...
You do realize that there's a difference between supporting the right to bear arms and being a right-wing Republican NRA gun nut, right?

Jax wrote: View Post
Makes me laugh that the American Public believe that if the army came to get them that they would be able to stop them no matter how well armed you might be after all its the fricking army.
1. Bear in mind that that's just the most extreme worst-case-scenario people talk about and that that's hardly the only reason most of us support the right to bear arms. As I and others have noted, there are other reasons, including self-defense and hunting.

2. If that kind of extreme situation occurred, there's a good chance the army itself might split into multiple factions.

3. I rather think that the numerous civil wars occurring in the developing world are proof that not all countries' citizenries would just go along with whatever the government wanted. Some would, some wouldn't, and not every armed faction would even be fighting for liberal democracy. But the fact is that not every country's citizenry just rolls over for their governments.

4. The United States was born out of an armed citizens' revolt against the government and its army. Apartheid ended because of the African National Congress's armed struggle against the South African regime. The Republic of Ireland exists because the Irish people took up arms against the British. Don't underestimate the potential of the general populace to bring about large-scale social change, in part due to the exercise of the right to bear arms against tyrannical governments.
Trouble is with many of those examples it was less about citizens revolting than external political pressure. The people back home in Britain didn't have the will to keep fighting against the rebels, if they had, well history might have been different. After all roughly 25% of Americans were on our side and I imagine the number would have grown if the tide had turned (fair weather revolutionairies!) add in the slaves to that number as well. If you hadn't had the support of the French, and if some of our generals had be vaguely competant the revolution would have ended there and then.

South Africa? I'd argue international sanctions played more of a part than the ANC.

I'll give you Ireland, but offer Northern Ireland as a counterpoint. The IRA may have eventually brought the British government to the negotiating table, but they haven't got their avowed aim of a united Ireland, a fairer distribution of power but they've hardly "won".

And obviously Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 didn't go well for the revolutionaries. Nor did things go well for the Kurds in the early 90s.

And I really don't get why the citizenry has to have their own guns to resist tyranny? Surely all gun owndership does is make you a target once Dictator X gets into office?

Where have most popular uprisings got their weapons from historically? Gunrunners, external aid or just taking them from the enemy. At the end of the day if you're a French member of the Recistance in 1943 better to have an MP40 than your old double barrelled shotgun...

For a country that's had a stable democracy for several centuries now, which is supposedly the most democratic and free nation in the world to still cling to a rule created when they were a fledgling poorly defended countryand the most deadly weapon was a single shot musket...I just can't get my head around it.

I do wonder if anything will ever make the American people change, and I don't think it will. Two nuts massacring people in the UK was enough, especially so given that the victims of Dunblane were children, but no matter what happens in American, no matter how many innocents die, it never seems enough. Is there ever likely to be a tipping point? Especially given how much sway the NRA lobby posesses. That's a genuine question I'd be interested in knowing the answer to. Is there any incident that might change the playing field?
Starkers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 4 2009, 01:00 PM   #60
cultcross
Say my name...
 
cultcross's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Re: "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

diankra wrote: View Post
Considering what Forbisher does once he's got a gun, you could just as easily argue that it's making a case against the parents having arms.
I think this is a key point that seems to have been passed over - of all the things that happened in Children of Earth, a family gun being used to kill a child is about a zillion times more likely than aliens showing up demanding our government handing over children. It doesn't make for the best argument for gun ownership, imho.

The Borgified Corpse wrote: View Post
Starkers wrote: View Post
I'm almost certain there was talk of American doing the same thing as the UK, but I may be wrong.
Telling but no showing. Tsk-tsk.
It is quite explicitly shown that the American military takes charge because the UK were too soft to do 'the necessary'. The UK government turned out to be snivelling weasels about it, don't get me wrong, but the lead was taken by an American general.
__________________
This post terminates here. Please do not attempt to board.
cultcross is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
children of earth, government, guns, torchwood

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 05:03 PM.

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