RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,224
Posts: 5,438,106
Members: 24,957
Currently online: 552
Newest member: zanejc

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 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 > 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 10 2012, 05:45 PM   #106
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

That mindset is so dangerous. So an, let's say, Amish community sitting on an oil resource can simply be dealt with, and if they don't want to move because - simply - it's their home, they can be removed by force.

Or natives, with their backwards attitude regarding technology.

If we break it down to the simplest example, your neighbor has something you want, and you don't agree with his lifestyle, and you think that what he has that you want is in the wrong hands, you can simply take it from him and be right?



And what do you think of Avatar?
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2012, 05:57 PM   #107
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
That mindset is so dangerous. So an, let's say, Amish community sitting on an oil resource can simply be dealt with, and if they don't want to move because - simply - it's their home, they can be removed by force.

Or natives, with their backwards attitude regarding technology.

If we break it down to the simplest example, your neighbor has something you want, and you don't agree with his lifestyle, and you think that what he has that you want is in the wrong hands, you can simply take it from him and be right?



And what do you think of Avatar?

you misunderstood me. My belief that the Baku should be moved is not related to my views on their lifestyle. I'm just saying that I find it interesting that Picard(and we as the audience) are meant to be charmed the Baku's simple, agrarian lifestyle. It's at odds with Star Trek's usual philosophy on the use of technology as a resource for progress.

As for your analogies, I don't think you can seriously compare stealing from your neighbor because he has a lifestyle you disagree with. The situation presented here is that there's a revolutionary medical resource that can help billions. You want to take that SPECIFIC scenario and turn it into a more general hypothetical one, but that's not what I'm arguing here.


As for "avatar," I didn't much care for it, but at least it presented a more balanced case for the N'avi. They were actually native to the planet, and they were a real civilization, not a tiny village.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2012, 06:09 PM   #108
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
As for your analogies, I don't think you can seriously compare stealing from your neighbor because he has a lifestyle you disagree with. The situation presented here is that there's a revolutionary medical resource that can help billions. You want to take that SPECIFIC scenario and turn it into a more general hypothetical one, but that's not what I'm arguing here.
Well, he sits on something you want very badly, for whatever reason, and doesn't want to give it to you, for whatever reason.

It might be a revolutionary medical resource, a revolutionary energy source or just an expensive vintage car rotting in his garage, whatever you find important.



If they actually presented the case to the Ba'ku, they might have even agreed with it. But they never did ask them. The Ba'ku were on defend mode from the very beginning because their privacy got invaded and then they found out the Federation wanted to secretly relocate them. You wouldn't trust someone doing that, wouldn't you? All they had was Picard who decided to take their side. Starfleet and the Son'a saw a group of "primitives" and thought they could simply do everything they want with them. And that's wrong, it has always been wrong, and it will always be wrong to do that. You can't just go and dictate how someone has to live because you are more powerful or have more people behind you and thus can dictate what's important and what's not.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2012, 07:01 PM   #109
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
As for your analogies, I don't think you can seriously compare stealing from your neighbor because he has a lifestyle you disagree with. The situation presented here is that there's a revolutionary medical resource that can help billions. You want to take that SPECIFIC scenario and turn it into a more general hypothetical one, but that's not what I'm arguing here.
Well, he sits on something you want very badly, for whatever reason, and doesn't want to give it to you, for whatever reason.

It might be a revolutionary medical resource, a revolutionary energy source or just an expensive vintage car rotting in his garage, whatever you find important.



If they actually presented the case to the Ba'ku, they might have even agreed with it. But they never did ask them. The Ba'ku were on defend mode from the very beginning because their privacy got invaded and then they found out the Federation wanted to secretly relocate them. You wouldn't trust someone doing that, wouldn't you? All they had was Picard who decided to take their side. Starfleet and the Son'a saw a group of "primitives" and thought they could simply do everything they want with them. And that's wrong, it has always been wrong, and it will always be wrong to do that. You can't just go and dictate how someone has to live because you are more powerful or have more people behind you and thus can dictate what's important and what's not.

Again, it's hard to argue ethics in the abstract. If it's a neighbor's car, you don't steal it. But what if you're starving, and you have to feed yourself and your family? Can you steal some food from your neighbor?(assume for the sake of this hypothetical you can't get public assistance or got a church pantry or something) See the problem in overly abstract hypotheticals?


And as for the Baku, I agree with you they should have been negotiated with. But again, that's a plot hole from the film, not a criticism of my argument.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2012, 07:06 PM   #110
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
As for your analogies, I don't think you can seriously compare stealing from your neighbor because he has a lifestyle you disagree with. The situation presented here is that there's a revolutionary medical resource that can help billions. You want to take that SPECIFIC scenario and turn it into a more general hypothetical one, but that's not what I'm arguing here.
Well, he sits on something you want very badly, for whatever reason, and doesn't want to give it to you, for whatever reason.

It might be a revolutionary medical resource, a revolutionary energy source or just an expensive vintage car rotting in his garage, whatever you find important.



If they actually presented the case to the Ba'ku, they might have even agreed with it. But they never did ask them. The Ba'ku were on defend mode from the very beginning because their privacy got invaded and then they found out the Federation wanted to secretly relocate them. You wouldn't trust someone doing that, wouldn't you? All they had was Picard who decided to take their side. Starfleet and the Son'a saw a group of "primitives" and thought they could simply do everything they want with them. And that's wrong, it has always been wrong, and it will always be wrong to do that. You can't just go and dictate how someone has to live because you are more powerful or have more people behind you and thus can dictate what's important and what's not.

Again, it's hard to argue ethics in the abstract. If it's a neighbor's car, you don't steal it. But what if you're starving, and you have to feed yourself and your family? Can you steal some food from your neighbor?(assume for the sake of this hypothetical you can't get public assistance or got a church pantry or something) See the problem in overly abstract hypotheticals?


And as for the Baku, I agree with you they should have been negotiated with. But again, that's a plot hole from the film, not a criticism of my argument.
It's not a plothole imo. Starfleet and the Son'a simply didn't do it.


As for the hypothetical example, you can steal (in that case you must to survive), but you have to accept the consequences.

But the Federation wasn't starving to death. The fountain of youth is a luxury so to speak, not a necessity. Especially when you could arrange to take all the extremely sick people on a vacation on the other side of the planet to catch some rays, you know?
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2012, 07:53 PM   #111
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
That mindset is so dangerous. So an, let's say, Amish community sitting on an oil resource can simply be dealt with, and if they don't want to move because - simply - it's their home, they can be removed by force.

Or natives, with their backwards attitude regarding technology.

If we break it down to the simplest example, your neighbor has something you want, and you don't agree with his lifestyle, and you think that what he has that you want is in the wrong hands, you can simply take it from him and be right?



And what do you think of Avatar?
Avatar? heck at this point the other side is close to agreeing with the Terran Empire about the Halkans.

Merry Christmas wrote: View Post
If the Admiral in Insurrection directly told Kirk to go, TOS Kirk likely would have left the Brier Patch. The conservative Kirk was tied into the Starfleet hierarchy.
If he found said orders amoral I think he would agree especially when they tend to go against what seemed to be Federation policy in the area, aka the fact that he was perfectly willing to let the Halkan's keep their dilithium.
Hartzilla2007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 10 2012, 09:44 PM   #112
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Well, he sits on something you want very badly, for whatever reason, and doesn't want to give it to you, for whatever reason.

It might be a revolutionary medical resource, a revolutionary energy source or just an expensive vintage car rotting in his garage, whatever you find important.



If they actually presented the case to the Ba'ku, they might have even agreed with it. But they never did ask them. The Ba'ku were on defend mode from the very beginning because their privacy got invaded and then they found out the Federation wanted to secretly relocate them. You wouldn't trust someone doing that, wouldn't you? All they had was Picard who decided to take their side. Starfleet and the Son'a saw a group of "primitives" and thought they could simply do everything they want with them. And that's wrong, it has always been wrong, and it will always be wrong to do that. You can't just go and dictate how someone has to live because you are more powerful or have more people behind you and thus can dictate what's important and what's not.

Again, it's hard to argue ethics in the abstract. If it's a neighbor's car, you don't steal it. But what if you're starving, and you have to feed yourself and your family? Can you steal some food from your neighbor?(assume for the sake of this hypothetical you can't get public assistance or got a church pantry or something) See the problem in overly abstract hypotheticals?


And as for the Baku, I agree with you they should have been negotiated with. But again, that's a plot hole from the film, not a criticism of my argument.
It's not a plothole imo. Starfleet and the Son'a simply didn't do it.


As for the hypothetical example, you can steal (in that case you must to survive), but you have to accept the consequences.

But the Federation wasn't starving to death. The fountain of youth is a luxury so to speak, not a necessity. Especially when you could arrange to take all the extremely sick people on a vacation on the other side of the planet to catch some rays, you know?

the fact that they didn't ask is the plothole. Dougherty knew that the Baku weren't primitives, and Picard found that out after coming down to the planet. When they had that meeting, the fact that neither even brings up the possibility of negotiating with the Baku is an absurdity that is only at the service of the script and not common sense.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 10:49 PM   #113
los2188
Commander
 
los2188's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
Re: Insurrection

On this day, 1998, Star Trek Insurrection opened in theaters.
__________________
Darling, you remain as aesthetically pleasing as the first day we met. I believe I am the most fortunate sentient in this sector of the galaxy.
los2188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 10:58 PM   #114
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

And it still manages to engage the audience in relevant debates. Some would say that's what a great film does.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 11:04 PM   #115
los2188
Commander
 
los2188's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
And it still manages to engage the audience in relevant debates. Some would say that's what a great film does.
Good point. Not only that, I started this thread too.
__________________
Darling, you remain as aesthetically pleasing as the first day we met. I believe I am the most fortunate sentient in this sector of the galaxy.
los2188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11 2012, 11:49 PM   #116
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Insurrection

FKnight wrote: View Post
Merry Christmas wrote: View Post
Vasquez Rocks wrote: View Post
But aren't Artim and the other Ba'ku children natives of the planet, having been born there?
That might make them Federation citizens. But it wouldn't hand the planet to their parents.

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.
Because that region of space has traded hands multiple time, never into the ownership of the Baku.

Consider the city of New Orleans.
It was establish in 1718 by the French Mississippi Company.
Then ceded to the Spanish Empire in 1763.
Then reverted to French in 1801.
Then sold to the United States in 1803.

As the city and the territory that held it changed hands periodically, the authority and jurisdiction changed too, for the people living there it often made little difference. But they, just like the Baku, were under the new jurisdiction each time.

Even if no control was exercised upon them.

I don't think a 2 dimensional parcel of land with an area of 350 square miles is an equal comparison to the territorial issue of the Ba'ku planet and I don't think Federation "territory" works like that.

I think the geographical boundaries of "Federation Space" and the political and jurisdictional boundaries of the "United Federation of Planets" are being conflated. The Ba'ku planet was a "Federation planet" in that it fell within the geographic region agreed upon between the powers of the quadrant (through treaties, wars, diplomacy, etc.) to be under Federation influence, with the understanding that the Federation will likely defend these parts of space, or at least lays legitimate claim -- all within the context of recognition by the galactic powers (Romulans, Klingons, Tholians, Cardassians, etc.)

The Ba'ku planet was not, however, a "Federation planet" in the legal/political sense -- it was not a member of the Federation, had no representation on the Federation council, and were not subject to Federation law. The planet, therefore, was not subject to any decisions by the Federation. If they were, the UFP would be a conquering power. A planet doesn't become beholden to Federation law or the whims of the Federation just because a bunch of diplomats drew a line on a map of outer space. Why stop at Ba'ku? I hear the Halkans have a ton of dilithium the Federation could use. I'm pretty sure they're in "Federation space."

Add to that, the Ba'ku settled this planet three years before Earth's Terra Nova colony even launched, and three years after Earth discovered warp speed. As far as the Federation is concerned, to paraphrase Chancellor Gowron, the Ba'ku's claim to that planet is ancient.
I agree with this sentiment, just because a planet falls within Federation space does not make it a Federation World. If a planet is inhabiated (it doesn't matter if they are native or not, for all we know their homeworld could have been destroyed) they are not automatically Federation citizens and thus not subject to Federation law.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2012, 09:13 PM   #117
Elvira
Vice Admiral
 
Elvira's Avatar
 
Location: t'girl
Re: Insurrection

If you and your friends colonizes a small island off the coast of Europe, and years later the nation of France is formed, and French territory include that small island ...

Yes, you are subject to French law.
Elvira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2012, 09:38 PM   #118
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Insurrection

No you're not. You are subject to your own laws. Unless in your example the French decide to invade you and occupy your lands.

No doubt there are quite a few planets within Federation space such as the Malcorians (TNG: First Contact). that wanted nothing to do with the Federation. In your example if that Planet was with Federation space it's inhabitants would be Federation citizens despite them not wanting to be and subject to Federation law.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2012, 11:38 PM   #119
Xaios
Lieutenant Commander
 
Xaios's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

MacLeod wrote: View Post
No you're not. You are subject to your own laws. Unless in your example the French decide to invade you and occupy your lands.

No doubt there are quite a few planets within Federation space such as the Malcorians (TNG: First Contact). that wanted nothing to do with the Federation. In your example if that Planet was with Federation space it's inhabitants would be Federation citizens despite them not wanting to be and subject to Federation law.
But again, that comes back to the point of the the Baku not being indiginous to the planet. Yes, the children were born there, but as a species, they didn't originate there, so it's a mute point, and as such the Prime Directive of non-interferance doesn't apply.
Xaios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13 2012, 12:11 AM   #120
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
the fact that they didn't ask is the plothole. Dougherty knew that the Baku weren't primitives, and Picard found that out after coming down to the planet. When they had that meeting, the fact that neither even brings up the possibility of negotiating with the Baku is an absurdity that is only at the service of the script and not common sense.
That's because if the Baku had said no then they would have looked like complete jerks, by choosing their immortality over possibly helping the rest of the Federation which had suffered badly during the Dominion War.
Dream 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 05:23 PM.

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