RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,893
Posts: 5,476,779
Members: 25,050
Currently online: 478
Newest member: aloraptor

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19


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 March 27 2014, 05:52 PM   #511
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

sonak wrote: View Post

this post is another in the line of "not accepting the premise of what is told on screen." If you're not going to accept the movie's own premise that the particles WILL HELP, that's your choice, but then it's kind of pointless to debate the pros and cons of removing the Baku for a benefit that you simply decide to pretend doesn't exist.
I think it's done because there aren't too many people who would actually support denying medical benefits to billions so six-hundred people can have a whole planet to themselves.

They have to tear at every corner of the movie to make their position sound anything less than ludicrous.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2014, 08:16 PM   #512
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

BillJ wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post

this post is another in the line of "not accepting the premise of what is told on screen." If you're not going to accept the movie's own premise that the particles WILL HELP, that's your choice, but then it's kind of pointless to debate the pros and cons of removing the Baku for a benefit that you simply decide to pretend doesn't exist.
I think it's done because there aren't too many people who would actually support denying medical benefits to billions so six-hundred people can have a whole planet to themselves.

They have to tear at every corner of the movie to make their position sound anything less than ludicrous.
Or some people just don't see how important a macguffin that the trek writers will ignore, forget about, and/or reveal is utterly useless in some fashion becuase it breaks status quo is.

And if you don't think that they would totally toss it then you should remember what happened to the Genesis Project.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2014, 08:26 PM   #513
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

Or some people just don't see how important a macguffin that the trek writers will ignore, forget about, and/or reveal is utterly useless in some fashion becuase it breaks status quo is.

And if you don't think that they would totally toss it then you should remember what happened to the Genesis Project.
But that isn't what we've been debating here. It seems every discussion regarding Insurrection comes down to whether someone would move the Ba'ku or not?

I'd move them in a heartbeat but wouldn't handle it in the sloppy way Dougherty and Company did. I'd offer them options. Either they could chose to live on already settled planets or they could continue to keep their Amish lifestyle by colonizing an uninhabited world.

Someone saying that the particles wouldn't work is missing the very basic point of the debate. The particles are a natural resource. No one group of people should control any given resource whether they landed on it first or not.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2014, 09:20 PM   #514
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

BillJ wrote: View Post
. The particles are a natural resource. No one group of people should control any given resource whether they landed on it first or not.
And yet according to the Star Trek universe people can and do in fact do that, and the Federation has no problem with it.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2014, 09:24 PM   #515
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

BillJ wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post

this post is another in the line of "not accepting the premise of what is told on screen." If you're not going to accept the movie's own premise that the particles WILL HELP, that's your choice, but then it's kind of pointless to debate the pros and cons of removing the Baku for a benefit that you simply decide to pretend doesn't exist.
I think it's done because there aren't too many people who would actually support denying medical benefits to billions so six-hundred people can have a whole planet to themselves.

They have to tear at every corner of the movie to make their position sound anything less than ludicrous.

Yes, I think this is it exactly. It's a way of distracting from the fundamental debate:


is it right or wrong to move a small non-indigenous community for the particles that will provide medical benefits that will go to billions?



Distracting responses: "well, the particles wouldn't really work..." " the particles don't provide any new benefits the Federation can't get elsewhere..." etc.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2014, 11:09 PM   #516
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably residing in the meat packing district
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
. The particles are a natural resource. No one group of people should control any given resource whether they landed on it first or not.
And yet according to the Star Trek universe people can and do in fact do that, and the Federation has no problem with it.
What natural resource were you thinking of?

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28 2014, 10:04 AM   #517
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: CommishSleer
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
Let them visit the planet.
People with diabetes should have to leave their homes, families and lives in order to move next to the facility that produces insulin?

I strongly suspect diabetes will be cured by the 24th century.
They've got a cure for cancer by then. You think that diabetes is beyond 3 centuries of medial science?
But Ill admit there will be uncurable diseases then but I don't think too many. At least not from what I saw in TNG and VOY.

trevanian wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
Let them visit the planet.
People with diabetes should have to leave their homes, families and lives in order to move next to the facility that produces insulin?

If it means more affordable health care, I'd certainly consider it for myself. I could live off my writing income and still provide for my family if we didn't have to worry about health benefit costs.
Come and live in my country then.
But you may have to give up your gun.

BillJ wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

Or some people just don't see how important a macguffin that the trek writers will ignore, forget about, and/or reveal is utterly useless in some fashion becuase it breaks status quo is.

And if you don't think that they would totally toss it then you should remember what happened to the Genesis Project.
But that isn't what we've been debating here. It seems every discussion regarding Insurrection comes down to whether someone would move the Ba'ku or not?

I'd move them in a heartbeat but wouldn't handle it in the sloppy way Dougherty and Company did. I'd offer them options. Either they could chose to live on already settled planets or they could continue to keep their Amish lifestyle by colonizing an uninhabited world.

Someone saying that the particles wouldn't work is missing the very basic point of the debate. The particles are a natural resource. No one group of people should control any given resource whether they landed on it first or not.
Oil, gold are natural resources.
So are you saying that if you say Canada is entitle to the USA's gold reserves if they want them? After all most North Americans are not indigenous.
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28 2014, 12:51 PM   #518
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
So are you saying that if you say Canada is entitle to the USA's gold reserves if they want them? After all most North Americans are not indigenous.
No. Because there are gold and oil sources throughout the planet. How would you feel if all the oil dried up except in one place and the people there said "fuck you, its ours"?
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28 2014, 12:54 PM   #519
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

BillJ wrote: View Post
CommishSleer wrote: View Post
So are you saying that if you say Canada is entitle to the USA's gold reserves if they want them? After all most North Americans are not indigenous.
No. Because there are gold and oil sources throughout the planet. How would you feel if all the oil dried up except in one place and the people there said "fuck you, its ours"?
That would be their right. But you would probably in favor of invading and stealing.


If you win the lottery, millions and millions of dollars, do homeless people have the right to just take it from you if you don't want to donate it?
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28 2014, 01:38 PM   #520
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post

If you win the lottery, millions and millions of dollars, do homeless people have the right to just take it from you if you don't want to donate it?
There is a Hell of a big difference there and I think you know it. You're not hogging every bit of a single known resource on the planet.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28 2014, 03:40 PM   #521
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28 2014, 06:20 PM   #522
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: CommishSleer
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

DonIago wrote: View Post
If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).
I disagree that my oil analogy is any less genuine than your Cure for AIDS analogy. Not that the oil analogy is all that great. Still I resent your implication that I'm attempting to derail the discussion. I just disagree with the assertion that its OK to take the Baku's planet off them. I don't have some ulterior motive.
The point is the 'magic' cure of the Rings is not really a cure. Its not a 'cure for aids'. At best its a cure for each person who has aids and is given treatment, not a solution for when the 'magic rings' run out.
Its interesting that the 'magic rings' could either slow down or help advances in medicine. I was thinking that either medical researches could learn from the cures or just totally give up and tell their patients to get a piece of those magic rings.

The oil analogy is when someone has something you want and you do anything to justify getting it. Oil is probably more important to life here on Earth much more so than an extended 20, 40 or 100 years of life bought about by the Baku rings would be in the 24th century.

The Federation does not need the rings. Its people will live a normal 24th century life span without it. They don't need the rings for their basic survival.

About 90% of INS was about the Sona violently taking the planet off the Baku.

Beaming people into a cargo deck against their will is still violence. If the Feds come later after the events of INS and kidnap the Baku and Sona (even if its by drugging them or just beaming them away) its still violence IMHO.
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28 2014, 07:05 PM   #523
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

I didn't accuse any specific poster of any specific agenda, but if you want to feel resentment, you're welcome to do so. I resent the suggestion that I think the Baku should be killed to mine the rings, because I never said that....but I'm not saying you suggested I did.

IIRC the specific benefits of the rings aren't laid out beyond the effects we see. Boobs firm up, Picard is a bit rejuvenated, Worf gets a zit, Troi and Riker get amorous...and most tellingly, Geordi's eyes regenerate. The last in particular suggests to me that the rings' power, especially if concentrated, could have significant benefits.

People who are suffering from illness or injury that the rings could cure, or even just ameliorate, are -not- living normal life spans, especially when, if McCoy is any indication, the normal lifespan is now over a century.

Since we don't know what the next steps in the operation would have been, we have no idea how long the rings' energies would have lasted or whether anyone would have been able to form a synthetic version in the meantime.

However you define violence, I'm pretty sure saying that 90% of the film is about it is an exaggeration. And again, AFAIA nobody here has suggested that forced relocation was a great thing. It's my estimation that most of the comments have focused on a feeling that the Baku are being immoral by not being willing to share their good fortune with the rest of the galaxy. And as I've said before, good fortune is all it is; they didn't do anything to earn the rings, they merely stumbled upon them.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2014, 03:42 AM   #524
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

DonIago wrote: View Post
If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).


I think that there are people here who want to turn it from the scenario we are presented with and change it to something more abstract, because as BILLJ, I and others have noted, most people won't come out and admit that they're opposed to moving 600 people to help billions, because it sounds ludicrous. So you're faced with a few options:


1. change it into a much more abstract issue about imperialism, the Prime Directive, etc. Don't debate the specifics of THIS scenario because it's a losing bet. Instead make it less about the situation presented and more of a philosophical question. Who after all is going to agree to the premise of "do the stronger have the right to take what they want?" or some such strawman attack.

2. Deny the premise of the film-the particles don't work, it's not a cure, etc., despite the film itself contradicting this.


3. Defend the film's stance ON ITS MERITS. This is the hardest option, which is why few are attempting it. Because other than an extreme, inflexible defense of "finder's keepers" property rights, what are you going to use? We know that the Baku aren't indigenous, that the Son'a(or the Federation) have a right to the planet, and that the benefits of removal outweigh the cost to the Baku. So other than "it's the Baku's planet, they've got theirs," what are you left with? And really, if that's your argument, and the Baku are that selfish, let them defend themselves. It's STILL not a reason to support Picard defending them from the Son'a.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2014, 03:47 AM   #525
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).
I disagree that my oil analogy is any less genuine than your Cure for AIDS analogy. Not that the oil analogy is all that great. Still I resent your implication that I'm attempting to derail the discussion. I just disagree with the assertion that its OK to take the Baku's planet off them. I don't have some ulterior motive.
The point is the 'magic' cure of the Rings is not really a cure. Its not a 'cure for aids'. At best its a cure for each person who has aids and is given treatment, not a solution for when the 'magic rings' run out.
Its interesting that the 'magic rings' could either slow down or help advances in medicine. I was thinking that either medical researches could learn from the cures or just totally give up and tell their patients to get a piece of those magic rings.

The oil analogy is when someone has something you want and you do anything to justify getting it. Oil is probably more important to life here on Earth much more so than an extended 20, 40 or 100 years of life bought about by the Baku rings would be in the 24th century.

The Federation does not need the rings. Its people will live a normal 24th century life span without it. They don't need the rings for their basic survival.

About 90% of INS was about the Sona violently taking the planet off the Baku.

Beaming people into a cargo deck against their will is still violence. If the Feds come later after the events of INS and kidnap the Baku and Sona (even if its by drugging them or just beaming them away) its still violence IMHO.


Again, this is just inaccurate. The Son'a didn't turn to violence until late in the film, and then ONLY in response to Picard's insubordination and interference.

If the Federation doesn't "need" the rings, then why do the Baku? This is an especially silly point since the Federation is fighting on behalf of the freedom of the Alpha Quadrant while the Baku contribute NOTHING to the rest of the quadrant. The Federation certainly has a greater need for it than the Baku who have ALREADY had an extended lifespan.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak 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 07:36 AM.

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