RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,609
Posts: 5,405,095
Members: 24,869
Currently online: 610
Newest member: Engelbert

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 25 2009, 03:31 PM   #376
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post
I have a problem when sci uses examples from the star trek universe in order to make an "ethical or karmic" point about the REAL universe
Because no one should ever use a fictional story to illustrate a point about life, especially if that fictional story doesn't presume the same sort of bleak worldview you share.

Star Trek isn't all that unrealistic a depiction of life. You just have an unrealistically negative view of the world (which is surprisingly common for fans of a franchise that insists that the future will get better).
__________________
"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 February 25 2009, 05:46 PM   #377
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post

Star trek's alien races represent diffrent facets of humanity (klingons - agression, ferengi - greed, etc). And star trek's humans represent only the better angels of our nature - with VERY rare exceptions. As for the tzenkethi, gorn - they had only a few appearances and their main traits were agression and xenophobia - these are proeminent among their established facets - they are a painting painted in broad strokes, they don't have characteristics we don't know about because they are sketchy species from a sketchy imaginary universe.

When the novels develop these species further, they will, perhaps, add complexity to them - but this "complexity" should be compatible with what we already know about gorn, tholians, etc.

Until then, according to everything we know about the federation and these aliens, the tzenkethi probably started the war, the gorn are probably highly agressive etc.
You cannot speak in certainties because you don't have enough information to be certain about anything regarding these species.
And so far, I have not anyone mention anything that does not include those elements. And just because we haven't seen certain characteristics doesn't mean they don't have them. After all absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 02:59 PM   #378
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
 
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

Sci,
I understand what you're trying to say. I really do.
You have faith that if you follow the principles of liberal democracy and your morals, in the end everything will be all right and good - so to say - will prevail.
About faith - it has some good parts, it can really motivate someone. On the other hand, you should really read my signature.

As for using examples from Star Trek - or any other fictional universe (dystopian or utopian) - to prove something about the real world, I think you'll agree that such examples have a limited relevance.

JD,
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But absence of evidence is not evidence of presence, either.
And presence of evidence is evidence of presence - presence of agression and xenophobia in certain star trek races, that is.
And so far, I have not [heard] anyone mention anything that does not include those elements.
Cool.
ProtoAvatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 03:42 PM   #379
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post
Sci,
I understand what you're trying to say. I really do.
You have faith that if you follow the principles of liberal democracy and your morals, in the end everything will be all right and good - so to say - will prevail.
No, you really don't understand what I'm saying, as evidenced by your attempt to summarize it.

I did not say that I have faith that if we follow the principles of liberal democracy and morality, in the end everything will be all right and good will prevail. The fact that you've decided that that's what I said, though, is indicative of a persistent, flawed pattern of thought on your mind. With the Typon Pact/Federation issue, you consistently came to the conclusion that only the extremes -- "Federation non-hostile, Typhon Pact hostile" -- were viable. Same thing with your descriptions of the alien species. And now, when talking about fundamentally different world views, you once again revert to describing things in the most extreme terms possible -- "You think that if you're good, everything will turn out okay." For all your talk of being a realist, you actually seem to have a very simplistic, unsophisticated, binary worldview, both in terms of morality and in terms of your understanding of other people's behavior.

What I've been arguing, quiet persistently, is that the world is full of ambiguities and degrees. Shades of grey, and a whole spectrum of other colors, too. I have not been saying that things will turn out okay if we're "good" -- but I have been saying that it is irrational to presume the worst of the world, that a paranoid realpolitik worldview tends to create its own boogeymen and be self-defeating, and that accomplishing something means being optimistic. That's not the same thing as having faith that things will be okay and looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, in either the short term or the long term -- it's simply an acknowledgement that accomplishment does not stem from pessimism and that a conflict-is-inevitable mindset, looking at the world through blood-colored glasses, is irrational and self-defeating.

The world is full of degrees. I'm considerably less pessimistic than you, but that doesn't mean I think It Will All Be Okay. I don't have faith. I have hope. And even if I'm wrong, life is too short and painful, and the world too full of good, to live in anything but hope. Because at least living in hope means you tried. That's all.

Learn to see the specifics and degrees of what people are saying. Don't turn it into the most extreme position you can imagine, especially when it may not be true.

As for using examples from Star Trek - or any other fictional universe (dystopian or utopian) - to prove something about the real world, I think you'll agree that such examples have a limited relevance.
I think it depends on the story. But your reading comprehension is questionable -- when I've been citing evidence from the real world, I've been using it to make points about the Star Trek Universe, not the other way around. I didn't cite the Typhon Pact to make a point about real life, I cited Venezeula to make a point about the Pact. When I have been trying to make a point about the real world, I've tended to cite both an applicable Star Trek scenario and a real-world scenario.
__________________
"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 February 26 2009, 04:59 PM   #380
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

The whole point of Star Trek, or at least a large part of it, has always been to use fiction as an allegory for commenting on the real world. So to say it's not meant to be relevant to the real world, as ProtoAvatar is doing, is a grave misunderstanding.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 06:07 PM   #381
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
 
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

Sci wrote: View Post
I have been saying that it is irrational to presume the worst of the world, that a paranoid realpolitik worldview tends to create its own boogeymen and be self-defeating, and that accomplishing something means being optimistic.
Perhaps. As long as you don't beleive that the universe will see to it that you succeed if you're a moral optimist. If you beleive that, you're seeing things in black and white.

Sci wrote: View Post
I don't have faith. I have hope.
Good for you.

As for using examples from Star Trek:
Sci wrote: View Post
I think it depends on the story.
Finally, something resembling understanding.
Sci wrote: View Post
But your reading comprehension is questionable -- when I've been citing evidence from the real world, I've been using it to make points about the Star Trek Universe, not the other way around.
You had a different opinion here:
ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post
Sci, when you want to make an ethical or karmic point about the real universe, don't use examples from the Star Trek universe. I've told you before: the trekverse has a moral substrate that doesn't exist in the real world. This is why your examples are meaningless.
Sci wrote: View Post
One word: Bullshit.

The Star Trek Universe is not somehow inherently more or less moral than the real one. It simply possesses political actors who are more dedicated to the principles of modern liberal democracy than most people in the real world today, from whose POV we see the STU. To argue that the Star Trek Universe "possesses a moral substrate" that the real world lacks is an absurd piece of nonsense
And here:
Sci wrote: View Post
If we do address the question of relative morality and of whether or not the ends justify the means, I think we need to keep something in mind:

Both the MACOS of United Earth and Sedin of the Caeliar belonged to societies that had a specific set of moral principles that they agreed to uphold.

Yet when faced with a desperate situation, both decided to violate their principles. The MACOs did it when they decided to mutiny against Captain Hernandez, betray Thayer, and murder millions of Caeliar in the name of getting home.

Sedin did it when she decided to force the other Caeliar to consolidate with her so that she wouldn't die and to then fuse with the three surviving MACOs.

In other words, both the MACOs and Sedin faced a situation where they decided that the ends justified the means. And as a result of their decision to say that the ends justify the means and that morality is less important than survival, the greatest destructive force in the history of the Milky Way was unleashed on the galaxy and unknown trillions of people were murdered and enslaved.

Just something to think about.
Apparently, you do see things in black and white.

Christopher wrote: View Post
The whole point of Star Trek, or at least a large part of it, has always been to use fiction as an allegory for commenting on the real world. So to say it's not meant to be relevant to the real world, as ProtoAvatar is doing, is a grave misunderstanding.
I did not say it's not meant to be relevant to the real world. I said it's not as relevant as an actual historical fact, that star trek examples can be dismissed.
Why?
Because star trek - like all fiction - is subjective: it represents the ideas, hopes, dreams, fears of the authors regarding human nature, regarding our future. On the other hand, historical facts are objective - they happened; we may wish to deny that, but it won't change the simple reality of their happening.

Last edited by ProtoAvatar; February 26 2009 at 06:27 PM.
ProtoAvatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 07:06 PM   #382
rfmcdpei
Captain
 
rfmcdpei's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
View rfmcdpei's Twitter Profile
UO

ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post
Tal'Aura & co knew about the thalaron weapon from the beginning, when Tal'Aura used it to kill the ENTIRE Romulan Senate - she's all heart, isn't she?
The sorts of weapons that can empty out a room don't necessariyl scale up to weapons which can destroy a planet.

About the thalaron weapon's usefulness - take it up with Picard. He said that the weapon will be used to sterilize planets. My guess - the weapon is ineffective against fleets because, unlike planets, fleets are maneuverable - they can scatter or go to warp long before Shinzon's weapon was charged in X minutes.
If it was detected. Picard and Geordi's dialogue made the point that up until that point thalaron radiation was purely theoretical and that standard scans didn't pick it up.

In "Destiny" the weapon should be effective against a fleet of borg cubes because the borg don't do "evasive maneuvers". And, perhaps, starfleet's weapon charges a lot faster than Shinzon's.

The evidence seems to suggest that Tal'Aura and Suran thought things were rapidly escalating out of control, from militarist coup to war against the Federation to genocidal campaign against Earth. Proof? Donatra was allowed to leave Romulus with her ships.
Your interpretation of the text is coloured by your intent to make the romulan conspirators look as good as possible.

Actually, no. My interpretations of the text are motivated by an interest in showing their multiple readings.

Also, kindly refrain from accusing your interlocutors of being dishonest--that's bad form.kindly

My interpretation - which, according to Occam's razor, is correct:
Actually, no. As Wikipedia points out, "Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may (Note that simplest theory is something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists"). Simpler theories are preferable other things being equal. The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.
For instance, classical physics is simpler than subsequent theories, but should not be preferred over them because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects. It is the first requirement of a theory that it works, that its predictions are correct and it has not been falsified. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed these tests, and which are moreover equally well-supported by the evidence."

We don't have a lot of evidence to work with here. We do know that the whole environment of Nemesis was marked by extreme confusion, with the Federation not knowing what was going on and Romulan coup-plotters finding themselves increasingly disconcerted by the actions of their nominal and mysterious Reman partners. Multiple interpretations of what happened are quite possible. Your explanation isn't the most correct one.

Donatra was allowed to leave with her ships because Suran & co were worried about spending time in the dilithium mines.
If he returned, sure. He'd have to do that first.

And Suran sure wished Shinzon to complete his mission: "But can he complete his mission?".
Did he know what that mission was?

Again, things had rapidly gotten out of hand, and "show them no mercy" could as easily refer to a massacre of the Federation fleets, with or without thalaron weapons, as anything else.

About the gorn.
In "Arena",
Again, you're taking a single episode to define an entire civilization. Would it have been wise to take my My Lai the lesson that American strategy in Vietnam was to massacre villagers indiscriminately? Should we take from Odadour-sur-Glane that German soldiers today see nothing wrong in razing an entire ville pour encourager les autres?

they killed thousands of men, women and children for no good reason.

They scanned the colony - they knew they didn't need the element of surprise. They monitored federation communications - as evidenced by their use of transmissions to trap the enterprise. At least, they suspected that the federation didn't know about the gorn's existence.

They sent no warning, no ultimatum, noting. They just killed everyone.
This makes them extremly agressive.
.. in defense of their territory, sure.

The Metrons didn't think that the Gorn as such were aggressive.

Consider the terms of the Metrons' staged fight: the captains of the two ships would be pitted against each other in mortal combat, the ship of the winner being destroyed on the account that it represented the more dangerous civilization. One would have thought that the Gorn would have been automatically handicapped if theirs was a purely aggressive civilization.

In any case, as Christopher and Sci have pointed out, there are multiple other bits of novel-relevant material which highlight the Gorn as being a somewhat introverted but generally quiet people, with human xenophobia being as much a problem as the Gorn's.
rfmcdpei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 07:09 PM   #383
rfmcdpei
Captain
 
rfmcdpei's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
View rfmcdpei's Twitter Profile
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

When the novels develop these species further, they will, perhaps, add complexity to them - but this "complexity" should be compatible with what we already know about gorn, tholians, etc.
As has been noted elsewhere, this has been done with the Gorn.
rfmcdpei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 07:10 PM   #384
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post
As for using examples from Star Trek:

Sci wrote:
I think it depends on the story.
Finally, something resembling understanding.

But your reading comprehension is questionable -- when I've been citing evidence from the real world, I've been using it to make points about the Star Trek Universe, not the other way around.
You had a different opinion here:

ProtoAvatar wrote:
Sci, when you want to make an ethical or karmic point about the real universe, don't use examples from the Star Trek universe. I've told you before: the trekverse has a moral substrate that doesn't exist in the real world. This is why your examples are meaningless.
One word: Bullshit.

The Star Trek Universe is not somehow inherently more or less moral than the real one. It simply possesses political actors who are more dedicated to the principles of modern liberal democracy than most people in the real world today, from whose POV we see the STU. To argue that the Star Trek Universe "possesses a moral substrate" that the real world lacks is an absurd piece of nonsense
Proto, that's an argument against the idea that the Star Trek Universe is inherently more moral than the real universe, not an argument about the nature of the real universe.

And here:
Sci wrote: View Post
If we do address the question of relative morality and of whether or not the ends justify the means, I think we need to keep something in mind:

Both the MACOS of United Earth and Sedin of the Caeliar belonged to societies that had a specific set of moral principles that they agreed to uphold.

Yet when faced with a desperate situation, both decided to violate their principles. The MACOs did it when they decided to mutiny against Captain Hernandez, betray Thayer, and murder millions of Caeliar in the name of getting home.

Sedin did it when she decided to force the other Caeliar to consolidate with her so that she wouldn't die and to then fuse with the three surviving MACOs.

In other words, both the MACOs and Sedin faced a situation where they decided that the ends justified the means. And as a result of their decision to say that the ends justify the means and that morality is less important than survival, the greatest destructive force in the history of the Milky Way was unleashed on the galaxy and unknown trillions of people were murdered and enslaved.

Just something to think about.
Apparently, you do see things in black and white.
Well, first off, I'm surprised you're pulling in evidence from another thread, but hey, whatdahell.

Secondly: You might recall that in that exact same thread, I rejected the argument that the thalaron weapon should be disqualified from use under any circumstances whatsoever (which would be the argument or moral absolutism) and instead argued that if it was effective and if another option did not present itself, it would be acceptable to use one. When I rejected the use of the thalaron weapon, I rejected it on pragmatic grounds (i.e., it would only delay the inevitable and would likely be ineffective because of the Borg's ability to adapt), not on moral grounds.

So, no, I do not see things in black and white.

You have once again taken a premise introduced in support of one conclusion and attempted to re-define its conclusion as being of the most extreme variety possible (i.e., this person argued against disregarding moral considerations and noted that in one instance, doing so produced a horrific consequence; ergo this person must believe in absolute morality). You have consistently displayed a tendency to attempt to reduce things, even other people's arguments and opinions, to absolute binaries. This is an inaccurate way of looking at what other people are saying.

Further, that argument is not necessarily making an argument about the real world. It does set up the playing field for me if I had chosen to return to that scenario and expand upon my statements in the course of making an argument about the real world, but if I were to do that, I would not solely rely upon the story of Sedin and the MACOs. If I were to use that story to illustrate a point, I would introduce evidence from the real world -- most likely evidence that the Bush Administration's torture policies have produced new terrorists where there were none before -- to support that argument.

On the other hand, historical facts are objective
If you really think that, answer me with one simple historical fact:

Why did the Bush Administration invade Iraq?

Or, better yet: Why did the US Civil War happen?

Historical facts are also subject to interpretation.
__________________
"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 February 26 2009, 08:01 PM   #385
Dimesdan
Rear Admiral
 
Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Dimesdan
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

So about the book...............

I got a text from the book shop where I ordered it from earlier but wasn't able to get there in time so will be picking it up in the morning, although I did find it in my local Waterstones while on lunch.

So anyway, I'll have a few words to say on it come the end of the weekend probably.
Dimesdan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 08:10 PM   #386
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post
On the other hand, historical facts are objective - they happened; we may wish to deny that, but it won't change the simple reality of their happening.
Historical "facts" are subjective. They represent what the historian believes to have occurred and can range from well founded beliefs to pure fiction.

You may wish to look into the concept of historiography. Makes you look at primary sources in a whole new way.

Last edited by kv1at3485; February 26 2009 at 08:50 PM.
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 08:46 PM   #387
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
 
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

rfmcdpei

Romulans.
The remans were romulan slaves. The romulans regarded them as inferior beings. And yet, Tal'Aura & co allied themselves with the remans. No, they allowed the remans to gain power over them, over romulans! For what?
For a weapon that can kill everyone in a room? Definitely not.
For a weapon that can kill everyone on a planet? Perhaps - barely.

And Geordi detected thalaron radiation when the weapon was dormant. Any obsolete starship could detect the radiation when the weapon was charging. And Shinzon's cloack may be able to hide charged conventional weapoons, but not a charged thalaron weapon that can destroy a planet.
Remember, Picard knew about all that when he said that the weapon wil be used to destroy planetes.

Gorn.
We're making progress. You're comparing what the gorn did to My Lai and Oradour-sur-Glane.

And the metrons said not that the victor's ship will be destroyed. They said that they'll annihilate the loser's ship. Which raises the question - why did the metrons interfered at all? Why didn't they let the federates and the gorn fight it out? - all they did was change the fight from ship-vs-ship to man-vs-man.
Their explanation - it's more suited to promitive mentalities. So, they did not try to stop the fight; they arranged a gladiator fight to the death and watched.
The Metrons don't seem very civilized to me.

Last edited by ProtoAvatar; February 26 2009 at 09:19 PM.
ProtoAvatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 09:16 PM   #388
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
 
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

Sci

First quote:
You argued that the star trek universe is as moral as our own. Ergo, a star trek example and a real vorld example have equal value.

In an above post, I explained in-depth why star trek's karmic status is not applicable to the real world - and you failed to respond to that argument.

Second quote:
Your argument - what conclusion did it support? And don't be afraid to put as much gray in your answer as you wish.

About "subjective" historical facts.
America did invade Irak. And the american civil war did happen. These are objective facts. X people died, Y battles took place, etc. These are objective facts.

Why did it happen? Good luck figuring that out. It doesn't change the fact that it happened.

kv1at3485

You may wish to look at the philosophical ideea of solipsism. I suspect you'll like the concept. Much too nihilistic for me.
ProtoAvatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26 2009, 09:33 PM   #389
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

ProtoAvatar wrote: View Post
Sci

First quote:
You argued that the star trek universe is as moral as our own.
No, I argued that the real world is more moral, and the Trekverse more immoral, than you were saying. I never said that they were equally moral; I made no claims one way or the other.

Yet again, you take a degree of something and push it too far.

In an above post, I explained in-depth why star trek's karmic status is not applicable to the real world - and you failed to respond to that argument.
It was a specious argument. The Trekverse is full of horrific immoralities -- the Occupation of Bajor, the entire Dominion War, the attempted extermination of the Cardassians, the Borg invasion, Section 31, the Tomed Incident, the Earth-Romulan War, the Xindi attacks, and on and on and on -- and tragedies as well as "miracles" and karmic justice. A few examples of "poetic justice" does not equate a fundamental karmic structure to the Trekverse.

Second quote:
Your argument - what conclusion did it support?
The conclusion that my comments about the MACOs and Sedin is that rejecting all moral considerations can have horrific consequences. If the argument had persisted, I would have cited a real-world example of the same thing to indicate what would have happened in the Trekverse, as I said above.

About "subjective" historical facts.
America did invade Irak.
"Iraq."

And the american civil war did happen. These are objective facts. X people died, Y battles took place, etc. These are objective facts.
Not if you ask George W. Bush. He and his supporters would argue that they waged a defensive war. If you ask Southern apologists, they would argue that the Civil War was not a civil war because the Confederacy was a foreign state.
__________________
"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 February 26 2009, 09:58 PM   #390
rfmcdpei
Captain
 
rfmcdpei's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
View rfmcdpei's Twitter Profile
Re: A Singular Destiny review thread (possible spoilers)

[quote=ProtoAvatar;2657020]The remans were romulan slaves. The romulans regarded them as inferior beings. And yet, Tal'Aura & co allied themselves with the remans. No, they allowed the remans to gain power over them, over romulans![/QUOTE}

They allowed a Reman--technically, a long-time Reman resident who wasn't Vulcanoid at all--to be praetor. That's not nearly the same thing as a Reman racial ascendancy over the vastly more numerous Romulans.

The Remans certainly had their own secrets and priorities. Taking"]www.amazon.com/Taking-Wing-Star-Trek-Titan/dp/0743496272"]Taking Wing[/url] establishes that the Remans had managed to accumulate a secret fleet of warsghips that was quite capable of threatening the security of the Romulan homeworld. If you want to exclude that and look only at the movie, you have Shinzon's statement of the Remans that "We will no longer bow like slaves before anyone. Not the Romulans and not your mighty Federation. We're a race bred for war. For conquest."

Combine effective Romulan secrecy with what seems like a very effective anti-ship weapons and fuse it together with Romulan secretiveness and infighting, then you've got a plausible explanation for the coup leaders not realizing what Shinzon planned to do until he left the system.

[quote]And Geordi detected thalaron radiation when the weapon was dormant. Any obsolete starship could detect the radiation when the weapon was charging.[/QUOTE}

Picard said that he thought that "Thalaron radiation was theoretical," Geordi responded by saying that's why the initial scans didn't pick it up, and discussion elsewhere establishes that the cloak was effective enough that it would be impossible to detect Shinzon's ship before it decloaked and attacked. It also took him a fair amount of time to determine what the thalaron radiation actually signified, what sort of weapon.

And Shinzon's cloack may be able to hide charged conventional weapoons, but not a charged thalaron weapon that can destroy a planet.
Remember, Picard knew about all that when he said that the weapon wil be used to destroy planetes.
Actually, no. Geordi said, after a more detailed scan, that the weapon was a "Cascading Biogenic Pulse. The unique properties of Thalaron radiation allow the energy beam to expand almost without limits. Depending on the radiant intensity it could encompass a ship... or a planet."

Picard is the one who adds that he thinks that Shinzon is going to use the weapon against a planet, based on his knowledge of Shinzon's psychology and his clone's hatred of humanity and Earth. No one had picked up on that possibility before that.

It's not surprising. Going to the novelverse--which is what we're talking about, right-- the Rihannsu novels establish pretty thoroughly that while Romulan civilization generally was inclined towards conquest, conquests had to be achieved honourably. Plans like the Tricameron's abortive attempt to make Sol hyperflare and kill everyone in the system finished discrediting the regime. Empress Ael's liberal regime may have fallen, but what we see of the Romulans in TNG and DS9 suggests that they were generally a very conservative power not prone to taking risks, the notable exception being the Tal Shi'ar's alliance with the Obsidian Order against the Founders.

That last underlines the main weakness of the RSE political system. The RSE is a flexible entity, one that is not innately xenophobic and is quite capable of forming fairly friendly alliances with other powers. Ambassador Nanclus' presence in the Federation President's office as Starfleet presented its plan to rescue Kirk and McCoy from Qo'Nos is a case in point. The problem facing the RSE is the intense factionalization of Romulan society, with different political and bureaucratic groups retaining their own agendas, operating according to these, often threatening the Empire and its neighbours. Sometimes these factions are allies without even knowing what the other's agenda is: I'm skeptical that the Romulan military would want to fight a war where the annihilation of civilian populations was a normal tactic. The first response of the coup leaders once they realized just how out of control Shinzon actually was, after wondering what was happening to him and if he could complete his missions (which may well not have been the one they imagined), was to send military forces to destroy him and his forces/

And the metrons said not that the victor's ship will be destroyed. They said that they'll annihilate the loser's ship.
They did in the original script and in unaired dialogue.

Which raises the question - why did the metrons interfered at all? Why didn't they let the federates and the gorn fight it out? - all they did was change the fight from ship-vs-ship to man-vs-man.

Their explanation - it's more suited to promitive mentalities. So, they did not try to stop the fight; they arranged a gladiator fight to the death and watched.
The Metrons don't seem very civilized to me.
But this way there were many fewer dead. In the meantime, two individuals from comparable civilizations were allowed to demonstrate which was the more serious threat.

Coming back to the original point of this discussion, the established evidence from filmed Trek, never mind the novelverse, does not demonstrate that either the Romulans or the Gorn are innately xenophobic peoples incapable of cooperating with other powers, with the Federation or within another alliance structure altogether. Romulan and Gorn societies have their own xenophobic and xenophilic trends, and Romulan and Gorn individuals vary mroe widely still.

In any case, judging from human history it would be really strange if a half-dozen powers of broadly comparable strength responded to a astropolitical threat by establishing--among other things--a currency union. As Europe demonstrates, military and trade pacts are one thing, but establishing a common currency evidences each power's nominal commitment to cooperation and its trust in the willing of others to make similar commitments. Even Comecon didn't have a single currency.

Earth, Vulcan, Andor, and Tellar were rivals, often with authoritarian internal policies and long histories of conflict, who merged only after a new astropolitical threat appeared. Why couldn't the Breen, the Tzenkethi, the Tholians, the Gorn, the Kinshaya, and the RSE have responded in a similar fashion to the Federation?

Last edited by rfmcdpei; February 26 2009 at 10:07 PM. Reason: typos
rfmcdpei is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
reviews, typhon pact

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 05:10 PM.

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