was ezri right in Tacking into the Wind - are Klingons hypocrites?

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine' started by indolover, Apr 13, 2010.

  1. Sci

    Sci Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    Montgomery County, State of Maryland
    And who's to say that the Wormhole Aliens aren't gods? After all, a god is by definition not a creature native to one's planet -- and so's an alien. All gods are by definition also extraterrestrial life-forms (or, if you will, extra-Bajoran life-forms). And certainly everyone agrees that they're native to the Bajoran Wormhole, whether they be gods or aliens.

    Really, where's the contradiction between their being gods and their being aliens?

    There is no evidence whatsoever that the Bajoran Church required that caste system.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Bajorans were "trapped in a dark age;" being conquered by a hostile foreign imperialist does not mean you're primitive.

    Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the Bajoran religion is responsible for the Bajorans' apparently relatively static rate of technological development. Different cultures develop technology at different rates, and one going slower and one going faster does not make one culture better or worse than others -- nor is such a rate necessarily linked to religiosity.

    If Starfleet has nothing but contempt for religion, then it's not living up to its so-called IDIC respects for all cultures, and is as hypocritical as some claim the Klingons are.
     
  2. Kai Winn

    Kai Winn Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    that's how my namesake who based her claim to power on religion argued, while the armed resistance probably claimed all the credit for their fight. actually, the instinct for survival seems to have evolved over the eons, and is a property of life.
    weren't the pah wraiths the very same species like the prophets, in fact a faction of the prophets that lost a struggle for the power and got exiled? isn't the whole story really silly, because if they exist at any point of time, they must have known their attempt to leave the fire caves, and destroy the competition as well as a number of lesser species will fail? shouldn't they have known their uprising in the wormhole is doomed to fail in the first place?
     
  3. Admiral Shran

    Admiral Shran Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Location:
    In the Before Time - the Long, Long Ago
    If religion does nothing but trap people in a "dark age" where they remain technological inferior and weak, why are Klingons, who maintain their religion into the 24th century, more technologically adept and stronger militarily in the 22nd century than are Humans.

    After all, by the 22nd century, Humans had supposed dropped all that "trash." Yet, a society that retains its religion is stronger. Weird.

    I never said Starfleet kept the Bajorans from practicing the religion. However, many Starfleet officers often looked down and ridiculed the practice. The most striking example is when Dax flat out ridicules Sisko's faith in The Reckoning.
     
  4. Ensign_Redshirt

    Ensign_Redshirt Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Weyon was accompanied and protected by several armed guards though, while Worf himself was unarmed. Weyoun was the one with the "tactical superiority" here. What was Worf supposed to do? Announcing his intention first? "I'm going to attack you in five seconds. Prepare yourself"? Well, that would go rather well. Using the element of surprise isn't necessarily considered dishonourable, especially when you're in a inferior position.

    Weyoun had it coming. If you don't want to get attacked by a Klingon, don't capture him, don't torture him, don't threaten him with execution, and don't insult his "girlfriend" in front of her. And you could in fact argue that Worf was defending Ezri's honour by killing Weyoun. Under these conditions it's fair game. Weyoun was the one challenging Worf. I don't see anything dishonourable here.



    When was this explicitly stated? All the other Klingons in the room (except for Martok) didn't seem to have much of a problem with Worf challenging Gowron. They also wanted to make him Chancellor after he won.

    And even if he broke some rule by challenging Gowron... there's a difference between following the rules and being honourable. Some of the most dishonourable Klingons were always following the "rules". I guess Gowron wasn't breaking any rules when he dishonoured Worf and his family again in "The Way of the Warrior". But it still wasn't a very honourable thing to do.
     
  5. indolover

    indolover Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    True.

    But I would say that the Federation never openly condoned or committed intolerant acts. Section 31 may have attempted genocide of the Founders, but the Federation stated that they don't know Section 31 existed. Klingons make little secret of their hypocrisy, and even let outsiders (like Picard) be privy to it.
     
  6. indolover

    indolover Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    How are Cardassians schizophrenic/inconsistent?

    Cardassia always was a fascist/authoritarian society, that ruthlessly put down its enemies. The Occupation of Bajor is wholly consisent with Cardassian morals. How often do Starfleet officers say that they never hope to be a Cardassian prisoner? Ruthlessness is part of Cardassian moral behaviour.
     
  7. Nerys Ghemor

    Nerys Ghemor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Location:
    Cardăsa Terăm--Nerys Ghemor
    Yeah, the Cardassian government was always pretty clear that as far as they were concerned, the ends justified the means. They never played at any other sort of moral system.
     
  8. DevilEyes

    DevilEyes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
    I'd say that the area where the Cardassian society is very hypocritical/contradictory is their "family values". They say that the family is very important to them, but apparently it means that everyone must have a perfect biological nuclear family, while orphans have no rights and the society makes no effort to take care of them, and children born out of wedlock are seen as a disgrace and should be murdered.
     
  9. SpyOne

    SpyOne Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Amen. :)

    In reality, Practice rarely lives up to the Ideal. Worf has really had no experience with the practiceof Klingon society, he has grown up with the ideal. He knows Klingons as they should be, not as they are.

    Klingons could be called hypocrites, but perhaps "realists" is a less pejorative term: they understand that the way things should be and the way they are are two different things. And few of them have the conviction of Don Quixote or Worf to live as if things are they way they should be and try to change they way things are by example.
    :)
     
  10. SpyOne

    SpyOne Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Ro Laren would disagree. :rolleyes:
     
  11. DevilEyes

    DevilEyes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
    For some (probably many) Bajorans, faith in the Prophets helped them not lose hope during the Occupation. That doesn't mean that anyone who was not religious was going to be depressed, hopeless, suicidal or unable to survive. :rolleyes: People are different and find strength and hope in various ways. It would be pretty silly to claim that everyone needs religion in their lives or that nobody could possibly derive hope, peace or ethical principles without it, just as it would be silly to deny that it is beneficial to some people.

    It is also silly to claim that Bajoran religion is inherently associated with, say, slow development of technology, or a caste system - without evidence that there is any causal link there.
     
  12. SpyOne

    SpyOne Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    I agree. I think the Klingons recognize that what Weyoun did was enough to provoke an attack (any of the things he did), and thus his being unarmed when the attack came was his fault and not Worf's responsibility.

    It does not appear that Worf broke any rules there. Although it was more Martok's place to do it than Worf's, Klingon society seems to believe that if the leader is a traitor or a coward, ANY subordinate has the right to challenge him.

    For my money, though, Worf misunderstood the quote from Kahless: "Great men do not seek power, they have power thrust upon them". That means that, even though Worf did not do what he did because he wanted to be Chancellor, nevertheless the power is his. Because he was the one willing to put his life on the line to stop what he knew was wrong.
    And it builds so beautifully with Ezri's earlier comment about "Who was the last Chancellor you respected?"
    Worf.
    They should have made him keep it.
     
  13. John200

    John200 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Location:
    New Brunswick Canada
    She was so right.

    The Klingons are for the most part full of crap ,but fun to have around ;)
     
  14. ProtoAvatar

    ProtoAvatar Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Is it moral to accept other's ways?

    Your human morals forbid the taking of lives of innocents under any circumstances.
    Let's say you meet a culture where such crimes are acceptable.
    Let's say you walk down a street and you see one member of this culture murdering in cold blood another person, who fights to stay alive.

    If you don't interfere to save this person, you're blatantly breaching your own moral code in the name of moral relativity.
    But what if the person being murdered is a human, like you? Do you let the criminal murder this human, because that's acceptable for him and you must respect this?
    What if you are the one being killed? Do you let the murderer kill you because he's acting in accordance to his morals? How far does your moral relativity go?

    You see, beyond a point, not judging others by your morals betrays the very fundamentals of your morals!
    Even if your morals include acceptance of others, this precept cannot be absolute without making a mockery of YOUR OWN morals and beliefs - they can just as well not exist at all.

    As for the Federation, the Prime Directive pushes its morality to its limits, in the name of moral relativity - of not imposing one's morals on others.

    Where do I get this 'envy' stuff from:
    Your posts towards trekverse humans/the Federation have been consistently resentful, full af agressivity.

    And yet, your stated reasons for this have been all over the place: conspiracy theories that, after the third world war, humans have exterminated all opposing viewpoints in order to create their society; humans don't interfere enough and are hypocrites; humans interfere too much and are hypocrites; humans are naive and arrogant (I find that quite ironic, considering that cardassians are your favourite species), etc.

    Your resentment towards trekverse humans has no logical basis, it's textbook envy; if I were to speculate, I would say it exists because you identified with the cardassians and the Federation won one too many times the 'games' played with the Cardassian Union.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  15. Nerys Ghemor

    Nerys Ghemor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Location:
    Cardăsa Terăm--Nerys Ghemor
    I would say that to them, it isn't hypocrisy since everything has to submit to the law of the Cardassian state--and I suspect adultery is illegal if you get caught. Also, the Cardassian state has no tolerance for anything it sees as a "burden," and I think they see orphans as burdens upon society.

    Of course, I do not agree with or endorse said view. I find it repugnant. But I believe that in the "orthodox" Cardassian mindset, there is no contradiction because the family, as highly valued as it is, is subordinated to the state.

    ProtoAvatar--I am not even going to dignify your ranting and ridiculously incorrect assertions about my character with any more of a response than to say that I think that however much the Cardassians have screwed up (and they have, royally), they at least have a chance to improve because they got hit upside the head hard enough, because they lost one too many times. As for the rest, I believe there's more than sufficient evidence. And I would suggest that you avoid the personal remarks towards me--I'm not going to ask again.
     
  16. ProtoAvatar

    ProtoAvatar Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Nerys Ghemor, I was merely responding to your post - you ASKED me to comment about you. If you know you won't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

    Also - I wasn't discussing the cardassians in my previous post - I was discussing your attitude towards the trekverse humans.
    And that post follows logic aka it is NOT a rant. Feel free to point out where my analysis is incorect.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  17. DevilEyes

    DevilEyes Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
    I'm pretty sure that it was widely known that Dukat and many other Cardassians were having Bajoran mistresses. It was OK to do it as long as you don't talk publicly about it. But it is only an issue when there's a child involved, and when he decided to actually acknowledge that child? That's hypocrisy.

    And what about orphans? Their parents didn't do anything illegal or shameful. They just died or got themselves killed, perhaps in the service of the state, and then after their death, their children end up on the street and the state doesn't care. And I fail to see how this is a good thing for the state and the society. Is it an incentive for people to fight for the state? Hell no. How is it good for any society to have people living in poverty and starving? Maybe some of those children would go on to become great scientists or war heroes. As Vulcans would say, there is no logic in that.

    Besides, you'd expect that in a society that values family, it would extend to relatives other than the nuclear family. Yet apparently, while it is a shame to abandon one's (legal) child, uncles, aunts and other relatives are not required to take care of their relatives' orphaned children? All those orphans we saw on Bajor must have had some relatives somewhere on Cardassia, I doubt that all their relatives, including the distant relatives, were dead.
     
  18. Nerys Ghemor

    Nerys Ghemor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Location:
    Cardăsa Terăm--Nerys Ghemor
    The part with the mistresses--yep, that would be hypocrisy, which comes from an attitude from those in power that they think they're above the system.

    The other part...I do think the Cardassians see it as "consistent" by their values, but obviously it is not from an outside standpoint. I would also add that I do not believe we've seen any proof that other relatives aren't required to take in children when the parents died. The trouble may instead come in when relatives are ruled unfit, or do not exist. In those cases I suspect the state does not want to spend resources on those children, and while I agree with your point for what is TRULY right (that those children could easily go on to do something right), my point is that within the Cardassian system it is consistent with the state-ueber-alles mentality, up to and including the idea that some people should die or get by on a bare minimum for the good of the rest. :(

    Again...do I agree with that sort of decision? Do I want to see that for real? HELL no. Do I think it is consistent from an OBJECTIVE moral standpoint? No. (And do I think all Cardassians buy into the idea? No.) But from the Cardassian state's standpoint, it is.
     
  19. RandyS

    RandyS Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Randyland
    This is pretty much what I was going to say.
     
  20. Photon

    Photon Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Location:
    Dixie
    I'd kill him in a heartbeat too. He's the freakin' enemy. I just wish that Worf had been more brutal