Discussion in 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine' started by indolover, Apr 13, 2010.
Klingons are to honor as Americans are to freedom.
Technically, she asked Worf "Who was the last leader of the High Council that you respected?" Worf wasn't even alive during Gorkon's time....
How does it follow logic? You look at her constant critiques of Federation society--many of which are, indeed, quite valid--and you automatically chalk it up to envy, because of what you percieve as inconsistancies?
So? The Federation has done a great deal which, from a certain point of view, is blatantly wrong. Naturally, one following that POV would be resentful.
And...? Consider the admittedly awkward attitudes with which humans seem to approach different POVs in Trek.
Now...for those charges, please cite what you mean.
And then, look at the context of her arguments, sir, and I think you will find that this simply points out the contradictions--and therefore, hypocrisy--of Federation foreign policy.
Again, this is not a logical statement, simply an opinion on your part. And it contradicts itself. You rebuke a "Cardassian" for having a certain POV about humans--and yet you feel free to hold the same attitude about Cardassians.
How so? Envy is hating someone who is more succesful at something than you, or similar feelings to that effect. How does that apply?
Please. She identifies with the Cardassians as an effect, not a cause. And the "game" went on for decades before ending in a draw. The UFP didn't "win".
Trust me...it was a rant.
Sure - her recent statements from this thread and from the "Seven Deadly Sins Discuss/ Grade" thread from Trek Literature; in general, you can look at practically each statement she made about trekverse humans, though.
Many times, her statements regarding trekverse humans contradicted each other or were supported by no evidence whatsoever, but all shared a common feature - they were denigratory towards trekverse humans.
And her identifying with the cardassians leads to her resentment towards trekverse humans. Said resentment leads to her grasping at every possible argument to make cardassians look good and trekverse humans bad.
And those statements are...?
And yet you said regarding her alleged opinion on humans:
--thus implying your apparent resentment to Cardassians.
Also, why do you think Nerys identifies with Cardassians more than humans? Could it be, as I said, that she has a point as to the...inconsistancies in UFP policy?
Go to the threads I indicated and read them.
You can't even be bothered to do that and are asking me do do your research for you?
Good luck with that one.
Frankly, sir...if you cannot be bothered to cite your sources...why should I be bothered to cite them for you?
BTW...I have read those statements. I myself have taken part in many other discussions which Nerys was involved in of which you may be referring. The most notable, of course, being a thread on "Federation Foreign Policy". I recommend it.
Never once have I seen anything from the keyboard of Nerys Ghemor that could be simply written off as "envy". You must admit...considering the constant frustration of Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and the rest when confronting the Federation establishment...she does indeed have a point.
Among others, I recall a theory Nerys Ghemor supported - apparently, in order to reach its near-utopian state, humanity exterminated in the past all who thought differently, all oposition.
Yes - I can see the massive on-screen support for such thesis.
And, Rush Lindberg, DO read my posts: I did cite my sources - you just couldn't be bothered to read through them.
I seem to remember Nerys Ghemor putting forward the idea that Earth may have taken dissenting voices within the greater society and "shipped them to the colonies," don't recall extermination being advocated.
According to Nerys Ghemor, those who could saved themselves by escaping in colony ships. Those left on Earth received the full treatement - violence, suppression, the works. In the end, none remained (not in hiding, not anywhere) they were exterminated.
Well, let's see...
I will proceed to quote what she actually said--via the link you provided (thanks for that, BTW. ).
To be frank...I see no actual flaw in this line of reasoning. Now...I have a decidedly less cynical view of 24th-century humanity than Nerys--i.e., I view the paradise of Earth as only rationally being brought about by a free, capitalist society, despite latter-day perversion by alleged "progressives"--however, I DO see potential validity in her argument. It is hardly envy; it is simple logic, based on premises drawn from what little information we do have on Trek-history.
Mooving along, she also says:
Interestingly enough, the UFP's attitude changes and reforms as the POVs of Sisko and Bashir change with experience. I think this reform is a promising indication of what's to come.... But again, Nerys's argument does hold water here. No envy, just cruel reality.
Sorry...she is absolutely correct here. Many times in Trek--especially in TNG, specific requests for help are turned down because the Prime Directive allegedly forbids it....
Interestingly enough, the PD was created to keep the UFP from "Playing God". And yet...the irony is, the authorities often make exceptions to it, simply to justify doing what suits present policy. (To wit...the PD is treated as a Living, Breathing Document.... Only our heros seem to want to treat it objectively.)
Do read what was written AFTER Nerys Ghemor's post before wasting my time here.
I have the same problem with people who hold up Spock as a perfect example of a Vulcan when he's half human.
Right, a free society only made possible with virtually unlimited land, energy and resources, where everyone's food, housing, medical and educational needs are met by the state.
It's a total fantasy universe, it has nothing to do with modern political or economic principles, including what you think of as capitalism or conservatism or anything else you'd like to imagine.
...Then why did you make it a point to provide a link to ONLY her comments--as if it would be self-explanitory, why you find them so detestable?
(sigh) Other than the fact that I was just illustrating my disagreement with Nerys...and that to over-emphasize this line is to take the bloody thread even more off topic...
To be frank, I have yet to see a canonical--or even TrekLit--establishment that "everyone's food, housing, medical and educational needs are met by the state". I could be wrong--but until I am proven so, I stand by those comments.
But again, this is splitting hairs--and I re-state that that was simply where I disagreed with the analysis of my Cardassian friend.
If you don't want to discuss things, don't say them.
I think an amalgamation of the available canon evidence would suggest that indeed, on core Federation worlds like Earth and Betazed at least, Federation citizens are given public schooling and have their medical needs provided for. Would you argue that corporations run their school and health care system or that they're for profit? It's been stated there is no poverty or hunger, I'm pretty sure it's not because they've found a way to guarantee 100% unemployment through raw capitalism. You really think society went in the totally opposite direction we're going today in a future with unlimited resources? You can build homes and apartments and power them for next to nothing given their level of technology.
Then again I'd argue that their entire political and particularly their economic system is different enough from ours based on the available evidence (again, because of their level of tech and a non-scarcity environment) that traditional labels like "socialism" and "capitalism" are a bit in error. They have a government system that seems like a mix of Republicanism and the Parliamentary system. They seem to have one economic system within the Federation for its citizens (this no money business Kirk and Picard go on about) while maintaining a way to interact with outside economies on small and large scales. They'd have to have an amalgamation of all kinds of economic ideas cherry picked in order for it to work.
Again--I was just giving an example of the sole manner of disagreement--and why I feel somewhat more optimistic towards the UFP.
Something akin to that. I would argue that the profit motive would be a sufficient incentive for private companies to provide the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price.
Precisely! You really think the replicator was invented at the behest of the government? Of course not--but its provision, and the provison from many other technological breakthroughs, which resulted in practically unlimited resources--directly leads to such a high standard of living--and such ease in aquiring it--that the term "poverty" becomes meanigless.
I grant that--to a point. You see--capitalism is not simply an economic system. It is the only economic system presently or historically in existence that is completely compatible with the concept of inalienable, individual rights--life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness--and therefore, private property. All other systems in existence--fascism, socialism, corporatism, welfare statism, pure "democracy"--advocate the violation of the rights of some for the good of another.
Now, I do not deny that there may in fact be a future form of a free-market economy, which would make what we now call "capitalism" outdated. However, this system must respect the rights of the individual, and the concept of private property, or else prosperity is suppressed, immediately or through a gradual process.
It wouldn't matter if Worf was alive or not, the question doesn't require him to have been alive while the Chancellor he respects was in power.
How you're thinking the question works would make it impossible (for example) to be able to say who the last King of the UK I respected, since there hasn't been a King in my lifetime, only Queen Elizabeth II as reigning monarch.
^Well, to be frank, that would be an absurd question to ask, if my point was to discuss current corruption in the British system.
Ezri was trying to hit home her point that the Empire had abandoned its Founding Principles (hmm...) by asking Worf to look at what the Empire had been like throughout his lifetime.
If it were as you said--that her question wasn't limited to his personal perspective during his lifetime--Ezri would therefore basically have implied that Klingon leaders have never, ever been honorable or un-corrupt. Again, going back to your analogy, it would be like my claiming that the British system has never not been corrupt.
I believe the only teachers we have seen were volunteers: there was no mention of Keiko charging for school on DS9, and the teachers on the Enterprise were not part of her crew. We have seen many students being "home schooled", and others making reference to "school" but no indication of who runs it. You might infer that the schools are run by the government, but I think there is at least an equal amount of evidence that the schools are run by the citizens themselves, teachers being either volunteers or, if paid, paid by the parents of the students directly.
We have seen Starfleet providing medical care, but we have also seen doctors who were not part of Starfleet. We have no indication if they work for the government, for some private entity, or if they provide medical care as volunteers, simply because they are able to and see the need. If anything, that last has a bit more canon support than the others.
That their medical needs are provided for does not mean that they are provided for by the government.
I disagree. If you asked me "who was the last British Prime Minister you respected?", a legitimate answer would be "Churchill", even though the man has been dead since before I was born.
Again, I disagree. I think she felt the corruption had begun long before Worf was born, and that while he might be able to call up historical examples of Chancellors he respected, none of them would be recent enough to refute the idea that the Empire had been dying for generations. Centuries, even.
Not really: if the best I can do is Richard the Lionheart, then you have basically made your case that no recent king was any good.
Separate names with a comma.