Incorrect, watch Next Gen's "Bloodlines" or DS9, where the Dominion repeatedly beamed people 10+ light-years.
What's your "controversial" Star Trek opinion?
- Thread starter Romulan Patriot
- Start date
The Picards are indigneous to Earth and by extension France. The homesteaders chose to live next door to a region where they were not indigenous. The Federation needs to be more careful with where they stick their flag.
Last edited:
If you look at all Trek episodes involving the Maquis, it's very balanced, pro and con. Not within a single episode, necessarily. One episode can come down heavily for or against, but overall, we get both sides, and that's the point. They were presenting this kind of subject to encourage us to look for and expect at least two valid sides to complicated issues and controversies. So I come down right in the middle.
You got me Googling "bussard", so thanks. Google desperately wanted to tell me about buzzards, instead.
You'd expect the Federation to go to war with Cardassia rather than make a few people move?
It's called the greater good for a reason...
I don't think the Federation should have made as many concessions as they did.,and yes I would put my citizens before the needs of an untrustworthy enemy. They didn't appear to be much of a threat to the Federation militarily either. An entire cardassian fleet got scared away from Minos Korva by a single galaxy class ship and some shuttles. If they had of gone to war, The Federation would of cleaned house just like the Klingons did a few years later.
How many is too many? And do the Cardasians know this number?
Do the Cardasians not value life and peace the same way? (Why yes, I did just watch Star Trek VI.)
Does anyone else recall a passage in the novelization of The Undiscovered Country that the deaths of Valeris' parents were caused by a Klingon attack?
That sounds an awful lot like the genetic engineering that's supposed to be illegal.
Then how do you have a child that's born blind like Geordi and nothing can be done to fix it when he is a child?
That's my take on it as well. He was going to do it (at least considering it) but the Romulan said he didn't want Klingon filth in his veins (metaphorically spitting in Worf's face).
I thought is was a Klingon raid that injured Carol Marcus? I believe a Romulan raid killed Saavik's parents, is from a DC Comics story.
And IMHO, it's a small mind that thinks the best response for that disrespect is to let the person die, to spite them. The better way to get back at someone who disrespects you like that is to do it anyway, whether they like it or not. You are showing that you can't be dissuaded from righteousness, & you are illustrating that just because a person is too stupid or prejudiced to be deserving of the help they need, doesn't mean you shouldn't help them. Be the bigger person. There's more at stake here than one racist Romulan anyhow
The fact is, the prejudiced Romulan's wishes are not the paramount concern here. He's an officer, whose superiors have demanded his healthy return. He doesn't get to make demands about his care, least of all if it doesn't present any harm. He is a suspected criminal, infiltrating a forbidden border, & jeopardizing the peace that exists between the people who share it. He is not just a doctor's patient. There's no intention to subject him to something unscrupulous, threatening, or cruel. He is a detainee. If we intercept a dying ISIS combatant & he refuses to be treated by "Infidels" but we know that keeping him alive means possibly saving lives or preventing deaths, guess which choice we make?
Respecting the Romulan's ill-intentioned wishes takes the back seat. What about our wishes that he not breach our border & threaten our peace... put our lives at risk? What he wishes is to do us harm. Do I care that he also wishes for us to not save his life? I'm sure he does wish that. It robs us of any value his life might hold for us. I don't care if he's willing to throw his life away. I'm not... for his sake, along with millions of others
^ Just because Patakh is an enemy combatant, that doesn't deprive him of his rights as a patient.
Not exactly.
Valeris' father was negotiating for Federation mining rights on the planet where they were living. A Klingon kidnapped Valeris and her mother to force an end to those negotiations.
Not exactly.
Valeris' father was negotiating for Federation mining rights on the planet where they were living. A Klingon kidnapped Valeris and her mother to force an end to those negotiations.
The novel version of either STII or STIII (don't recall which at the moment) has Saavik in bed with David and she explains that one of her parents was Vulcan and one was Romulan. She stated that she doesn't believe that her Vulcan parent is still alive.
He's more than just an enemy combatant. He's a linchpin. 1st, we're never given any indication what his rights as a Starfleet patient are, but I seriously doubt his right to needlessly die in lieu of receiving life saving treatment, during an incident he caused, that worsens if he dies, is one of them.
2nd, his right to refuse what kind of healthcare they use to save his life is trumped by the demand from his superiors that he be returned alive or face retaliation. It's laughable to think the excuse "He refused our treatment" would fly, with the Romulans, under such tense circumstances, especially after they'd been told he was undergoing care. You could literally give them a video recording of the claim from Patakh, & they would probably still say it was coerced, because it furthers their grievance agenda. No one has any way of truly knowing if his objection would hold universally agreed upon merit among them anyhow, & it would be highly inadvisable to allow him direct communication with them, to get approval to die. It's still a risk to everyone's safety
Tip #1 of a healthcare provider? A dead paramedic saves no one... & a destroyed starship, that that went down because they generously offered a liberty to a patient that endangered them all, was a step too far, that placed his wishes above their own safety.
Thanks. I knew it was something that formed her opinions about Klingons.
I love the way people are forming political opinions as if they lived in the fictional universe.
I actually do like that. Sort of. I like worldbuilding. Anyway, we do think about the issues presented. That's what we're supposed to do.I love the way people are forming political opinions as if they lived in the fictional universe.
----------------
What I do find disappointing, sometimes, is that after the writers have gone so much out of their way to present both sides in a story, to show us how both sides have understandable valid points but the other side doesn't see it... so many viewers will complain about how they just have no idea at all WHY this or that character did something, or decided this or that. They see a very balanced story as being obviously one-sided. They will declare the episode to be poorly written. Did they see the same episodes I did?! It seems as if a lot of good, thoughtful writing was wasted on some viewers.
--------------------------
I'd feel better about it, if I could be sure that discussions, such as those here on this board, result in some people seeing both sides.
Last edited:
We watched TUC this weekend. It has driven me crazy for over 25 years that they keep talking about disarming Starfleet.
"Are you willing to give up Starfleet?" "Why? Are the Romulans going someplace too?"
Yes, I'd like to have seen the other side of the conversation as well. "So, are the Klingons going to stop occupying planets like Organia?"
The decision that Picard made in the child custody case in "Suddenly Human" should have been viewed as controversial in-universe, within and without Starfleet. As a tv viewer, I was bothered by what Picard did.
Picard made the wrong decision in handing the human boy, Jeremiah Rossa, back to his adoptive Talarian father, the man who kidnapped the boy in the first place. It was a terrible decision.
The Talarians attacked the human colony where the boy was living at the time, killed his parents and every one else, and then took the orphaned boy to be one of their own.
Picard should have should have returned the boy to his biological human family, his grandmother, who happened to be a Starfleet admiral.
I realized that the boy bonded with the Talarian captain and developed a father-son relationship with him, and that potential war hung in the balance. But those things should not have justified the kidnapping and custody. Also, by essentially justifying the kidnapping, Picard set a terrible precedent in which future Talarian, or any invading alien, who kidnaps orphaned human children would be seen as justified.
I know that there was no follow-up story to this episode. But I hoped that the boy's grandmother, Admiral Rossa, gave Picard hell for what he did. Make Picard pay a price for his decision.
Picard made the wrong decision in handing the human boy, Jeremiah Rossa, back to his adoptive Talarian father, the man who kidnapped the boy in the first place. It was a terrible decision.
The Talarians attacked the human colony where the boy was living at the time, killed his parents and every one else, and then took the orphaned boy to be one of their own.
Picard should have should have returned the boy to his biological human family, his grandmother, who happened to be a Starfleet admiral.
I realized that the boy bonded with the Talarian captain and developed a father-son relationship with him, and that potential war hung in the balance. But those things should not have justified the kidnapping and custody. Also, by essentially justifying the kidnapping, Picard set a terrible precedent in which future Talarian, or any invading alien, who kidnaps orphaned human children would be seen as justified.
I know that there was no follow-up story to this episode. But I hoped that the boy's grandmother, Admiral Rossa, gave Picard hell for what he did. Make Picard pay a price for his decision.
Again I disagree. The Enterprise was fit to battle the Borg but not the Cardassians? There was absolutely no need to make the changes and there was no need to make them in the manner they were, all that accomplished was to unsettle the crew and reduce their efficiency as a result.
Similar threads
