But they may think that they do. They may believe in something and in their own moral superiority. And it's interesting when their moral compass challenges our own. Case in point is Elizabeth Jennings on The Americans.
The age of the antihero
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
I'm not arguing its the opposite. I'm arguing that the behaviors that are "antiheroic" make sense to me as human behavior.
YMMV and all that.
I'm not, and neither is Starfleet. It's apparent that "leave the enemy nothing" isn't their standard operating procedure, and there's a WORLD of difference between "top secret military technology that would give the enemy a strategic advantage!" and "something they need because they're desperate and starving." Those are two COMPLETELY different things.
Starfleet is known to keep the enemy from obtaining the former. But if the Klingons had raided Shenzhou looking for leftover food and water, spare parts or emergency supplies as a matter of pure survival, nobody at Starfleet would or should have lost any sleep over that. That they snagged a barely-functional engine part in an ultimately meaningless attempt to get their ship working falls into the same category.
Starfleet has no obligation to render aid to enemy combatants, especially unlawful/irregular forces like T'Kuvma's merry men. On the other hand, they have no particular impetus to deliberately sabotage the SURVIVAL of those combatants once they have been immobilized. It's easy to forget that this is an organization whose basic hand weapon has a non-lethal setting which they still use even in times of war.
Are there any sensitive military secrets on Shenzhou that need to be sanitized? Is there any classified information in its computers? Is there anything on the ship that Starfleet cannot afford to allow the Klingon Empire to have access to? The answer is categorically "no." So scuttling the ship accomplishes no strategic goal whatsoever and is both a waste of material and an unnecessary risk to the crew.
No, it was not, and had not been for several days at least. The "crystal residue" on the device was a consequence of its lack of function and advanced state of decay.
Furthermore, you should really refrain from commenting on the status of this so-called "power core" until you can find the time to watch the actual episode; at this point it is abundantly clear you have not, and are commenting on matters you know nothing about.
I thought the Geneva Conventions arguments were already settled a couple months ago. And now they're back. 
I hope I will be as trim as Lorca a couple decades from now when I, too, become a fifty-something antihero.
Kor
Cute answerHe's not bad looking if I may say.
I hope I will be as trim as Lorca a couple decades from now when I, too, become a fifty-something antihero.
"Multi-quote" is your friend.
Kor
Last edited:
Antiheroes think moral high grounds are for suckers...
...because context...is for kings.
Don't be ridiculous."Multi-quote" is your friend.
Kor
"Mankind is the measure of all things."
Tell that to the Klingon Houses.
Will do.
An anti-antihero?
So, a hero?
But the same applies to heroic behavior, right?
I thought that was just residue due to the point that the ship had been abandoned in space for so long. And wasn't the difficulty mentioned referring to extracting the device?
Also, where did you get the absurd idea that I didn't watch the episode?
It may also go the other way round, i.e., with heroes acting in terms of ideals while antiheroes employing realpolitik. At least that's what I gathered from the OP.
Actually, the anti-hero can and probably should claim the moral high ground for himself. If not breaking the rules of morality will sometimes lead to disastrous results, then robotically obeying those rules is immoral. You might want to keep those rules around for instrumental purposes and talk other people into following them, but you shouldn't actually believe in them yourself.
This won't work for all moral traditions, of course.
