That might well be the question to explore. It's a common enough one in fiction that I think it could be served well here.
Because it totally counteracts the message about a positive future, about humans as a race being able to be better themselves. If the Federation can only exist because it is rotten at its core, it is no better than current societies. I argue the Federation might be oven worse, because of all the dishonesty of pretending to be something it is not. TOS showed here and there some bad human individuals, which was fine. But it clearly portrayed the Federation and Starfleet being build on a foundation of ideals, and not on lies, conspiracies and murders. There are so many series and movies portraying how crap humans are, saying that no matter how much humans are advancing they won't really change. It will always be the same as it is today just with more advanced tech. Why can't there be one franchise which honestly believes and shows that there actually really can be a better future, something for current people to aspire to? Why must everything be dark and depressive? For seeing humanity's darkness you don't even need a fictional series. You might as well just watch the news.
This show kinda reminds me of the short lived Blacklist: Redemption where they had a bunch of misfits on missions including a stone cold killer (Solomon).
I don't think that is necessarily the point, at all. Now, I would argue the Federation has its issues, but we have seen that in leadership before and again. TOS was an optimistic future about humanity surviving and working together, but it did not deny the darker aspects of human nature. TOS Federation had its flaws, foibles, misguided leaders and downright evil. The episode "The Enemy Within" demonstrates a fundamental facet of good and evil sides to every person. Let's not conflate the TOS era Federation with the TNG era one. TOS was about humans, capable of great good and also capable of great evil, and choosing between the two. No, I don't think its evil at its core, but I think something like Section 31 thrives in times of uncertainty, which wars certainly promote.
1) She is NOT a canabal as she was never shown eating HUMANS. 2) I can't wait for this show! Anything that pisses off , triggers and makes the "genes vision" fan base heads explode gets thumbs up from me! Case in point
This is a dumb argument. I mean, let's look at the definition of murder: If murder is just the unlawful killing of another human, than a human in the Trekverse can engage in premeditated killing of as many Vulcans, Andorians, Klingons, etc as they want and not be a murderer.
Yes, by definition. Obviously, in a world of Star Trek that definition would need to be expanded. However, the question arises as to what morality is to judge the MU and why is our own morality to be extended to a culture that might not have been aware of it at the time of such acts? Context, including cultural context, is very important here.
I understand this point. However, if it holds true for the Terran Empire, doesn't it hold equally true for say the Cardassians? And given in this particular case it's not even just an "internal affair" of a given species, but one consuming another, presumably under the same logic the Federation had no right to judge the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. Therefore, is it okay to not judge Gul Dukat harshly for his actions?
Perhaps, though I would be more inclined to wonder at the application of morality in another universe than among peers. I think the Federation is in a better position to judge the Cardassians than they are the MU, largely because I don't think the Cardassian and Bajoran conflict could be regarded as an internal affair. But, it definitely is an interesting thought experiment to be sure. One that I think requires such deliberation rather than just wholesale condemnation.
Well that is kind of the point behind the prime directive and why the federation never got officially involved in helping the bajorans during the occupation ...
I could be wrong, but my impression was always that the MU was what it was not because it had EVIL RAYS which made people EVIL, but because the historical development of Earth diverged slightly from the PU, resulting in the brutal totalitarian aspects of humanity ending up on top rather than the kind egalitarian aspects. By that rationale, we'd be better able to judge MU humans than Cardassians, because they are biologically speaking nearly identical to us - only culturally conditioned to different social norms.
Don't forget - they're identical to us. Except their sensitivity for light. Which they developed in the 23rd century and lost there again.
Very matured. Why are you even a Star Trek fan when you seemingly detest the portrayal of an optimistic future so much? There would be so many alternatives for you to watch without having to root for a total change of an already existing franchise. I don't get why you quoted me there. I didn't speak about cannibalism in my post at all.
Why don't you just watch reruns of TNG and voyager if you just want the same old trek? Plus it's not exactly a change, DS9 established S31. It's a big universe with room for lots of series to suite everyone's taste It looks like you will get a series that suites you better in the Picard series. Where as what i gather it will be boring for me. You watch that and I will watch the section 31 series. As for why am I a fan? Entertainment pure and simple. I hold no "vision " or put trek on some pedestal. It's just selfish enjoyment, that's is all.
Except, this isn't a "total change" as evidenced by the numerous corrupt leaders throughout Star Trek history. It's simply exploring another facet of Trek life.