Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x05 - "Saints of Imperfection"

[DEWLine]

Well, Burnham was speaking of Stamets as a widower at the top of the episode, during her personal log excerpt on the power of words. So: Stamets and Culber were...and are...married to each other.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, Burnham was speaking of Stamets as a widower at the top of the episode, during her personal log excerpt on the power of words. So: Stamets and Culber were...and are...married to each other.

I was scratching my head over the term "husband/wife" actually.

 

[DEWLine]

I was scratching my head over the term "husband/wife" actually.

You too, huh?

 

[eschaton]

His what?

Maybe he's confused about which of them is the bottom, and thinks wife is the appropriate name for that???

 

[Nerys Myk]

Maybe he's confused about which of them is the bottom, and thinks wife is the appropriate name for that???

It did remind of all the times people would ask "which one's the woman?"

 

[eschaton]

Honestly, retconning Cornwell into a horrible person makes the end of season one make a lot more sense.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I saw a sitcom or something where in love lesbian fiances were arguing and condemning the other about who was the "wife" because of probably the patriarchal second class connotations to the word.

 

[Amaris]

In this case the needs of the many being the collective survival and thriving of galactic civilizations vs a the minor few outliers of some dangerous species that has willfully thrown itself in the recycle bin of history, then yes. It's not necessarily the sort of thing anyone would thrill to be a part of, but I think in this fictional context Section 31 was completely justified in attempting genocide on the Dominion and would have been right to do so against the Borg.

Someone, even in near perfect societies, must be able to protect those near perfect societies by making the penalty for threatening them so unthinkable that no one would ever consider it once they've seen the results. How many world wars have we had since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Klaatu seemed capable of explaining it in a less complicated way, apparently in Day The Earth Stood Still

That's still genocide in the name of "the greater good."

 

[Guy Gardener]

Starfleet works towards the greater good of the universe and everyone in the universe, throughout all time and all other universes too, even at the expense of Starfleet, the Federation, Earth, and their own lives.

Section 31 works towards the Good of the Federation. The rest of the Galaxy can burn down, if it means that the Federation loses an inch of territory or one citizen.

 

[XCV330]

That's still genocide in the name of "the greater good."

I'm not going to get hung up on a word. To an ant, a garden hose is a wmd.

Starfleet works towards the greater good of the universe and everyone in the universe, throughout all time and all other universes too, even at the expense of Starfleet, the Federation, Earth, and their own lives.

Section 31 works towards the Good of the Federation. The rest of the Galaxy can burn down, if it means that the Federation loses an inch of territory or one citizen.

I might not have put it exactly like that, but I get the sentiment. yes

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Klaatu seemed capable of explaining it in a less complicated way, apparently in Day The Earth Stood Still

Klaatu was a belligerent trying to play enlightened. Comply with our demands or else we'll wipe out your species because you might hypothetically pose a risk to us at some point in the distant future when you achieve interstellar travel. Meanwhile, instead of either avoiding contact and letting you resolve your differences on your own, or making peaceful contact without the threat of violence and letting you unite under the knowledge that there are other friendly societies in space, we'll instead threaten you with genocide, because we're more evolved. Also, their society's peace comes under the threat of destruction by the Gort robots, who they've turned total control over to on matters of aggression. So they're really not any more advanced than human society living under the threat of mutually assured destruction, and have given up more freedom to achieve their version of "peace" under the gun.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I noticed recently that three skiff guards from Jabba's Palace from Return of the Jedi were called Klatuu, Beradda, and Nicto.

In the remake, they said that life supporting planets are very rare, and ruining one is unforgivable. The Robot was there to save the planet from Man. Man can suck it.

I'm not going to get hung up on a word. To an ant, a garden hose is a wmd.


I might not have put it exactly like that, but I get the sentiment. yes

Bugs Life or Honey I Shrunk the Kids?

 

[XCV330]

their version of "peace" under the gun.

I don't believe there is any other version. All civilization and order is maintained indirectly or directly ultimately by the threat of violence. We just live day to day in the illusion that it is not. Pretending too hard to the contrary can cause those flaws in the system to surface.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Culber is married to Stamets. I do not know who is the husband and who is the wife in the relationship. So, I covered the bases.

 

[Succubint]

They are both husbands.

 

[Amaris]

I'm not going to get hung up on a word. To an ant, a garden hose is a wmd.

It's not a word but a concept. A garden hose may be a WMD to an ant, but murdering an entire sentient/sapient species, guilty of some transgression or not, is still genocide. You can call it pickle barrel kumquat, but the act is still the eradication of an entire species out of some "us vs. them" mentality.

"They'll destroy our very way of life" has allowed for unthinkable atrocities.

Klaatu was a belligerent trying to play enlightened. Comply with our demands or else we'll wipe out your species because you might hypothetically pose a risk to us at some point in the distant future when you achieve interstellar travel. Meanwhile, instead of either avoiding contact and letting you resolve your differences on your own, or making peaceful contact without the threat of violence and letting you unite under the knowledge that there are other friendly societies in space, we'll instead threaten you with genocide, because we're more evolved. Also, their society's peace comes under the threat of destruction by the Gort robots, who they've turned total control over to on matters of aggression. So they're really not any more advanced than human society living under the threat of mutually assured destruction, and have given up more freedom to achieve their version of "peace" under the gun.

Exactly.

 

[Noname Given]

The situation was somewhat different due the nature of the Borg and it not initially being quite clear what would be the results of the virus. But most importantly Picard never gave the order.


She was an officer who ordered a genocide. She hid the information from the officers who were to carry out that order, and installed an outsider and tyrant in command of the mission. Merely by combined happenstance of the Disco crew figuring out the plan and refusing to comply was the genocide averted. So yes, she absolutely should be held accountable for giving those orders. If I hire someone to kill my neighbour, but for some reason the assassin fails in their task and I later express remorse for ordering that assassination, I sure as hell would still be held accountable!

Oh please - the Admiralty of the 'Utopian/Enlightened' Starfleet Command of the 24th Century gave Picard a VERY VOCAL dressing down for his unilateral decision not to employ the Borg Virus:

From TNG S6 - "Descent I":
http://www.chakoteya.net/NextGen/252.htm

NECHAYEV: Captain, I've read the report that you submitted to Admiral Brooks last year regarding the Borg you called Hugh, and I've been trying to figure out why you let him go.

PICARD: I thought that I had made that clear.

NECHAYEV: As I understand, it you found a single Borg at a crash site, brought it aboard the Enterprise, studied it, analysed it, and eventually found a way to send it back to the Borg with a program that would have destroyed the entire collective once and for all. But instead, you nursed the Borg back to health, treated it like a guest, gave it a name, and then sent it home. Why?

PICARD: When Hugh was separated from the Borg collective he began to grow and to evolve into something other than an automaton. He became a person. When that happened, I felt I had no choice but to respect his rights as an individual.

NECHAYEV: Of course you had a choice. You could've taken the opportunity to rid the Federation of a mortal enemy, one that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and which may kill even more.

PICARD: No one is more aware of the danger than I am. But I am also bound by my oath and my conscience to uphold certain principles. And I will not sacrifice them in order to

NECHAYEV: Your priority is to safeguard the lives of Federation citizens, not to wrestle with your conscience. Now I want to make it clear that if you have a similar opportunity in the future, an opportunity to destroy the Borg, you are under orders to take advantage of it. Is that understood?

PICARD: Yes, sir.

^^^
So, do you think Admiral Nechayev is 'evil' (or maybe she's part of Section 31 in the 24th century?? ) and not deserving of her position? <---- If so, Starfleeet Command didn't have a problem with what she said, as later in the Season Starfleet Command sent Picard on a suicide mission and gave the 1701-D to Captain Edward Jellico (See TNG S6 "Chain of Command").

Bottom line - even in the 24th century, Starfleet Command had zero issues with attempted genocide on an Enemy that was effectively going to do the same to Humanity (as they saw it).

 

[XCV330]

It's not a word but a concept. A garden hose may be a WMD to an ant, but murdering an entire sentient/sapient species, guilty of some transgression or not, is still genocide. You can call it pickle barrel kumquat, but the act is still the eradication of an entire species out of some "us vs. them" mentality.

"They'll destroy our very way of life" has allowed for unthinkable atrocities.


Exactly.

Being the peaceful unprepared nice guys on the wrong side of the tanks leaves you mulched. Pickle barrel kumquat the hell out of 'em.

 

[Amaris]

Being the peaceful unprepared nice guys on the wrong side of the tanks leaves you mulched. Pickle barrel kumquat the hell out of 'em.

So you support genocide when it suits you, and what I said wasn't incorrect.

 

[XCV330]

So you support genocide when it suits you, and what I said wasn't incorrect.

I promise you, I've done a complete internal diagnostic and apart from my unapologetic and very public hatred of mosquitoes, I don't support genocide.