What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
- i didn't say use it, i said enlarge the term, which means set everybody nominally on an equal footing - insisting on humans for us while seeing terrans as derogatory and calling anybody else after the place they come from is racist by analogy
- i didn't say that either - obviously my definition of human encloses the humbacks 'talking' to spock and the hadrosauri talking to chakotay and whatever sentient species evolves anywhere (that includes terra/earth) - most likely what we call scientific names would be a little different but that's it
Last edited:
Then I just don't really know what you're proposing exactly. What does 'enlarge the term' mean in practical terms? Are you calling Klingons Klingon or Human or both?
As for the second part, I was referring to your claim that we should use 'Terran' as the alternative for 'Human' since you want to use the word 'Human' to mean something else. So, if I understand you correctly, then 'Terran' would be the standard word to refer to the species Homo Sapiens. Which is fine for Homo Sapiens, but kind of insulting for the other intelligent species of Terran that aren't in any way Homo Sapiens.
they are humans but not of any of the terran sentient species they are klingon humans as ambassador soval is a vulcan human and, believe it or not, quark is a ferengi human (i refrain from making fun of ferengi pronounciation as that could be deemed a tad racist)
those humpbacks are a terran sentient species and as such humans but not homo as they are not bipedal and upright (humanoid - maybe we need a new word for that), they are megaptera* novaeangliae* terrae sapiens. the * mark their actual scientific name and it obviously needs to be changed if they demand it (they probably wood)
my idea is to use human instead of any sentient species from anywhere in the universe - even it it needs a bricklayer for a doctor*. as that i use the term inclusivly which is quite the opposit of racist (right now it's used exclusively: us and them)
---
* no offense intented here
Last edited:
Person might work better then, for those purposes.
no way, a humpback is certainly a person - my whole idea is getting rid of the exclusive use of human and i don't think you can just forbid it you need to enlarge that 'us'. i don't want a new word i want an inclusive human.
Last edited:
I use the term BiPaBs {Bi-(Pedal & Brachial)oids} to describe generic Sentient & Sapient Organic beings that generally have 2x Legs, 2x Arms, 1x Torso, 1x Neck w/ Head, & Optional Tail(s).
For me, Terrans are Humans who come from Terra (Earth).
For me, Terrans are Humans who come from Terra (Earth).
We're all Terrans living on Earth, orbiting Sol.I’ve always liked the term Terrans.
I wish that was how we referred to ourselves.
it's about time everybody gets the memo - but we probably need a squadron of warbirds by the end of the week to understand that
Maybe TOS/TAs, TNG, DS9, an dall the other series are just 20th century and 21st century guesses as to what the "real" future, persons, places, things, vehicles, etc. will look like.
See my post # 6780 on page 239.
why don't you link to it?
if i'd refer to one of my posts from 105 pages before the actual one i surely would - as i definately don't know post numbers or the page they are on i'd have to find the post so where's the hazzle to link to it. i wouldn't expect everybody else to find that post again.
i actually didn't bother to go looking for it and i guess most people won't either.
... and then, i still think @MAGolding should have linked to it himself, at least if he wants anybody to read it
Last edited:
I don't understand though why there would be any need for some over-complicated "frame story" of people in the Star Trek future "sending back information and sometimes pictures/film" to the "Star Trek present for them to make shows out of".
Why not just see Star Trek as the fictional show it is, why is there any need for this additional layer?
exactly - it's a show after all. we may, for discussion's sake, pretent it's all true but their is no need to bend everything to make it more true.
... but then i do believe there are already people camping out in bozeman, mt to wait for them vulcans (i do know that's still some time off but only who gets there first get's the best seats)
Last edited:
Not gonna lie, the reason I was very glad that the scientific community declined Shatner's suggestion to name Pluto's additional satellites "Vulcan" and "Romulus" was because I want them to save that name for when we will actually discover an inhabitable desert-dominated planet somewhere, somewhen in the future.
never understood that, vulcan is supossed to be hot
That and Pluto's additional satellites are pebbles when it comes to celestial bodies (makes sense, what with them being the satellites of a Dwarf Planet) It would have been a waste of a good name.
I think Shatner just wanted attention, isn't that why most of the Hollywood types do what they do? And what most people use Twitter for?
he got enough of that lately
Similar threads
- Locked
