was it Keerkegaard or Dick Van Patten who said 'if you label me, you negate me'?
The Design and Mission of the U.S.S. Titan Seems Inappropriate
- Thread starter Dayton3
- Start date
- Status
And... how does that distinction, like, matter? If Starfleet already has the organization and firepower and ships and officers and authority structure in place to function indistinguishably from a military, why is it even important to insist that it's somehow not a military? What, when it comes right down to it, is your point?
And... how does that distinction, like, matter? If Starfleet already has the organization and firepower and ships and officers and authority structure in place to function indistinguishably from a military, why is it even important to insist that it's somehow not a military? What, when it comes right down to it, is your point?
He has an ideological problem with the concept of a "military" (he thinks that a military is automatically belligerent or jingoistic) and therefore cannot emotionally accept that the heroes of Star Trek are military officers, that's all.
And... how does that distinction, like, matter? If Starfleet already has the organization and firepower and ships and officers and authority structure in place to function indistinguishably from a military, why is it even important to insist that it's somehow not a military? What, when it comes right down to it, is your point?
He has an ideological problem with the concept of a "military" (he thinks that a military is automatically belligerent or jingoistic) and therefore cannot emotionally accept that the heroes of Star Trek are military officers, that's all.
No. What I have is an ability ot resolve inconsistencies in a way you don't like. Please don't attempt to read my mind or motivations. I'm telling you precisely what and how I think.
Here is the full exchange from PEAK PERFORMANCE. It is not as CLB described.
from ENCOUNTER AT FARPOINT
etc. etc. etc.
Clearly Picard is looking at a uniform from an actual military organization WHILE WEARING A STARFLEET UNI and describing it as a costume and the behavior it represents as barbaric and something humanity has outgrown.
these things permeate the series. they are not mistakes or misprints but thesis statements. It took me about ten minutes of sifting through eps to find these scenes.
Starfleet is an exploratory organization that sometimes assumes the duties of a military. It is not a military organization as they themselves say, repeatedly.
And... how does that distinction, like, matter? If Starfleet already has the organization and firepower and ships and officers and authority structure in place to function indistinguishably from a military, why is it even important to insist that it's somehow not a military? What, when it comes right down to it, is your point?
He has an ideological problem with the concept of a "military" (he thinks that a military is automatically belligerent or jingoistic) and therefore cannot emotionally accept that the heroes of Star Trek are military officers, that's all.
No. What I have is an ability ot resolve inconsistencies in a way you don't like.
You have consistently argued that Starfleet cannot be a military because of its peaceable ethos, as though a military has an inherently violent or jingoistic ethos. You have demonstrated a repeated inability to separate the legal concept of a military from the idea of belligerence.
Picard's full of shit there if we take him literally. It would probably be most reasonable to take it that he misspoke -- that he meant to say, "Starfleet is not a militant organization." Because his statement there contradicts, as I and others have noted, previous statements affirm Starfleet's military nature, including "Court Martial" and The Wrath of Khan, and future statements affirming Starfleet's military nature, including "Homefront."
And, yes, "Homefront" establishes that Starfleet is a military. At no point does Leyton's coup indicate that it's changing the structure or nature of Starfleet -- his coup would change the structure and nature of the Federation government. He isn't transforming Starfleet into a military, he's putting the military in charge of the government. By your logic, the military junta in charge of Burma isn't a real military.
"That costume" obviously refers to the old, pre-Earth unification states to which that uniform belonged, and in particular to the jingoistic ideals represented by the US military of the Cold War. That's not evidence of anything, and certainly not evidence that Starfleet is not a military.
ETA:
You've also CONSISTENTLY engaged in a piece of linguistic gymnastics by arguing that an institution that convenes a court-martial is somehow not martial. ("Martial" being an adjective form of "military.") I'd really like to know how an institution with martial courts is not itself martial.
Really? I seem currently to simply be using actual definitions and the words of the members of the group in question. You are ascribing motivations to me here that are not in evidence.
Excuse me? "full of shit?" Interesting.
Sorry. It's canon. He's not lying and he's not wrong. No one contradicts him. Riker supports him. I can likely match you exchange for exchange, SCI. It didn't take long to find these passages.
Yeah. No. There's a complete difference in meaning there (militant vs military) and it makes no sense if we include Riker's subsequent contribution. Find another horse.
TOS
TOS, the series that focuses on "maverick" james kirk who does think of himself as a soldier.
Reread my argument. All it has to be is a legit interpretation of the exchange. It is. Feel free to disagree but you can't say my interpretation is unsupported based on what is actually in the canon.
No. It's "obvious" that Picard, standing there in his own uniform, is drawing a clear distinction between his organization and those of the past. That's what the conversation, indeed the first two EPs, are about: Q looking at us through the lens of past behavior and Picard and Co. proving that we are not those people anymore. You don't have to like it but that's what it is.
Last edited:
You're clinging to the assumption that "military" means "combat-oriented." That assumption has been repeatedly demonstrated to be fallacious. Yes, I agree with you 100 percent that Picard is arguing that Starfleet is not a combat organization. I agree with you 100 percent that Starfleet is dedicated to exploration as its primary goal with defense as a secondary priority.
But the point that Sci, Dave, and others have ably demonstrated, and that you are consistently missing, is that a military does not have to be combat-oriented. The Swiss military and the Japanese military are both outright forbidden by their nations' laws to participate in combat. Many militaries throughout history have engaged actively in exploration, science, diplomacy, humanitarian aid, etc. as well as combat. Starfleet has a different emphasis than most modern militaries, but that's not incompatible with it being a military service. Because "military" doesn't mean "warlike," it simply means a regimented, armed group of personnel in service to the state and acting in its interests.
So the problem is that you're misunderstanding what this debate is about. I don't think anyone here (other than Dayton3) is disagreeing with you about Starfleet placing exploration above defense. All we're saying is that putting exploration first is not inconsistent with the strict technical definition of the word "military."
So we're in agreement on the issue that really matters. The only remaining dispute is over an academic matter of terminology. And it's sad that you're being so intractable and confrontational in defense of such a minuscule difference.
Sorry. He didn't say "combat." he said "military." And, again, Riker supports the statement.
And it does matter to me. I've not been watching the adventures of military men and women all these years. I've been watching explorers.
And sad that he's actively denying the objective definition of a military in order to avoid admitting that Starfleet is one.
It boggles my mind that you think that's the most critical issue. Someone should introduce you to Humpty Dumpty.
Exactly. You have an emotional aversion to the idea of the military and therefore cannot accept that the heroes of Star Trek are mostly military officers, even though Starfleet fits the legal definition of a military to a t.
(BTW, I'd still like to know how an institution that convenes a court-martial can possibly not be martial. I mean, it's right there in the name.)
How am i being "confrontational?"
I disagree with the assertion is all. If people make assertions in this sort of debate they provide examples to shore their side up. then we poke holes. Mr. Mack asked me to do due dilligence on my end and, after only a cursory look, I was able to find supportive passages in not only the canon material but in the dictionary. There are more that I didn't cite. And, Im sure, more that I haven't found because I haven't looked.
The source material supports both interpretations up to a point. The point at which they diverge, for me, is the one where I have to say the lead characters are either lying or impaired when they offer a statement that contrdicts your viewpoint or even other things in-show. Picard and Riker were not lying in that scene and neither was impaired. A point, a clear point was being made both to the visitor in the show and to the audience watching.
Put another way: If the Trill are introduced looking and behaving one way but show up completely different later, I must assume there is an explanation within the framework of the fictional construct that I'm choosing to believe in for an hour at a time. Even if the explanation isn't plausible in reality, if the people within the construct accept it, it's in. Like the Barclay bug episode.
If Data says something that turns out not to be true about his graduation date, then there's an in-show reason for the apparent (or actual) error. Sure it's the result of some version of a typo but, once in, it's in. There's nothing to be done.
This thing with Picard's veiw of Starfleet is not either of those. It is a consistent theme and is consistently stated from the first episode of TNG on. As such it can't be written off as a typo or the work of a sleepy writer.
Anything that's in the canon is in. Everything. Every "misstatement" and every apparent contradiction. It's my job, as watcher, reader and writer, to resolve them into something that makes sense to me. I have done that and I have supplied legitimate support and interpretations to that end. As i said, it was easy enough to do that on the first try that it should be easy to keep it up.
Nothing "confrontational" in any of that. If anything you'd have to describe me as resistant to the prevailing viewpoint here.
Last edited:
Interesting Discussion.
No offense Redjack, but you've been refuted numerous times on this board and every piece of literature, every series, spin-off, etc, clearly shows that Starfleet has a duel purpose role which is based on a military nature.
To continue to argue this point in the face of such evidence and logic is illuminating that, in THIS discussion, you are beginning to suffer from Voltaire's definition of madness:
"To have erroneous perceptions and reason correctly from them."
Not trying to beat you up, but you're clearly grasping too hard.
No offense Redjack, but you've been refuted numerous times on this board and every piece of literature, every series, spin-off, etc, clearly shows that Starfleet has a duel purpose role which is based on a military nature.
To continue to argue this point in the face of such evidence and logic is illuminating that, in THIS discussion, you are beginning to suffer from Voltaire's definition of madness:
"To have erroneous perceptions and reason correctly from them."
Not trying to beat you up, but you're clearly grasping too hard.
You're not beating me up and no one has refuted anything. Offering differing opinions is not refutation. The source material, as I said, is open to interpretation. Please do not assume that I am on the defensive here. I see us as on equal footing and there are more of you. I'm genuinely surprised that there are so many.
Not suffering. Not grasping. It's a simple set of rules that are easy to apply.
If it's in the canon material, it's true.*
If the canon contradicts itself, there's an in-show explanation that resolves the apparent contradiction.
If no explanation has been overtly put forth, said contradictions can be resolved to the satisfaction of each audience member's taste provided the canonical material can be shown to support the interpretation.
My view meets all these criteria with the added bonus of being pleasing to me.
Totally sober and rational.
CODA:
The definition of MARTIAL that I found is this:
1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.
So, absent a war footing, say Borg or Dominion incursion, the use of the term Court Martial in post-TOS Starfleet must be a function of cultural habit rather than a description of the organization's intent or focus. It is not an organization built to engage in warfare, which is part of the definition. It is an organization that is sometimes tasked with defense under certain conditions, making it, as I said, a paramilitary group at most.
How do we know? Because they say, repeatedly, that they are not a military organization. QED.
* unless a character is shown to be lying, impaired or in error, in which case the "true fictional facts" are true.
Last edited:
Only if you assume that Starfleet is not the Federation's armed forces. But Starfleet very obviously IS the Federation's armed forces -- the Federation Department of Agriculture didn't fight the Dominion War. Ergo, "martial" relates to definition number two, ergo, Starfleet is a martial -- i.e., military -- institution.
No, it is the institution that the Federation always turns to to defend itself. There is no other organization the Federation uses to defend itself. Ergo, Starfleet is the armed forces. Ergo, it is a martial organization.
It is, as I and others have said before, right there in the name.
Again, you're starting from one unchallengable premise and contorting all the evidence to fit it. You're starting with your conclusion and THEN designing evidence around it rather than starting with the evidence and using it to reach a conclusion. The sheer illogic of it is astonishing -- it's remarkably unscientific.
No, they said it ONCE, and OTHERS have said REPEATEDLY that it is a military organization. You are ignoring the vast preponderance of evidence in favor of your unimpeachable hypothesis. You're being as irrational as a fundamentalist Christian who refuses to believe in evolution in favor of Creationism.
No. I'm being completely rational and you persist in trying to insult me. I'd say it's your pressure that is at issue.
Statement A: Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration.
Statement B: Starfleet defends the Federation from outside attack.
Statement C: Aspects of Starfleet's internal structure are indistinguishable from those of current day militaries.
All three statements are true but B and C are, in your mind, contradictory with A. So how do we resolve the contradiction? By employing the rules I set forth in the last post which are the simplest most effective means.
You could make a case, sort of, that Picard and the others might claim not to be a military to outsiders for propaganda or strategic reasons (no evidence of either in-show). But they would hardly make such a claim to an omnipresent, omniscient, all powerful telepath like Q. And they certainly wouldn't continue the lie amongst themselves behind closed doors.
So, if there are two contradictory descriptions, which there are in your mind, does it seem more rational to brand the people within the story as liars or somehow defective or is it simpler to say that they are in earnest and that there is an explanation that, perhaps, needs to be made to resolve the contradiction?
You've made a decision, clearly, and I have just as clearly shown that, in your Leyton/Sisko example at least, there is more than one legit interpretation of the meaning of those exchanges. I didn't even know I was "interpreting" it at all. To me the meaning is as clear as it is to you.
As I said: I was genuinely surprised to find there was an alternative view that supported the idea of Starfleet as a military group. It never crossed my mind until I read one of the threads here.
It's fiction. And internally inconsistent fiction at that. It's nothing like Creationism vs Evolution. Ramp it down, man. Jeez.
Statement A: Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration.
Statement B: Starfleet defends the Federation from outside attack.
Statement C: Aspects of Starfleet's internal structure are indistinguishable from those of current day militaries.
All three statements are true but B and C are, in your mind, contradictory with A. So how do we resolve the contradiction? By employing the rules I set forth in the last post which are the simplest most effective means.
You could make a case, sort of, that Picard and the others might claim not to be a military to outsiders for propaganda or strategic reasons (no evidence of either in-show). But they would hardly make such a claim to an omnipresent, omniscient, all powerful telepath like Q. And they certainly wouldn't continue the lie amongst themselves behind closed doors.
So, if there are two contradictory descriptions, which there are in your mind, does it seem more rational to brand the people within the story as liars or somehow defective or is it simpler to say that they are in earnest and that there is an explanation that, perhaps, needs to be made to resolve the contradiction?
You've made a decision, clearly, and I have just as clearly shown that, in your Leyton/Sisko example at least, there is more than one legit interpretation of the meaning of those exchanges. I didn't even know I was "interpreting" it at all. To me the meaning is as clear as it is to you.
As I said: I was genuinely surprised to find there was an alternative view that supported the idea of Starfleet as a military group. It never crossed my mind until I read one of the threads here.
It's fiction. And internally inconsistent fiction at that. It's nothing like Creationism vs Evolution. Ramp it down, man. Jeez.
Last edited:
surely you mean aggressive pre-emptive combat...
i mean, the JSDF would've engaged in combat if the USSR or the ChiComs had invaded... in a defensive manner, but combat nonetheless...
Anything military is evil. Starfleet is not evil. Therefore, Starfleet is not military.
What Kirk says about Starfleet doesn't matter. What Sisko says about Starfleet doesn't matter. What Picard says about Starfleet matters. Therefore, Starfleet is not military.
How can I remain unconvinced by such perfect logic?
What Kirk says about Starfleet doesn't matter. What Sisko says about Starfleet doesn't matter. What Picard says about Starfleet matters. Therefore, Starfleet is not military.
How can I remain unconvinced by such perfect logic?
Back to your corners gentlemen.
This dead horse has been flogged enough methinks.
This dead horse has been flogged enough methinks.
I'm begining to suspect that RedJack has a wee bit of Tellarite blood running through his veins, as it seems to me that at this point he is just enjoying the arguement.
- Status
