Spoilers TNG: A Singular Destiny by Keith R.A. DeCandido review thread

[ProtoAvatar]

I have been saying that it is irrational to presume the worst of the world, that a paranoid realpolitik worldview tends to create its own boogeymen and be self-defeating, and that accomplishing something means being optimistic.

Perhaps. As long as you don't beleive that the universe will see to it that you succeed if you're a moral optimist. If you beleive that, you're seeing things in black and white.

I don't have faith. I have hope.

Good for you.

As for using examples from Star Trek:

I think it depends on the story.

Finally, something resembling understanding.

But your reading comprehension is questionable -- when I've been citing evidence from the real world, I've been using it to make points about the Star Trek Universe, not the other way around.

You had a different opinion here:

Sci, when you want to make an ethical or karmic point about the real universe, don't use examples from the Star Trek universe. I've told you before: the trekverse has a moral substrate that doesn't exist in the real world. This is why your examples are meaningless.

One word: Bullshit.

The Star Trek Universe is not somehow inherently more or less moral than the real one. It simply possesses political actors who are more dedicated to the principles of modern liberal democracy than most people in the real world today, from whose POV we see the STU. To argue that the Star Trek Universe "possesses a moral substrate" that the real world lacks is an absurd piece of nonsense

And here:

If we do address the question of relative morality and of whether or not the ends justify the means, I think we need to keep something in mind:

Both the MACOS of United Earth and Sedin of the Caeliar belonged to societies that had a specific set of moral principles that they agreed to uphold.

Yet when faced with a desperate situation, both decided to violate their principles. The MACOs did it when they decided to mutiny against Captain Hernandez, betray Thayer, and murder millions of Caeliar in the name of getting home.

Sedin did it when she decided to force the other Caeliar to consolidate with her so that she wouldn't die and to then fuse with the three surviving MACOs.

In other words, both the MACOs and Sedin faced a situation where they decided that the ends justified the means. And as a result of their decision to say that the ends justify the means and that morality is less important than survival, the greatest destructive force in the history of the Milky Way was unleashed on the galaxy and unknown trillions of people were murdered and enslaved.

Just something to think about.

Apparently, you do see things in black and white.

The whole point of Star Trek, or at least a large part of it, has always been to use fiction as an allegory for commenting on the real world. So to say it's not meant to be relevant to the real world, as ProtoAvatar is doing, is a grave misunderstanding.

I did not say it's not meant to be relevant to the real world. I said it's not as relevant as an actual historical fact, that star trek examples can be dismissed.
Why?
Because star trek - like all fiction - is subjective: it represents the ideas, hopes, dreams, fears of the authors regarding human nature, regarding our future. On the other hand, historical facts are objective - they happened; we may wish to deny that, but it won't change the simple reality of their happening.

 

[rfmcdpei]

UO

Tal'Aura & co knew about the thalaron weapon from the beginning, when Tal'Aura used it to kill the ENTIRE Romulan Senate - she's all heart, isn't she?

The sorts of weapons that can empty out a room don't necessariyl scale up to weapons which can destroy a planet.

About the thalaron weapon's usefulness - take it up with Picard. He said that the weapon will be used to sterilize planets. My guess - the weapon is ineffective against fleets because, unlike planets, fleets are maneuverable - they can scatter or go to warp long before Shinzon's weapon was charged in X minutes.

If it was detected. Picard and Geordi's dialogue made the point that up until that point thalaron radiation was purely theoretical and that standard scans didn't pick it up.

In "Destiny" the weapon should be effective against a fleet of borg cubes because the borg don't do "evasive maneuvers". And, perhaps, starfleet's weapon charges a lot faster than Shinzon's.

The evidence seems to suggest that Tal'Aura and Suran thought things were rapidly escalating out of control, from militarist coup to war against the Federation to genocidal campaign against Earth. Proof? Donatra was allowed to leave Romulus with her ships.

Your interpretation of the text is coloured by your intent to make the romulan conspirators look as good as possible.

Actually, no. My interpretations of the text are motivated by an interest in showing their multiple readings.

Also, kindly refrain from accusing your interlocutors of being dishonest--that's bad form.kindly

My interpretation - which, according to Occam's razor, is correct:

Actually, no. As Wikipedia points out, "Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may (Note that simplest theory is something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists"). Simpler theories are preferable other things being equal. The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.
For instance, classical physics is simpler than subsequent theories, but should not be preferred over them because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects. It is the first requirement of a theory that it works, that its predictions are correct and it has not been falsified. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed these tests, and which are moreover equally well-supported by the evidence."

We don't have a lot of evidence to work with here. We do know that the whole environment of Nemesis was marked by extreme confusion, with the Federation not knowing what was going on and Romulan coup-plotters finding themselves increasingly disconcerted by the actions of their nominal and mysterious Reman partners. Multiple interpretations of what happened are quite possible. Your explanation isn't the most correct one.

Donatra was allowed to leave with her ships because Suran & co were worried about spending time in the dilithium mines.

If he returned, sure. He'd have to do that first.

And Suran sure wished Shinzon to complete his mission: "But can he complete his mission?".

Did he know what that mission was?

Again, things had rapidly gotten out of hand, and "show them no mercy" could as easily refer to a massacre of the Federation fleets, with or without thalaron weapons, as anything else.

About the gorn.

In "Arena",

Again, you're taking a single episode to define an entire civilization. Would it have been wise to take my My Lai the lesson that American strategy in Vietnam was to massacre villagers indiscriminately? Should we take from Odadour-sur-Glane that German soldiers today see nothing wrong in razing an entire ville pour encourager les autres?

they killed thousands of men, women and children for no good reason.

They scanned the colony - they knew they didn't need the element of surprise. They monitored federation communications - as evidenced by their use of transmissions to trap the enterprise. At least, they suspected that the federation didn't know about the gorn's existence.

They sent no warning, no ultimatum, noting. They just killed everyone.
This makes them extremly agressive.

.. in defense of their territory, sure.

The Metrons didn't think that the Gorn as such were aggressive.

Consider the terms of the Metrons' staged fight: the captains of the two ships would be pitted against each other in mortal combat, the ship of the winner being destroyed on the account that it represented the more dangerous civilization. One would have thought that the Gorn would have been automatically handicapped if theirs was a purely aggressive civilization.

In any case, as Christopher and Sci have pointed out, there are multiple other bits of novel-relevant material which highlight the Gorn as being a somewhat introverted but generally quiet people, with human xenophobia being as much a problem as the Gorn's.

 

[rfmcdpei]

When the novels develop these species further, they will, perhaps, add complexity to them - but this "complexity" should be compatible with what we already know about gorn, tholians, etc.

As has been noted elsewhere, this has been done with the Gorn.

 

[Sci]

As for using examples from Star Trek:

I think it depends on the story.

Finally, something resembling understanding.

But your reading comprehension is questionable -- when I've been citing evidence from the real world, I've been using it to make points about the Star Trek Universe, not the other way around.

You had a different opinion here:

Sci, when you want to make an ethical or karmic point about the real universe, don't use examples from the Star Trek universe. I've told you before: the trekverse has a moral substrate that doesn't exist in the real world. This is why your examples are meaningless.

One word: Bullshit.

The Star Trek Universe is not somehow inherently more or less moral than the real one. It simply possesses political actors who are more dedicated to the principles of modern liberal democracy than most people in the real world today, from whose POV we see the STU. To argue that the Star Trek Universe "possesses a moral substrate" that the real world lacks is an absurd piece of nonsense

Proto, that's an argument against the idea that the Star Trek Universe is inherently more moral than the real universe, not an argument about the nature of the real universe.

And here:

If we do address the question of relative morality and of whether or not the ends justify the means, I think we need to keep something in mind:

Both the MACOS of United Earth and Sedin of the Caeliar belonged to societies that had a specific set of moral principles that they agreed to uphold.

Yet when faced with a desperate situation, both decided to violate their principles. The MACOs did it when they decided to mutiny against Captain Hernandez, betray Thayer, and murder millions of Caeliar in the name of getting home.

Sedin did it when she decided to force the other Caeliar to consolidate with her so that she wouldn't die and to then fuse with the three surviving MACOs.

In other words, both the MACOs and Sedin faced a situation where they decided that the ends justified the means. And as a result of their decision to say that the ends justify the means and that morality is less important than survival, the greatest destructive force in the history of the Milky Way was unleashed on the galaxy and unknown trillions of people were murdered and enslaved.

Just something to think about.

Apparently, you do see things in black and white.

Well, first off, I'm surprised you're pulling in evidence from another thread, but hey, whatdahell.

Secondly: You might recall that in that exact same thread, I rejected the argument that the thalaron weapon should be disqualified from use under any circumstances whatsoever (which would be the argument or moral absolutism) and instead argued that if it was effective and if another option did not present itself, it would be acceptable to use one. When I rejected the use of the thalaron weapon, I rejected it on pragmatic grounds (i.e., it would only delay the inevitable and would likely be ineffective because of the Borg's ability to adapt), not on moral grounds.

So, no, I do not see things in black and white.

You have once again taken a premise introduced in support of one conclusion and attempted to re-define its conclusion as being of the most extreme variety possible (i.e., this person argued against disregarding moral considerations and noted that in one instance, doing so produced a horrific consequence; ergo this person must believe in absolute morality). You have consistently displayed a tendency to attempt to reduce things, even other people's arguments and opinions, to absolute binaries. This is an inaccurate way of looking at what other people are saying.

Further, that argument is not necessarily making an argument about the real world. It does set up the playing field for me if I had chosen to return to that scenario and expand upon my statements in the course of making an argument about the real world, but if I were to do that, I would not solely rely upon the story of Sedin and the MACOs. If I were to use that story to illustrate a point, I would introduce evidence from the real world -- most likely evidence that the Bush Administration's torture policies have produced new terrorists where there were none before -- to support that argument.

On the other hand, historical facts are objective

If you really think that, answer me with one simple historical fact:

Why did the Bush Administration invade Iraq?

Or, better yet: Why did the US Civil War happen?

Historical facts are also subject to interpretation.

 

[DimesDan]

So about the book...............

I got a text from the book shop where I ordered it from earlier but wasn't able to get there in time so will be picking it up in the morning, although I did find it in my local Waterstones while on lunch.

So anyway, I'll have a few words to say on it come the end of the weekend probably.

 

[kv1at3485]

On the other hand, historical facts are objective - they happened; we may wish to deny that, but it won't change the simple reality of their happening.

Historical "facts" are subjective. They represent what the historian believes to have occurred and can range from well founded beliefs to pure fiction.

You may wish to look into the concept of historiography. Makes you look at primary sources in a whole new way.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

rfmcdpei

Romulans.
The remans were romulan slaves. The romulans regarded them as inferior beings. And yet, Tal'Aura & co allied themselves with the remans. No, they allowed the remans to gain power over them, over romulans! For what?
For a weapon that can kill everyone in a room? Definitely not.
For a weapon that can kill everyone on a planet? Perhaps - barely.

And Geordi detected thalaron radiation when the weapon was dormant. Any obsolete starship could detect the radiation when the weapon was charging. And Shinzon's cloack may be able to hide charged conventional weapoons, but not a charged thalaron weapon that can destroy a planet.
Remember, Picard knew about all that when he said that the weapon wil be used to destroy planetes.

Gorn.
We're making progress. You're comparing what the gorn did to My Lai and Oradour-sur-Glane.

And the metrons said not that the victor's ship will be destroyed. They said that they'll annihilate the loser's ship. Which raises the question - why did the metrons interfered at all? Why didn't they let the federates and the gorn fight it out? - all they did was change the fight from ship-vs-ship to man-vs-man.
Their explanation - it's more suited to promitive mentalities. So, they did not try to stop the fight; they arranged a gladiator fight to the death and watched.
The Metrons don't seem very civilized to me.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Sci

First quote:
You argued that the star trek universe is as moral as our own. Ergo, a star trek example and a real vorld example have equal value.

In an above post, I explained in-depth why star trek's karmic status is not applicable to the real world - and you failed to respond to that argument.

Second quote:
Your argument - what conclusion did it support? And don't be afraid to put as much gray in your answer as you wish.

About "subjective" historical facts.
America did invade Irak. And the american civil war did happen. These are objective facts. X people died, Y battles took place, etc. These are objective facts.

Why did it happen? Good luck figuring that out. It doesn't change the fact that it happened.

kv1at3485

You may wish to look at the philosophical ideea of solipsism. I suspect you'll like the concept. Much too nihilistic for me.

 

[Sci]

Sci

First quote:
You argued that the star trek universe is as moral as our own.

No, I argued that the real world is more moral, and the Trekverse more immoral, than you were saying. I never said that they were equally moral; I made no claims one way or the other.

Yet again, you take a degree of something and push it too far.

In an above post, I explained in-depth why star trek's karmic status is not applicable to the real world - and you failed to respond to that argument.

It was a specious argument. The Trekverse is full of horrific immoralities -- the Occupation of Bajor, the entire Dominion War, the attempted extermination of the Cardassians, the Borg invasion, Section 31, the Tomed Incident, the Earth-Romulan War, the Xindi attacks, and on and on and on -- and tragedies as well as "miracles" and karmic justice. A few examples of "poetic justice" does not equate a fundamental karmic structure to the Trekverse.

Second quote:
Your argument - what conclusion did it support?

The conclusion that my comments about the MACOs and Sedin is that rejecting all moral considerations can have horrific consequences. If the argument had persisted, I would have cited a real-world example of the same thing to indicate what would have happened in the Trekverse, as I said above.

About "subjective" historical facts.
America did invade Irak.

"Iraq."

And the american civil war did happen. These are objective facts. X people died, Y battles took place, etc. These are objective facts.

Not if you ask George W. Bush. He and his supporters would argue that they waged a defensive war. If you ask Southern apologists, they would argue that the Civil War was not a civil war because the Confederacy was a foreign state.

 

[rfmcdpei]

The remans were romulan slaves. The romulans regarded them as inferior beings. And yet, Tal'Aura & co allied themselves with the remans. No, they allowed the remans to gain power over them, over romulans![/QUOTE}

They allowed a Reman--technically, a long-time Reman resident who wasn't Vulcanoid at all--to be praetor. That's not nearly the same thing as a Reman racial ascendancy over the vastly more numerous Romulans.

The Remans certainly had their own secrets and priorities. Taking"]www.amazon.com/Taking-Wing-Star-Trek-Titan/dp/0743496272"]Taking Wing[/url] establishes that the Remans had managed to accumulate a secret fleet of warsghips that was quite capable of threatening the security of the Romulan homeworld. If you want to exclude that and look only at the movie, you have Shinzon's statement of the Remans that "We will no longer bow like slaves before anyone. Not the Romulans and not your mighty Federation. We're a race bred for war. For conquest."

Combine effective Romulan secrecy with what seems like a very effective anti-ship weapons and fuse it together with Romulan secretiveness and infighting, then you've got a plausible explanation for the coup leaders not realizing what Shinzon planned to do until he left the system.

And Geordi detected thalaron radiation when the weapon was dormant. Any obsolete starship could detect the radiation when the weapon was charging.[/QUOTE}

Picard said that he thought that "Thalaron radiation was theoretical," Geordi responded by saying that's why the initial scans didn't pick it up, and discussion elsewhere establishes that the cloak was effective enough that it would be impossible to detect Shinzon's ship before it decloaked and attacked. It also took him a fair amount of time to determine what the thalaron radiation actually signified, what sort of weapon.

And Shinzon's cloack may be able to hide charged conventional weapoons, but not a charged thalaron weapon that can destroy a planet.
Remember, Picard knew about all that when he said that the weapon wil be used to destroy planetes.

Actually, no. Geordi said, after a more detailed scan, that the weapon was a "Cascading Biogenic Pulse. The unique properties of Thalaron radiation allow the energy beam to expand almost without limits. Depending on the radiant intensity it could encompass a ship... or a planet."

Picard is the one who adds that he thinks that Shinzon is going to use the weapon against a planet, based on his knowledge of Shinzon's psychology and his clone's hatred of humanity and Earth. No one had picked up on that possibility before that.

It's not surprising. Going to the novelverse--which is what we're talking about, right-- the Rihannsu novels establish pretty thoroughly that while Romulan civilization generally was inclined towards conquest, conquests had to be achieved honourably. Plans like the Tricameron's abortive attempt to make Sol hyperflare and kill everyone in the system finished discrediting the regime. Empress Ael's liberal regime may have fallen, but what we see of the Romulans in TNG and DS9 suggests that they were generally a very conservative power not prone to taking risks, the notable exception being the Tal Shi'ar's alliance with the Obsidian Order against the Founders.

That last underlines the main weakness of the RSE political system. The RSE is a flexible entity, one that is not innately xenophobic and is quite capable of forming fairly friendly alliances with other powers. Ambassador Nanclus' presence in the Federation President's office as Starfleet presented its plan to rescue Kirk and McCoy from Qo'Nos is a case in point. The problem facing the RSE is the intense factionalization of Romulan society, with different political and bureaucratic groups retaining their own agendas, operating according to these, often threatening the Empire and its neighbours. Sometimes these factions are allies without even knowing what the other's agenda is: I'm skeptical that the Romulan military would want to fight a war where the annihilation of civilian populations was a normal tactic. The first response of the coup leaders once they realized just how out of control Shinzon actually was, after wondering what was happening to him and if he could complete his missions (which may well not have been the one they imagined), was to send military forces to destroy him and his forces/

And the metrons said not that the victor's ship will be destroyed. They said that they'll annihilate the loser's ship.

They did in the original script and in unaired dialogue.

Which raises the question - why did the metrons interfered at all? Why didn't they let the federates and the gorn fight it out? - all they did was change the fight from ship-vs-ship to man-vs-man.

Their explanation - it's more suited to promitive mentalities. So, they did not try to stop the fight; they arranged a gladiator fight to the death and watched.
The Metrons don't seem very civilized to me.

But this way there were many fewer dead. In the meantime, two individuals from comparable civilizations were allowed to demonstrate which was the more serious threat.

Coming back to the original point of this discussion, the established evidence from filmed Trek, never mind the novelverse, does not demonstrate that either the Romulans or the Gorn are innately xenophobic peoples incapable of cooperating with other powers, with the Federation or within another alliance structure altogether. Romulan and Gorn societies have their own xenophobic and xenophilic trends, and Romulan and Gorn individuals vary mroe widely still.

In any case, judging from human history it would be really strange if a half-dozen powers of broadly comparable strength responded to a astropolitical threat by establishing--among other things--a currency union. As Europe demonstrates, military and trade pacts are one thing, but establishing a common currency evidences each power's nominal commitment to cooperation and its trust in the willing of others to make similar commitments. Even Comecon didn't have a single currency.

Earth, Vulcan, Andor, and Tellar were rivals, often with authoritarian internal policies and long histories of conflict, who merged only after a new astropolitical threat appeared. Why couldn't the Breen, the Tzenkethi, the Tholians, the Gorn, the Kinshaya, and the RSE have responded in a similar fashion to the Federation?

 

[kv1at3485]

kv1at3485

You may wish to look at the philosophical ideea of solipsism. I suspect you'll like the concept. Much too nihilistic for me.

Which doesn't address my point at all.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

rfmcdpei

About filmed material & novels.

Filmed material is canon. As for the novels - in order for our conversation to be able to reach some kind of conclusion - I propose that we only take into account relaunch novels.

Why? Because, for example, the rihannsu novels are partially contradicted by the vulcan's soul novels and god knows how many other older/obscurer novels.
The relaunch novels are consistent - intrnally and with the filmed material.

Taking wing doesn't establish that the remans have a fleet of ships, as you say - BTW, your link goes nowhere.
As for "Arena", the original script and unaired whatever can establish everything they want. In the aired episode - which is canon - the metrons specifically said that the loser's ship will be destroyed. Don't beleive me? Watch the episode yourself.

Now - could the romulans, tholians etc have thousands of Gandhi and Maria Theresa among them? On screen, they didn't make any appearance.
Given that they number in the billions, there must be many decent people among them. But they don't dictate policy. The government and the military do. And if they are in power, they must be supported by the largest part of their society.

Romulans.
In the first TNG episode in which they appeared, the telepath said about romulans something like "their belief in their own superiority goes far beyond simple arrogance". These are the guys who allowed an remanized human to reign over them. The reason for that must be truly extraordinary - not just something akin to the breen weapon from DS9.
Geordi detected the thalaron weapon (let's keep the name relatively short) when the weapon was dormant and thalaron was theoretical. He would have detected thalaron radiation when the weapon was charging. Any fed ship would have detected it and avoided the weapon.
And Shinzon's cloack would not have hidden the thalaron weapon while it's charging. I say this because the cloack was romulan-like. And romulan cloacks can't even hide conventional powered weapons. Shinzon's cloack was more advanced, but not omnipotent. If you want Shinzon's tech to be magical, then Shinzon could just snap his fingers, flashing Earth out of existence.

About the Typhons adopting one currency - you're right, a juge step. A strange one, considering that only 5 years ago, the member powers were behaving like medieval european countries. I'm curious how the novels will explain that away

PS: to quote - at the end, write [/quote] and at the beginning

 

[JD]

Given that they number in the billions, there must be many decent people among them. But they don't dictate policy. The government and the military do. And if they are in power, they must be supported by the largest part of their society.

Except for the Romulans, we haven't seen enough to know what their government and military are like to know what kind of people are in charge. Sure we've seen a few ships and individuals, but we really haven't seen any full on military engaements or government actions. At least not in any of the books I've read.

 

[Elemental]

I just finished the novel last night. An enjoyable read! I thought the revelation of the hostile aliens now working together was quite original. However, since the topic seemed to be of pretty open discussion on this board (i.e. not spoiler coded), I guess I assumed that this wouldn't be the biggest reveal of the novel.

I liked the original perspectives of this novel with a unique protagonist. A descendant of 4 different species isn't something we've before. I only wish we could have seen a bit more of his Bajoran and Betazoid characteristics and how they contributed to his personality. I found the Vulcan and human aspects to be a bit more easily recognized.

In addition to doing a good job introducing the Typhon Pact, I thought the novel was also very effective at emphasizing the large scope and lasting effects of the Borg invasion. It will be very interesting to see where things go from here. I'm interested to see the next story will be a Voyager novel. I think my next goal is going to be to hurry up and try to finish the two Spirit Walk novels beforehand.

 

[rfmcdpei]

rfmcdpei

About filmed material & novels.

Filmed material is canon. As for the novels - in order for our conversation to be able to reach some kind of conclusion - I propose that we only take into account relaunch novels.

But, we can't, since the relaunch novels borrow very heavily on the Rihannsu series' on Romulan history, langauge, and culture. Even the Vulcan's Soul novels, which reconstruct early Romulan history to fit with the post-TNG filmed canon, continue to draw very heavily on the Rihannsu series for background information. The Enterprise novels likewise draw heavily on the Rihannsu backstory, to the point of nonizing the existence of i-Ramnau city.

As for the Gorn, that sort of material goes into the novelverse. Combine that with other Gorn appearances where they're shown as reacting either helpfully towards humans or defensively in reaction to Federation intrusion, and you can't say that the Gron as depicted in the novelverse must necessarily be aggressive.

The Gorn launched an overwhelming attack on Cestus III and then afterwards agreed to a peace that included their recognition of Cestus' transfer to Federation sovereignty; that's all that can be said.

Taking wing doesn't establish that the remans have a fleet of ships, as you say - BTW, your link goes nowhere.

Ah, broken link. Taking Wing does establish that the Remans have a secret fleet of horded vessels, some centuries old, but all armed and crewed and ready to fire on Romulus' cities. They use it to threaten the Romulans before Riker brokers the first Reman protectorate agreement, giving the Remans self-government guaranteed by the Klingons on the Romulan homeworld's Greenland-type continent. That's later revoked on accounts of friction with the locals and the Remans are resettled in the Klorgat system, as described in Articles of the Federation.

Now - could the romulans, tholians etc have thousands of Gandhi and Maria Theresa among them? On screen, they didn't make any appearance.

But they do--well, the Romulans do--in the novels, which, since we're discussing the novelverse, should go towards proving my point.

In the first TNG episode in which they appeared, the telepath said about romulans something like "their belief in their own superiority goes far beyond simple arrogance".

It's much more ambiguous than that.

TROI
They seem to be creatures of extremes. One moment violent beyond description, the next -- tender. They're related to the Vulcans but as each developed, their differences grew wider. They are intensely curious. Their belief in their own superiority is beyond arrogance. For some reason they have exhibited a fascination with humans and that fascination, more than anything else, has kept the peace. One other thing, they will not initiate. They will wait for you to commit yourself.

Doesn't a fascination with humans betray a certain xenophilic tendency?

The Romulans are complicated beings and theirs is a complicated, divided civilization, lurching from hostility towards Earth to alliances with the Federation and back again. The same tendencies are probably present in Romulan dealings with other cultures.

And Shinzon's cloack would not have hidden the thalaron weapon while it's charging. I say this because the cloack was romulan-like. And romulan cloacks can't even hide conventional powered weapons. Shinzon's cloack was more advanced, but not omnipotent. If you want Shinzon's tech to be magical, then Shinzon could just snap his fingers, flashing Earth out of existence.

Who has said that I wanted Shinzon's technology to be magical? I haven't.

All that I've said is that it has some clear advantages over the Federation state of the art that would allow him to successfully pull of a devastating first strike, like against a fleet (as the coup leaders may have believed) or against a planet (like Shinzon certainly wanted).

I do have some questions about your argumentation. You're arguing against content in the novelverse, including content justified elsewhere in the novelverse, by appealing to the filmed Star Trek content, including content that actually doesn't contradict the novelverse. I can understand why you'd disagree with me if I said that the novels demonstrated that the Romulans of filmed Star Trek actually spoke Rihannsu and longed for the days of Ael, etc., but I'm not. I'm actually arguing that nothing in filmed Star Trek precludes the Romulans of the novelverse from speaking Rihannsu and longing for the days of Ael, etc., and that's what I think others have been arguing. Am I mistaken?

 

[rfmcdpei]

But, we can't, since the relaunch novels borrow very heavily on the Rihannsu series' on Romulan history, langauge, and culture. Even the Vulcan's Soul novels, which reconstruct early Romulan history to fit with the post-TNG filmed canon, continue to draw very heavily on the Rihannsu series for background information. The Enterprise novels likewise draw heavily on the Rihannsu backstory, to the point of nonizing the existence of i-Ramnau city.

And before I forget, the ancestor of the telecapture technology that we see in the Rihannsu series is used in the Enterprise novels, both bearing an interesting similarity to the Aenar-crewed telecapture weapon that featured in the show Enterprise itself.

There doesn't seem any reason not to include the Rihannsu novels in the novelverse despite their occasional differences from canon. The gist of the storyline of Peter David's 1990 Vendetta was included in Before Dishonour, with Delcara and Reannon Bonaventure and Borg-killing planetkiller and all. Other novels may have been grandfathered in as well--I think Carolyn Clewes' backstory novel about Saavik is one.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

You argued that the star trek universe is as moral as our own. Ergo, a star trek example and a real vorld example have equal value.

No, I argued that the real world is more moral, and the Trekverse more immoral, than you were saying. I never said that they were equally moral; I made no claims one way or the other.

How fast you forget, Sci - when it suits you. You said

Bullshit.
The Star Trek Universe is not somehow inherently more or less moral than the real one.

If the star trek world is neither more moral, nor less moral than the real world, than both worlds are equally moral.
Is there another possible conclusion I'm overlooking?
If it is, point it out.
If it isn't, your little talk about me jumping to conclusionns is meaningless.

About the MACO/Caeliar quote - i'm still waiting for those shades of gray.

It was a specious argument. The Trekverse is full of horrific immoralities

So, the fundamental physical laws of our universe and the true nature of the trekverse are a specious argument when discussing these universes, are they?
Those immoralities from star trek are required to create suspense, to maintain ratings - are more often than not, to make a point about morality. 34 billion died in the borg invasion? Yes, 34 billion spear holders, and a few characters whose death was expanded upon, for emotional impact - all carefully fabricated to convey certain ideas and values. There are a lot of spear holders in fiction. Not a single one in real life.

About history.
"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".
Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that this freedom fighter/terrorist put a bomb in a restaurant and killed X people.

Bush supporters say that, southern apologists that other thing - it doesn't change the fact that the iraq and american civil wars - or whatever you wish to call them - happened. You can say whatever you want about the motivations, you can assign whatever value to the facts - the facts don't change.


Sci, what point are you trying to prove anymore?
That an optimistic attitude may be more constructive than a pessimist one? I already agreed to that.

Thar star trek examples and real world facts have equal value? In your recent posts, you admitted the contrary, proving you changed your mind.

Your argument has degenerated to saying that the fundamental laws of the unniverse are "specious" as an argument in a debate concerning the nature of the universe and that history is subjective and changes with the individual. And you go to these ridiculous extremes to try and prove - what exactly?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

rfmcdpei

rfmcdpei

About filmed material & novels.

Filmed material is canon. As for the novels - in order for our conversation to be able to reach some kind of conclusion - I propose that we only take into account relaunch novels.

But, we can't, since the relaunch novels borrow very heavily on the Rihannsu series' on Romulan history, langauge, and culture. Even the Vulcan's Soul novels, which reconstruct early Romulan history to fit with the post-TNG filmed canon, continue to draw very heavily on the Rihannsu series for background information. The Enterprise novels likewise draw heavily on the Rihannsu backstory, to the point of nonizing the existence of i-Ramnau city.

The enterprise/vulcan sous/relaunch novels may borrow from the rihannsu books in some parts, but they also contradict the books in other part. That's why I said that we should only include the relaunch novels - there are enough contradictions in filmed trek as it is, and including everything will prevent this conversation from ever reaching a conclusion.

I can understand why you'd disagree with me if I said that the novels demonstrated that the Romulans of filmed Star Trek actually spoke Rihannsu and longed for the days of Ael, etc., but I'm not. I'm actually arguing that nothing in filmed Star Trek precludes the Romulans of the novelverse from speaking Rihannsu and longing for the days of Ael, etc., and that's what I think others have been arguing. Am I mistaken?

Of course not. We all choose what to retain from star trek movies, novels etc.
We should not include in this conversation the part of the rihannsu (and other) novels that doesn't contradict canon because if we would, the discussion will last forever. And i didn't read the rihannsu books.

About taking wing - a fleet of ships - some centuries old - with weapons mounted on them is not enough to threaten the security of the romulan empire. If they are, then the romulans are pathetic.

The romulans may have a xenophilic facet. The romulan conspirators from Nemesis don't (exept Donatra). And Tal'Aura leads RSE.

As for the thalaron weapon being used against a fleet - I explained in detail in my previous posts why this isn't feasable.

JD

True. But what little we know is not encouraging.

kv1at3485

I mentioned solipsism because you seem interested in concepts like "nothing is sure", "nothing is real".

I have another one for you: If there are intelligent extraterestrial species, then we, and indeed, the entire universe, is probably merely a computer simulation.

As for your "point" - it's not constructive to think like that: "nothing is certain" etc. A person who thinks like that will never get out of the house because he's not certain he won't be killed in a car accident or by a brick falling on his head.

 

[Sci]

You argued that the star trek universe is as moral as our own. Ergo, a star trek example and a real vorld example have equal value.

No, I argued that the real world is more moral, and the Trekverse more immoral, than you were saying. I never said that they were equally moral; I made no claims one way or the other.

How fast you forget, Sci - when it suits you. You said

Bullshit.
The Star Trek Universe is not somehow inherently more or less moral than the real one.

If the star trek world is neither more moral, nor less moral than the real world, than both worlds are equally moral.

That's one conclusion you could draw. The other is that the Star Trek Universe is sometimes more or less moral than the real one, but not inherently so. I didn't go into more detail than to talk about the inherent moral character of the Trekverse (whose relative morality can, after all, change from writer to writer). It's certainly possible for the moral nature of the Trekverse to change from writer to writer, however. I don't think a reasonable person could argue that the Trekverse tended to be considerably more moral when Gene Roddenberry was writing it circa 1987 than it was when, say, Ronald D. Moore was writing it circa 1998.

Nonetheless, the Trekverse is not inherently more moral than the real world. It is dependent upon the writer.

Once again, you take a statement of someone and push it too far.

Is there another possible conclusion I'm overlooking?
If it is, point it out.

Already did.

About the MACO/Caeliar quote - i'm still waiting for those shades of gray.

I'm not sure what you're asking. I explained what my rhetorical intent was in talking about the MACOs and Sedin, and I explained how I would structure my argument if my intent was to draw upon the MACOs and Sedin to make a point about the fundamental nature of the real world. I explained that I don't believe in absolute morality, but neither do I believe in disregarding morality entirely. What, exactly, are you asking?

It was a specious argument. The Trekverse is full of horrific immoralities

So, the fundamental physical laws of our universe and the true nature of the trekverse are a specious argument when discussing these universes, are they?

No, but arguing that a few incidents of "karmic justice" somehow indicate a "fundamental moral structure" to the Trekverse when the Trekverse is full of horrific acts and tragedies is. Such an argument ignores numerous pieces of evidence that strongly contradict the argument of an inherent moral quality to the Trekverse that somehow magically prevents immorality from being beneficial.

About history.
"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".
Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that this freedom fighter/terrorist put a bomb in a restaurant and killed X people.

Put a bomb in a restaurant and killed X people, or engaged in a resistance campaign to alter public opinion? Put a bomb in a restaurant and killed X people, or was framed by the oppressive government for the actions of another person?

Bush supporters say that, southern apologists that other thing - it doesn't change the fact that the iraq and american civil wars - or whatever you wish to call them - happened. You can say whatever you want about the motivations, you can assign whatever value to the facts - the facts don't change.

But the facts are in question. Is it a fact that the United States under Bush tortured people?

Sci, what point are you trying to prove anymore?

I think I've made it clear on numerous occasions in this thread that the conclusions of most of my arguments in our discourse has been that there are degrees of anything, and that it is important that we not take a few instances of something and then seek to interpret them in the most extreme, binary form possible. For instance, I have illustrated that point by noting that simply because the Gorn destroyed a Federation colony that the believed to be violating their territorial rights does not mean that the species is inherently aggressive, hostile, or expansionist -- the most that we can reasonably claim from that example is that they are likely to be territorial and committed to defending their territory before investigating why an incursion occurs.

This goal -- arguing in favor of degrees rather than absolutes -- grew out of the original discourse over whether or not the Typhon Pact could reasonably be concluded to be inherently hostile towards the Federation.

Thar star trek examples and real world facts have equal value?

I think I've made it clear that a Trekverse example can be reasonably used to make a point about an event that has or might happen in the Trekverse, and I think I've made it clear that it's fair to use a Trekverse example in conjunction with the real world if the goal is to make a broader point about real life.

To go beyond that, you're going to have to explain what "equal value" means. If you are referring to a Trekverse example's relative level of "realism," I think I made it clear that it depends on a given story how "realistic" that is -- but of course that also depends on how one interprets the nature of the real world itself.

Your argument has degenerated to saying that the fundamental laws of the unniverse are "specious"

You have a severe reading comprehension problem. I did not say that the fundamental laws of the universe are species, I said that your argument -- that is, your premise and your conclusion -- was specious because it ignored numerous counter-examples. And no, the fact that the narrative doesn't always dwell on those counter-examples does not mean that your argument is not specious, since your argument was about the moral nature of the Trekverse; all that a tendency on the narrative's part not to dwell on the numerous tragedies of the Trekverse proves is that the creators prefer not to tell those types of stories within the Trekverse.

In other words: Your argument would be valid if you were arguing about stories. You have not been, however; you have been arguing about the nature of the story's setting. That a given setting is presented in a given way in a given story does not mean that that same setting cannot be presented in another way in another story, and ergo a given presentation of a setting is not determinative of its inherent characteristics from story to story.

To be more concise: The Star Trek Universe is not inherently more moral or less than the real one. It may be portrayed as being more moral by one author, or it may be portrayed as being less moral by another. Further, even when the authors are consistent in how moral it is or is not, the ways in which this information is presented can change from author to author -- David Mack certainly likes to focus on doom and gloom moreso than Christopher L. Bennet, for instance. This does not have bearing on the relative morality of the Trekverse, however, anymore than a lack of reference to space being black means anything. All it means is that different creators present a setting in different ways, in the same way that, in theatre or in film or television, the same set can be re-lit different ways for different scenes. And finally, the relative flexibility in how the Trekverse can be portrayed does not inherently rule out the rhetorical validity of using the Trekverse to illustrate a point about the real world, because the real world itself is full of lots of different degrees of morality as well -- life for most people is probably much less morally ambiguous in the American suburbs than it is on the streets of Mogadishu, for instance. This doesn't mean that real world is being inconsistent with itself, it means that life is full of varying degrees of morality.

as an argument in a debate concerning the nature of the universe and that history is subjective and changes with the individual.

Ask anyone with a history degree, let alone a reputable historian, and they will tell you that history is subjective. I'm sure Christopher could go into much more detail than I, but a basic act of research into the subject of history will reveal that history is subjective. "History is the process by which a culture decides for itself the meaning of its past."

And you go to these ridiculous extremes to try and prove - what exactly?

I could ask the same thing of you, given the ridiculous conclusions you've been trying to peddle.

 

[Defcon]

About "subjective" historical facts.
America did invade Irak.

"Iraq."

Not sure why this bothers me, but:

Since I doubt either of the two versions to write the country's name is the one used by Iraq/Irak itself, his version Irak (how it is called in German) is as valid as your's.