Insurrection was the best NG movie.

[Chrisisall]

But the rule of established law applies. It's there for a reason, to protect the sovereignty of a nation.

Well, yeah, in part. But in reality most laws exist to provide a legal framework for authoritarian impulsiveness (See: Contras, Iraq War, the last speeding ticket you got just because your car is nicer than the police officer's, etc.).

You really MUST be young, Cyke!

 

[Chrisisall]

And ultimately, that's why this is a good movie.
I think bigger, stronger governments should not be able to bully around smaller ones because they 1) dislike the way that they live, and 2) want their stuff.

It's not a perfect movie, but it's a good one, and it has good bones. There are some problems with the way it all came together, but it's not a train wreck.

THANK YOU!!!!!

 

[Cyke101]

But the rule of established law applies. It's there for a reason, to protect the sovereignty of a nation.

Well, yeah, in part. But in reality most laws exist to provide a legal framework for authoritarian impulsiveness (See: Contras, Iraq War, the last speeding ticket you got just because your car is nicer than the police officer's, etc.).

You really MUST be young, Cyke!

What you're talking about here really ventures into individual property rights and hoarding of resources within the borders of a previously established nation, rather than gov't support and resource allocation for the wellness of citizens as well as the right of the nation to its very own property.

You criticize authoritarian measures andyou're spouting the basic ideals of libertarian-conservatism while claiming yourself to be a liberal and chastising others who you perceive to be right wing. You claim you're on the left but you're closer to Ron Paul. That's not an insult, that's a clarification.

And then you bring it down to an age issue, when an older and presumably *wiser* person knows age doesn't matter but reading and information and analysis count the most. And if Trek has taught us anything, older almost never means wiser! (see: Daystrom, any insane admiral, Khan, the Borg Queen, etc)

We'll have to agree to disagree, or at least agree to not agree

 

[Chrisisall]

You criticize authoritarian measures, but you're spouting the basic ideals of libertarian-conservatism while claiming yourself to be a liberal

Uhhh, Cyke, what part of this did you NOT read: "BTW, I'm NOT a Liberal, and you are. Wouldn't know it from this conversation, though."?????

And then you bring it down to an age issue, when an older and presumably *wiser* person knows age doesn't matter

It DOES matter when the lack of age show INEXPERIENCE as well.

 

[Cyke101]

You criticize authoritarian measures, but you're spouting the basic ideals of libertarian-conservatism while claiming yourself to be a liberal

Uhhh, Cyke, what part of this did you NOT read: "BTW, I'm NOT a Liberal, and you are. Wouldn't know it from this conversation, though."?????

My mistake then. I get worked up, I admit it.

And then you bring it down to an age issue, when an older and presumably *wiser* person knows age doesn't matter

It DOES matter when the lack of age show INEXPERIENCE as well.

It does matter when the lack of maturity shows despite the advantage of age as well. I've never seen an older person go "Neener neener, I'm older and therefore better." They never had to say it, it was simply reflected in the content of their speech.

Wait, i take that back... the only time you hear that is when the big kid says it on the grade school playground. Older doesn't automatically mean wiser. And wiser doesn't mean you can assume (you know what happens when you assume) or shove incorrect and wrongly inferred words and beliefs down people's mouths.

I suggest you reload the page and see my edits just one more time, especially at the end.

 

[Chrisisall]

It does matter when the lack of maturity shows despite the advantage of age as well.

I've never been one to demand that acquired knowledge or years be linked to any kind of "maturity."
I think wisdom means the ability to say "Yeah, I was a bit of a wanker there."
And you've been a good sport with my bit of it this day. I still say though, IMO you need to loosen up on the "rule of law" thing a little. Laws are made by men; men are fallible & imperfect.
Why do we not execute our prime function then?
Who knows.

 

[Cyke101]

It does matter when the lack of maturity shows despite the advantage of age as well.

I've never been one to demand that acquired knowledge or years be linked to any kind of "maturity."
I think wisdom means the ability to say "Yeah, I was a bit of a wanker there."
And you've been a good sport with my bit of it this day. I still say though, IMO you need to loosen up on the "rule of law" thing a little. Laws are made by men; men are fallible & imperfect.
Why do we not execute our prime function then?
Who knows.

Men are fallible and imperfect, and that's why we have the elastic clause and amendments. And no, I ain't giving THAT part up

You've been a good sport, too. I admit. That's something we can agree on.

 

[Chrisisall]

That's something we can agree on.

 

[Cyke101]

That's something we can agree on.

Now that I think about it (and this is to your credit, mate), I don't think a movie would have to subscribe to a viewer's personal politics in order for it to be judged as a good film (and my original post in this thread didn't mention politics at all).

In that, agreeing or disagreeing with the Baku shouldn't make or break the quality of the film. I would, however, think about either how well the story is crafted, how well the story makes its point *about* those politics, or about character motivations.

You and I may disagree: you like the film and I don't, but the moral dilemma by itself isn't why I dislike the film.

I think back to Birth of a Nation. Great film, horrible message. I'm not comparing Insurrection to that brilliant monstrosity of course, but it's evidence of how you don't have to agree with a film in order to like a film.

That's just my own brain spillage really

 

[DevilEyes]

the Federation had every right to remove the Ba'ku. Who were nothing more than squatters anyways.

Even then, with only 600 inhabitants', I still kick them off the planet!

In this case, the Ba'ku would be the tent city dwellers and the Federation could be LA/Detroit.

Wow. I remember a time when Trek fans were a progressive lot, full of good will towards their fellow man & woman.

Now we are happy labeling peeps who settled a planet no one wanted as "squatters" because it has something suddenly discovered on it.

Lemme take a stab here- are you guys really young, like in your twenties? Supporting yourselves? Fans of Bush & the idea that there's this big monster terrorism we need to defend against? Just really scared little children, lookin' for Capitalism & Uncle Sam to save you?
That's the only place this idea that the Baku don't deserve to own their world can come from IMO...from peeps that never took a philosophy class, yet excelled in mathmatics. Peeps who can debate the meaning of individual words, but not their collective meaning when used to describe complex ideas of right & wrong.

Am I close?

I think I'll head over to the Rush Limbaugh fan board where things are a little less conservative...

So now it's is considered progressive to think that the needs and claims of a bunch of a some 600 or so people to a certain land and its resources (just because they happened to make this extremely lucrative piece of land and its resources their own a while ago - and because they are pretty and well-behaved and nice...) outweigh the needs of billions or trillions of other people who could be helped with these resources - while a disagreement with this stance is conservative?


Wow, I must have missed some big recent change in political terminology.

 

[Chrisisall]

So now it's is considered progressive to think that the needs and claims of a bunch of a some 600 or so people to a certain land and its resources (just because they happened to make this extremely lucrative piece of land and its resources their own a while ago - and because they are pretty and well-behaved and nice...) outweigh the needs of billions or trillions of other people who could be helped with these resources

Yes, it DOES beg the question of ownership, doesn't it?
In a COMMUNIST society, their world would just be taken from them without question.

Now, THAT begs the question as to your political leanings...

And let's not forget that the collector was not a tried & true piece of standard technology- how far would those particles go in actual practice? Not galaxy-wide, I conjure.

So, take what's theirs by force? When does it become wrong? If they had to be killed? Tortured for the radiations secret? Could a war be fought?
Speaking of that, the Saudis have a lot of oil we need, could we take it from them for the greater good?

I dislike slippery slopes, you see.

 

[Cyke101]

I am biting my tongue so bad right now...

 

[DevilEyes]

So now it's is considered progressive to think that the needs and claims of a bunch of a some 600 or so people to a certain land and its resources (just because they happened to make this extremely lucrative piece of land and its resources their own a while ago - and because they are pretty and well-behaved and nice...) outweigh the needs of billions or trillions of other people who could be helped with these resources

Yes, it DOES beg the question of ownership, doesn't it?
In a COMMUNIST society, their world would just be taken from them without question.

Now, THAT begs the question as to your political leanings...

So are the people who don't appreciate Insurrection's ethical stance conservatives, or communists? Take your pick! They can't be both!

 

[Chrisisall]

I am biting my tongue so bad right now...

Don't do that, spill it! I can take it!

So are the people who don't appreciate Insurrection's ethical stance conservatives, or communists? Take your pick! They can't be both!

My problem here is that is seems they can quite EASILY be both!!!

Oh, by the way, your shields are untied....

 

[BillJ]

the Federation had every right to remove the Ba'ku. Who were nothing more than squatters anyways.

Even then, with only 600 inhabitants', I still kick them off the planet!

In this case, the Ba'ku would be the tent city dwellers and the Federation could be LA/Detroit.

Wow. I remember a time when Trek fans were a progressive lot, full of good will towards their fellow man & woman.

Now we are happy labeling peeps who settled a planet no one wanted as "squatters" because it has something suddenly discovered on it.

Lemme take a stab here- are you guys really young, like in your twenties? Supporting yourselves? Fans of Bush & the idea that there's this big monster terrorism we need to defend against? Just really scared little children, lookin' for Capitalism & Uncle Sam to save you?
That's the only place this idea that the Baku don't deserve to own their world can come from IMO...from peeps that never took a philosophy class, yet excelled in mathmatics. Peeps who can debate the meaning of individual words, but not their collective meaning when used to describe complex ideas of right & wrong.

Am I close?

I think I'll head over to the Rush Limbaugh fan board where things are a little less conservative...

What amateur crap is this?

I'm 37, a father of three and a bank operations manager.

The movie is crap. Really all there is to it (it has some fun moments). And it really takes on conservative tone when you really think about it: Those who have, no matter how they got it, shouldn't have to share with anyone else.

Oh yeah... here's my Presidential voting since 1992:

92: Clinton
96: Clinton
00: Gore
04: Kerry
08: Obama

Might want to go find a dictionary and figure out what conservative and liberal actually mean.

EDIT: Why do they deserve another planet of their own? Movie clearly states that they were very advanced and nearly destroyed themselves. Why don't they head back and clean up that mess?

EDIT of an EDIT: Did you really say six hundred people deserve their own world?

 

[Bones2]

Now we are happy labeling peeps who settled a planet no one wanted as "squatters" because it has something suddenly discovered on it.

I don't want to get caught up in the ridiculous, albeit hilarious pseudo-political arguing this thread has become, but to this I'd add that it's not a case of just anyone taking the planet from the Ba'ku. It's the So'na, who have as much right to it as the Ba'ku. Considering further that this benefit would be shared out to the Federation and potentially help billions, then I have no doubt that I'd remove the 600 sanctimonious bores.

 

[Chrisisall]

What amateur crap is this?

"Amateur"? I what way; I don't understand.

I'm ... a bank operations manager.

Umm, okaaaaay.

The movie is crap. Really all there is to it

Not really, but whatever.

And it really takes on conservative tone when you really think about it: Those who have, no matter how they got it, shouldn't have to share with anyone else.

Those who "have" exactly what??? A way of cheating death? We all saw how well that worked out for Kirk in STII, didn't we?
Seriously, then work out a deal with the Ba'ku to send the most needy peeps to the other side of thier world for exposure! Don't effin' kidnap them from their homeworld to achieve some hopeful goal!!!

Oh yeah... here's my Presidential voting since 1992:

92: Clinton
96: Clinton
00: Gore
04: Kerry
08: Obama

Same as mine, you want me to send you a medal, sonny?
(Come on, laugh a little here)

Might want to go find a dictionary and figure out what conservative and liberal actually mean.

Dictionary meanings lose importance in the face of de facto ones. Was Bush a "Conservative"? Was Clinton a "Liberal"?

EDIT: Why do they deserve another planet of their own?

Possesion is 9 points of the law!

EDIT of an EDIT: Did you really say six hundred people deserve their own world?

Do peeps in Palistinian deserve to live in any land at all? Do the Inuet deserve to rule themselves? Do Aboriginies deserve to eat kangaroo? Do you deserve to spout negative opinions on a beloved (by some here, anyway) movie?

Labels, sir, mean most to the labeler.

 

[Chrisisall]

I don't want to get caught up in the ridiculous, albeit hilarious pseudo-political arguing

Thanks for getting the funny in this.

Considering further that this benefit would be shared out to the Federation and potentially help billions, then I have no doubt that I'd remove the 600 sanctimonious bores.

You have no proof of that, only the movie's theoretical computer projections, which might be in error.
Tell ya what. YOU move to a new house, pay a certain (admittedly low) price for it, then find out it's SO much nicer than you ever imagined, you donate it to the state as a seniour citizen's home & then rent a flat in Trenton.

 

[BillJ]

I don't want to get caught up in the ridiculous, albeit hilarious pseudo-political arguing

Thanks for getting the funny in this.

Considering further that this benefit would be shared out to the Federation and potentially help billions, then I have no doubt that I'd remove the 600 sanctimonious bores.

You have no proof of that, only the movie's theoretical computer projections, which might be in error.
Tell ya what. YOU move to a new house, pay a certain (admittedly low) price for it, then find out it's SO much nicer than you ever imagined, you donate it to the state as a seniour citizen's home & then rent a flat in Trenton.

Bottom line: the movie is a train wreck. It had some nice bits and some nice ideas but the politics of it were all over the place. The plot would've worked much better if the race was intertwined with the planet (or other planetary life-forms) in some tangible way. The way it is presented is that the Ba'ku are essentially enjoying the spoils of something that wasn't theirs to begin with. Being an advanced species surely they understood that if this planet fell within the boundaries of an interstellar empire and that said empire could show up at any time to re-claim their territory.

You'll never sell me on the fact that the Ba'ku needed to stay based on how the story is presented.

 

[BillJ]

Do peeps in Palistinian deserve to live in any land at all? Do the Inuet deserve to rule themselves? Do Aboriginies deserve to eat kangaroo? Do you deserve to spout negative opinions on a beloved (by some here, anyway) movie?

Labels, sir, mean most to the labeler.

They deserve land and resources based on their needs. 600 people do not need the resources of an entire planet.

Hell, my solution would've been to move them to a small island and equipt them with shield generators that would have kept out the ill effects that were going to occur when the S'ona used the collector. They get to keep their world, minus the Metaphasic radiation. Everyones happy!