What is the purpose of the Prime Directive?

[Anwar]

The PD means that the Feds aren't allowed to intervene in ANYONE'S internal affairs (unless it's a state of war), including the Klingons. Picard only changed his mind when the Chancellor himself made the particular request (since it was a request for aid from one FTL civilization to another).

They didn't side with either side in the Civil War because, in an honor-bound culture like the Klingon Empire having to win thanks only to outside influence would have made Gowron's government a weak one considered dishonorable that he couldn't win on his own. Of course it was moot once they found out the Romulans were aiding Duras which is why Starfleet intervened.

Using Khitomer wouldn't work, Redemption happened before TUC was written.

 

[Praxius]

Or is the Prime Directive stopping you from calling the police, the lifeguards, the medics, or anyone else? Do you just walk away because it's not your business and you don't want to interfere with natural developments of the society, which includes some people getting killed? Do you expect think that the person drowning or being beaten to death had to save themselves all alone, and if they don't, they were just too weak and they shouldn't have survived anyway?

Once again, you're still trying to apply the Prime Directive as if it actually was designed for our current society and way of life..... it is geared towards other aliens and under-developed planets/societies..... it is not designed as some rule book on how to help or not help our own kind, therefore your above examples are a waste of time and do not relate.

Would I call the police? Probably.

Would I call a fire dept if someone's house was burning down? Sure.

You keep thinking that because I support the Prime Directive in the show, I "don't want to interfere with natural developments of the society" Yet the societies you are referencing are societies which I am a part of, therefore I am involved..... I don't see how you can not understand the differences.

Ah, another straw man argument.

At least my Straws are actually relating to the topic.... all your straws have nothing to do with the topic and are all rhetorical hypotheticals. My examples exist and relate, your's do not.

Kinda nice how you also continue to avoid all my points and counter arguments with trivial comments like the above and continue on your own little rant, recycling the same arguments you already provided and were already debated down.

Now are you going to address my points or continue this waste of time?

When have I ever advocated giving weapons, or even technology of any kind, to alien civilizations?

It's part of the mentality. Give them weapons, or give them technology that they can eventually use as a weapon or advantage against their enemies, it doesn't matter, because the outcome is the same.

If you find someone who has, tell them that. Until then, this is completely beside the point.

It is directly the point, and just because you wish to exclude the bad things that can and will happen from your above reasoning, doesn't mean they don't exist or are not factors.... this is an example of your own personal bias in the topic because you are unwilling to accept the known problems of such actions.

It doesn't matter if you suggested weapons or whatever, aiding them to improve themselves beyond what they are prepared for because we think it's best, isn't always best.

By YOUR logic, if Somalia suffered a terrible natural catastrophe or an outbreak of a disease, the UN and the other countries should not give it any kind of help - because, that would be interfering with the natural development of Somalia! That's what we've learned from episodes like "Homeward" and "Dear Doctor".

Then you learned wrong.

In many examples around our world, many countries are already involved/responsible for current conditions of certain countries and their cultures. Helping with aid for fellow "Humans" is one thing.... but giving them technology, weapons, resources that they may abuse doesn't make any sense.

When it comes to aliens and other planets, the situation is totally different and if you still can not understand this, then obviously I'm wasting my time, since many others in here seem to have figured it out with far less typing.

Sadly, it seems you really never will.

Oh I get it.... I hold the practical approach to the situation, you hold the US style "We're the World Police and we have every right to meddle in the affairs of everybody because we have their best interests at play, even when they don't ask." Which on a number of occasions in the past, has been proven time and time again just how many more problems come from such mentalities compared to how many problems are solved.

If other nations ask for help in an emergency, I see no problem with helping. If someone down the street is being attacked, I see no problem with helping them...... but when it comes to helping/aiding some government or dictator with better weapons, technology, something that gives them an advantage over those around them, then there's a problem.

Israel is another wonderful example of such actions. They've been pampered for decades, allowed to do whatever they want, the US supplies them with nukes, they invade and take over other people's lands with weapons and technology provided to them by the US, and they're still allowed to continue to build settlements on land that isn't theirs, push out those that used to call it home, and treat all those around them like lower humans, scum, that their lives arn't as important as the theirs....... and people wonder why the countries around them don't like Israel all that much, I wonder why?

Helping in an emergency is one thing...... giving someone an advantage over their enemies and thus, getting involved in their conflicts/affairs is another.

..... And the Prime D. and other alien cultures and planets is something else altogether.

 

[Praxius]

I wonder if I should keep track of how many times I'll be compared to a Nazi in PD debates from the anti-PD side .

That's usually what happens when people run out of anything worthwhile to use as an argument.

 

[DevilEyes]

Oh I get it.... I hold the practical approach to the situation, you hold the US style "We're the World Police and we have every right to meddle in the affairs of everybody because we have their best interests at play, even when they don't ask." Which on a number of occasions in the past, has been proven time and time again just how many more problems come from such mentalities compared to how many problems are solved.

From the frakking second page of the thread, my first post:

The Prime Directive is one of the most problematic aspects of Trek. It also doesn't help that TNG-era Trek onwards mutated the PD into something unrecognizable and monstrous.(See TNG's "Homeward," "Pen Pals," and ENT's "Dear Doctor," for example.) I think it was a product of 1960s Vietnam War-era liberalism on the dangers of cultural imperialism. But TOS was never as rigid about the non-interference aspect, especially if from a utilitarian perspective, they could accomplish more good than harm through interference.

I've never understood "non-interference" as a moral principle in itself. The PD should have been abolished long ago, and the issue of whether intervention is warranted should be on a pragmatic case by case basis.

QFT. Those episodes you mention really made me angry.

The Prime Directive is tricky: it can be used to prevent the Starfleet from becoming the Universe Policeman... but it can also be, as in the cases mentioned above, used as an excuse to do stand by and do nothing, or even refuse help ("Dear Doctor" being the most blatant example). It turns into a nice way of saying "since you are a different and less advanced civilization, we will leave you to your own devices, since we don't really give a fuck about you and whether you all die or not, you stupid savages". How is that any better than imperialism and its White Man's Burden? Two sides of the same coin. It also begs the question, what is Federation Starfleet and its exploration really for, except for Federation's own gain? The Federation gets to find out about different planets and civilizations, and this benefits the Federation, but what do these worlds get out of it? Unless they are already warp capable and advanced enough to be of any use to the Federation. If Federation Starfleet is supposed to have humanitarian and noble goals, then such a ridiculous and strict interpretation of the PD renders it completely useless.

IMO, the PD should be only a guideline that has to be interpreted on a case to case basis.

Talk about straw man arguments. You have just crossed over to the territory of blatantly misrepresenting and falsifying another person's arguments and standpoint, in a very offensive way.

That's usually what happens when people run out of anything worthwhile to use as an argument.

Exactly.

You want to throw around unflattering contemporary comparisons? OK then. We can all play that game. You and all the other "non-interference is an absolute rule always to be obeyed" people are like the Dutch UN peacekeeping squad stationed in Srebrenica who did nothing and allowed Ratko Mladic and his men to commit genocide and mass murder of 8000 people.

 

[Praxius]

^ Funny analogy, but completely wrong when it comes to cases such as "Homeward" or "Dear Doctor". Just how old does a person have to be to give consent to be saved from death and annihilation?

You sure seem to revolve your whole argument over these two limited examples and it also seems as though you purposely attempt to twist arguments to mean something totally different so you can continue the argument.

His arguments were relating to the Prime Directive and how it relates to maturity/contact..... it wasn't to address your two episodes that had specific reasons for applying the Prime Directive.

Let's look into the details of those two episodes shall we?

Dear Doctor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Doctor

"...... Phlox replies that even if a cure could be found, he would not find it ethical to administer it. Phlox would be interfering in an evolutionary process; the Valakians are dying out and the Menk are undergoing an 'awakening process'. The "disease" the Valakians are suffering from isn't caused by any pathogen, but is because their gene pool has reached a "dead end". Phlox tells Archer that he believes that Archer's compassion for the Valakians is clouding his judgement in finding a cure. Phlox reveals that he already has found a cure. This raises considerable ethical issues in the program as Phlox is essentially proposing genocide by inaction.

The following morning, Archer visits Phlox in the Sickbay. He says that he has spent all night reconsidering the Valakian's request for assistance. Archer says "Some day, my People are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that says what we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until someone tells me that they've drafted that... directive, I'm going to have to remind myself every day, that we didn't come out here to play God." alluding to the as-yet-written Prime Directive.
In the clinic, Esaak thanks Archer for the medicine but presses for assistance in building a warp-capable starship to improve the Valakian's chances of finding a cure. Archer hesitates for a moment before refusing, a difficult task for him. Phlox writes to Dr Loukas that he is glad that he gave Archer all of the facts in order for him to come to the correct conclusion, and feels that if he had not then he would have been no better than the Vulcan diplomats who held humans back for so long. Phlox continues by saying that he now has a new respect for Captain Archer......."

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me and the right decision was made. They were dying off because of their genetic makeup, not because some virus was infecting them, so it wasn't even a situation where they were facing some illness that wasn't directly related to them.... the illness was them.

And to play God wasn't going to make anything better.

Now about Homward, those people should have been left to die, yet Worf's brother broke the Prime Directive, thus now they were all involved in what occurs with those people, thus they had to try and transport them to a similar planet without them knowing anything, or else it'd screw them all up having to figure out everything that is going on with their limited understanding.

Maybe it was a good thing that Worf's brother disregarded the PD, but I guess time will determine that..... for all anybody knows, these guys will eventually become the next biggest threat to the system when they evolve into space flight...... then again, maybe they all died a month after they were dropped off on another planet, due to some organism on the planet their bodies wern't adapted to.... therefore a total waste of time.

Did they save those villager's lives? They might have prolonged their lives, but nobody knows for sure.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ Funny analogy, but completely wrong when it comes to cases such as "Homeward" or "Dear Doctor". Just how old does a person have to be to give consent to be saved from death and annihilation?

You sure seem to revolve your whole argument over these two limited examples...

Well geez, could it be because what I've been arguing all this time is that PD is good as long as it isn't made into a dogma of absolute non-interference, whatever the circumstances - and that those two are examples of the PD being taken to am absurd level?

His arguments were relating to the Prime Directive and how it relates to maturity/contact..... it wasn't to address your two episodes that had specific reasons for applying the Prime Directive.

Then how about answering the points I've actually made and things I've actually said?

Let's look into the details of those two episodes shall we?

Actually, we've already looked into the details of those two episodes some 50 times in this thread, and refuted your arguments. If you take the time to read the previous pages, you'll see that all those arguments, including the "playing God" notion, have been addressed at least a dozen times already.

They were dying off because of their genetic makeup, not because some virus was infecting them, so it wasn't even a situation where they were facing some illness that wasn't directly related to them...

In real life, there is no rule against curing congenital diseases. Have you heard of any physicians who refused to treat a patient on those grounds?

the illness was them.

Very interesting phrasing. I happen to be translating an article at the moment, which deals with a historical example of a medical community using the discourse of illness and disease to justify racism and genocide... I can't specify what is it about in order not to invoke Godwin's Law... But the similarity with some of the quotes is just startling:

Indeed the connection within medical discourse betweenand disease inevitably collapsed into as disease. Increasingly, were characterized as the embodiment of disease itself. Thus would declare that “were a diseased race,” while was “disease incarnate.”

 

[Anwar]

Nice misrepresentation DE, but the difference between these situations is that one is motivated by racial prejudice and malevolent intent to genocide. The other one was simply a scientist analyzing their genetic makeup and realizing they were dead no matter what, they were going extinct not from someone killing them but from something inherent in their own DNA they had developed long ago. With their own DNA against them, they'd just have developed some other genetic defect to die off after ENT left.

 

[Praxius]

..... Talk about straw man arguments. You have just crossed over to the territory of blatantly misrepresenting and falsifying another person's arguments and standpoint, in a very offensive way.

Offense wasn't my intention, thus I don't care if it offended you. This is what your reasoning comes off as in my view based on your own explanations towards everybody should be helping everybody no matter what the cost.

If someone is in need, based on your various loose-ended examples, we should automatically help them without question. If this is not what you meant, then by all means, say so.

If this is what you meant, then I do not agree with your view as I have already explained to you and used very accurate and related examples as to why I hold the position I do.

If you are offended that I don't get what you're trying to explain or you're offended that I don't agree with what you are trying to say, isn't my problem. The problem lies in your method of explanation and perhaps you should try a little harder to explain your view.

In the last few pages, all I have seen you do is go on the attack on everybody else's view who doesn't agree with you.... so besides odd tangented arguments against everybody else's views, you haven't really explained your own view clear enough in my opinion.

I read your above re-quote, and I still disagree with your point of view. I don't see how I should recycle/repeat my reasons and examples why, because then we'd just loop this whole thing over again.

I already know I won't be changing your mind in this debate, but it seems you don't understand that you won't change mine either...... I read your opinion, I disagree with it.... I don't think it is right.

And you don't think my view is right either..... what else is there to argue over?

This is all about opinion anyways.

You want to throw around unflattering contemporary comparisons?

I'm not here to flatter, pamper or purposely bash anybody in paticular.... I'm here to express my views as I see fit and if my references are unflattering to you, then take them for what they are. I'm not here to be anybody's best friend or worst enemy, I'm here to observe differing opinions and views on a number of subjects.

OK then. We can all play that game. You and all the other "non-interference is an absolute rule always to be obeyed" people are like the Dutch UN peacekeeping squad stationed in Srebrenica who did nothing and allowed Ratko Mladic and his men to commit genocide and mass murder of 8000 people.

Them's the breaks.

 

[Praxius]

Well geez, could it be because what I've been arguing all this time is that PD is good as long as it isn't made into a dogma of absolute non-interference, whatever the circumstances - and that those two are examples of the PD being taken to am absurd level?

And yet as it was pointed out by a few other members, in one example the PD didn't even exist, thus not even a legit example to be used against the PD, and Homeward already had Starfleet involved due to one person's actions against the PD, and imo those people should have been left to die.

To each their own.

Then how about answering the points I've actually made and things I've actually said?

Considering you're all over the place at the moment, could you refresh my memory on what you actually said which I didn't already respond to?

Actually, we've already looked into the details of those two episodes some 50 times in this thread, and refuted your arguments. If you take the time to read the previous pages, you'll see that all those arguments, including the "playing God" notion, have been addressed at least a dozen times already.

Yup... read them.. my view has not changed.

In real life, there is no rule against curing congenital diseases. Have you heard of any physicians who refused to treat a patient on those grounds?

Which is why I fail to see your real-life relations to a story-based rule. The only reason why I used Israel, Iraq/Afghanistan references was to show you real-life examples that could relate closer to the topic at hand, rather then the ones you used..... but none of them really change the situation in regards to the PD and thus, should be left as is and I support it's basic principle in the ST saga.

When it first became more main stream in the shows, I always figured the PD was created so that Starfleet captains/starships, such as the Enterprise and Kirk wouldn't go screwing around with other alien races like they used to do all the time in TOS, which ended up causing all sorts of problems later on in time for either the crew or the planet/species in question.

I see it more as a protection of these cultures and planets from Starfleet and UFP involvement in their affairs.

As I said a few pages back, we never had any outside involvement in our development of humanity from aliens, thus I don't see the logic in us being the aliens helping other cultures around the universe. This isn't some bitter response, as I'm sorta proud that humanity has gotten at least this far on its own....... I would think other alien species would see things the same way.

Very interesting phrasing. I happen to be translating an article at the moment, which deals with a historical example of a medical community using the discourse of illness and disease to justify racism and genocide... I can't specify what is it about in order not to invoke Godwin's Law... But the similarity with some of the quotes is just startling:

Indeed the connection within medical discourse betweenand disease inevitably collapsed into as disease. Increasingly, were characterized as the embodiment of disease itself. Thus would declare that “were a diseased race,” while was “disease incarnate.”

I still do not see how this relates, and it isn't anything to do with racism or genocide..... in fact, you should really take the time to look up what "Genocide" actually means.

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

If an entire planet is being destroyed naturally, an entire species is going to die and we don't do anything, that's not genocide since we did not create the situation in any deliberate and/or systematic method, nor are we even involved..... thus if it's some massive virus or evolution failure in their genetic makeup, then that is the natural course of things.

If there is another alien species trying to kill off another alien species on the same planet, then they would be commiting genocide.

Should we be involved then?

No.

And it doesn't have anything to do with racism either, since racism would have to mean that we'd purposely have something against them and perhaps wish them to die off..... I don't see it being anymore different then us leaving an entire natural habitat and all of its animals, plants and territory well alone to allow to continue through it's natural process of growth.

Which brings up another thing I never got.... humans who are so stuck on trying to save every single animal species that exists today...... many animals existed before our time, they all died off and left room for other animal species to exist. Yet now we have people attempting to halt the natural development, evolution of the various animal species on this planet by trying to save all of them. Maybe some of them are supposed to die to allow for new species to appear in their place?

 

[DevilEyes]

Nice misrepresentation DE, but the difference between these situations is that one is motivated by racial prejudice and malevolent intent to genocide. The other one was simply a scientist analyzing their genetic makeup and realizing they were dead no matter what, they were going extinct not from someone killing them but from something inherent in their own DNA they had developed long ago. With their own DNA against them, they'd just have developed some other genetic defect to die off after ENT left.

I was just noting the similarity in discourse. Where is the "misrepresentation"?

..... Talk about straw man arguments. You have just crossed over to the territory of blatantly misrepresenting and falsifying another person's arguments and standpoint, in a very offensive way.

Offense wasn't my intention, thus I don't care if it offended you. This is what your reasoning comes off as in my view based on your own explanations towards everybody should be helping everybody no matter what the cost.

Which I never said.

If someone is in need, based on your various loose-ended examples, we should automatically help them without question. If this is not what you meant, then by all means, say so.

See above.

If you are offended that I don't get what you're trying to explain or you're offended that I don't agree with what you are trying to say, isn't my problem.

I am offended when someone completely misrepresents my views and practically compares me to George W. Bush.

In the last few pages, all I have seen you do is go on the attack on everybody else's view who doesn't agree with you....

Which is something you don't do at all...

so besides odd tangented arguments against everybody else's views, you haven't really explained your own view clear enough in my opinion.

In my opinion, I have, several times over. If you are not able to understand it, that's your problem, not mine.

Yup... read them.. my view has not changed.

So what? It's not my mission in life to change your views. You are certainly not changing mine, so if that's that the goal o your opinion, why are you still posting?

Considering you're all over the place at the moment, could you refresh my memory on what you actually said which I didn't already respond to?

I'm all over the place? Oh yeah... I see...there's my hand in the kitchen... wait till I find my eye...

Looks like you're all over the place, if your memory is so bad that it needs to be refreshed about so many things. You keep responding to some imaginary person who claims that Starfleet should be helping everyone all the time, whatever the circumstances, and handing them all sorts of technology. When you find the person who claims that, go and discuss it with them. Since I have never said that and certainly would never say it because that's not what I think, I don't know why I'm even having this "discussion" with you.

OK then. We can all play that game. You and all the other "non-interference is an absolute rule always to be obeyed" people are like the Dutch UN peacekeeping squad stationed in Srebrenica who did nothing and allowed Ratko Mladic and his men to commit genocide and mass murder of 8000 people.

Them's the breaks.

Now that is a powerful and eloquent argument! I must concede defeat!

Too bad the Dutch don't feel that way, eh? Instead, they had their government resign over such a tiny matter as the responsibility for allowing genocide. Too bad they didn't have some kind of absolute non-interference dogma that would allow them to wash their hands of it.

 

[Praxius]

Which I never said.

Yet you implied by your numerous hypothetical arguments towards helping someone being beaten or raped on the street or someone's house being burned down, then suggesting that I wouldn't help them based on my understanding and support of the PD.

If that is not what you meant, then quit wasting everybody's time and spit out what the heck you mean.

I am offended when someone completely misrepresents my views and practically compares me to George W. Bush.

Then I am equally offended that someone would imply that I wouldn't help someone in need in my present society, or that I am somehow supporting racial genocide such as you described from humanity's past history, therefore your offense is cancelled out by my offense..... now we can move on.

Which is something you don't do at all...

I at least focus on what you actually said in a literal sense and actually take the time to address your comments such as one would normally do in a debate, while all you do is ignore what people say and continue on your rants, picking and choosing what you want to respond to, ignoring all the rest that points out flaws in your side of the debate and act as though you somehow accomplished something.

We can continue this bickering fest about how each other posts/debates, or if you finally see the pointlessness in this exercise, we can continue to debate the topic and views (rather then the poster)

In my opinion, I have, several times over. If you are not able to understand it, that's your problem, not mine.

So then if your view isn't to help everyone everytime they need it, then your view is simply to pick and choose on a completely random and biased manner when the PD would apply and when it wouldn't.

That sounds like a setup for corruption if you ask me. Doesn't something like this happen already in our current societies? Where our governments will apply one set of laws on one group, and yet the upper class group that does the exact same thing get's either less punishment or no punishment at all.

Either the laws and regulations are applied to everybody equally, or there is no use for such laws and regulations except to further seperate one class over another..... which is why I am also against subjectively picking and choosing when the rules apply and when they don't, simply because you don't agree with them at the time.

You either follow it all the way through or don't follow it at all.

So what? It's not my mission in life to change your views. You are certainly not changing mine, so if that's that the goal o your opinion, why are you still posting?

If you actually bothered to turn off your Attack mode for the sack of attacking, you'd realize I already pointed this out that neither will be changing either opinion, so why would I all of a sudden be using that type of motivation, after I clearly pointed out that it won't work?

I'm all over the place? Oh yeah... I see...there's my hand in the kitchen... wait till I find my eye...

Looks like you're all over the place, if your memory is so bad that it needs to be refreshed about so many things.

Thanks for wasting more time and avoiding the question again with your trivialized responses.

You keep responding to some imaginary person who claims that Starfleet should be helping everyone all the time, whatever the circumstances, and handing them all sorts of technology. When you find the person who claims that, go and discuss it with them. Since I have never said that and certainly would never say it because that's not what I think, I don't know why I'm even having this "discussion" with you.

Because you're one of those type of people who likes to get the last word in.

Based on several hypothetical situations you tossed directly my way and how important they seemed to be to you and your side of the argument, even though they didn't even relate to the topic at hand, you sure seem to give off the impression that that's what you support.

Now that is a powerful and eloquent argument! I must concede defeat!

Too bad the Dutch don't feel that way, eh? Instead, they had their government resign over such a tiny matter as the responsibility for allowing genocide. Too bad they didn't have some kind of absolute non-interference dogma that would allow them to wash their hands of it.

So now you go back to implying the PD is a bad thing because if they had such a similar directive they wouldn't have had any issues over the genocide and thus they should have helped....... so which is it? You can't support three different views at the same time.

Do you prefer to have the PD as it is?

Do you prefer to abolish the PD as it is?

or Do you prefer to just pick and choose through your own bias when it will be applied and to who?

The post you quoted not too long ago had a comment from Sonak which stated "The PD should have been abolished long ago"

Which you then responded with: QFT to his whole response, followed by "IMO, the PD should be only a guideline that has to be interpreted on a case to case basis."

^ Which is still the wrong approach, since everybody and their dog would be able to whip up the PD to support anything they damn well pleased and if that's the case, then what's the point of having it in the first place if to only be used as some wide-range arse coverage for making stupid mistakes that people made without actually thinking about the consequences first before acting?

Either you stick to the Prime Directive as it currently stands, or you abolish it and create another directive that best suits your personal views on how one would interact with other alien races.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Your post means absolutely NOTHING, Anwar.
If you want your post to have a meaning beyond gibberish, you must first DEFINE the very abstract concepts of "STRONGER" and "WEAKER" - in relattion to cultures.

[...]

What you want, is a galaxy of pansies who can't stand on their two feet. You can blather all you want over this being "amoral" but facing hard challenges is the reality we must all deal with.

I'm still waiting for those definitions, Anwar.

 

[Anwar]

A strong culture is one that survives destructive wars, tyrants and environmental catastrophes on their own survival ability, creativity and resilience. A weak one is one that requires outside aid for all its' problems and obstacles.

 

[DevilEyes]

blah blah blah

(...)


blah blah blah


(...)



(...)

So then if your view isn't to help everyone everytime they need it, then your view is simply to pick and choose on a completely random and biased manner when the PD would apply and when it wouldn't.

That sounds like a setup for corruption if you ask me. Doesn't something like this happen already in our current societies? Where our governments will apply one set of laws on one group, and yet the upper class group that does the exact same thing get's either less punishment or no punishment at all.

Either the laws and regulations are applied to everybody equally, or there is no use for such laws and regulations except to further seperate one class over another..... which is why I am also against subjectively picking and choosing when the rules apply and when they don't, simply because you don't agree with them at the time.

Ah, more straw man arguments.

No, that is a setup for people using higher brain functions, which presumably Starfleet captains should have, to estimate the situation, see how the PD applies to the case, and make a decision based on facts, whether it is a good idea to intervene or not. And I think that any person with a normal intelligence would be able to figure out that, in cases when a race and a civilization is threatened with annihilation, that danger far outweighs the danger of "cultural contamination".

The issue is not that some people or races should be privileged or that the law should not apply to everyone the issue are different situations and different cases. Again, your parallel fails, since judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers and jurors are constantly called to interpret laws and make informed decisions. Otherwise, their jobs could be performed by any computer.

blah blah blah

(...)
Thanks for wasting more time and avoiding the question again with your trivialized responses.

Answers suited to the questions.

You keep responding to some imaginary person who claims that Starfleet should be helping everyone all the time, whatever the circumstances, and handing them all sorts of technology. When you find the person who claims that, go and discuss it with them. Since I have never said that and certainly would never say it because that's not what I think, I don't know why I'm even having this "discussion" with you.

Because you're one of those type of people who likes to get the last word in.

Based on several hypothetical situations you tossed directly my way and how important they seemed to be to you and your side of the argument, even though they didn't even relate to the topic at hand, you sure seem to give off the impression that that's what you support.

Then you need to improve your reading comprehension.

Now that is a powerful and eloquent argument! I must concede defeat!

Too bad the Dutch don't feel that way, eh? Instead, they had their government resign over such a tiny matter as the responsibility for allowing genocide. Too bad they didn't have some kind of absolute non-interference dogma that would allow them to wash their hands of it.

So now you go back to implying the PD is a bad thing because if they had such a similar directive they wouldn't have had any issues over the genocide and thus they should have helped....... so which is it? You can't support three different views at the same time.

Something else you need to learn about: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Do you prefer to have the PD as it is?

Do you prefer to abolish the PD as it is?

or Do you prefer to just pick and choose through your own bias when it will be applied and to who?

The post you quoted not too long ago had a comment from Sonak which stated "The PD should have been abolished long ago"

Which you then responded with: QFT to his whole response, followed by "IMO, the PD should be only a guideline that has to be interpreted on a case to case basis."

^ Which is still the wrong approach, since everybody and their dog would be able to whip up the PD to support anything they damn well pleased and if that's the case, then what's the point of having it in the first place if to only be used as some wide-range arse coverage for making stupid mistakes that people made without actually thinking about the consequences first before acting?

Either you stick to the Prime Directive as it currently stands, or you abolish it and create another directive that best suits your personal views on how one would interact with other alien races.

Abolish as it is, if it is really such a ridiculous dogma that Starfleet officers hide behind when they want to wash their hands of any responsibility, as presented in episodes like "Homeward". Create a better directive, one that actually has a bearing on the real world.

 

[Anwar]

Your "better directive" would entail the Feds having to help every threatened world, actively search them out and use up most of their resources to constantly aid them, relocate them, spend years helping them adapt to their altered world (or brand new transplanted world) and ultimately leave virtually bankrupt and open to invasion since most of starfleet would be too busy babying everyone.

And no, your "they should be smart enough to judge when a world is in danger" line of thinking doesn't apply and is again too simplistic. Even your so-called obvious annihilation worlds need a closer analysis than "they're in danger and we must help!". That line of thinking is borderline moronic.

 

[DevilEyes]

Your "better directive" would entail the Feds having to help every threatened world, actively search them out and use up most of their resources to constantly aid them, relocate them, spend years helping them adapt to their altered world (or brand new transplanted world) and ultimately leave virtually bankrupt and open to invasion since most of starfleet would be too busy babying everyone.

No, it wouldn't. You always amaze me with your binary thinking.

The Federation Starfleet is already using their resources and people and go and explore different planets. Was it that difficult to help when they happened to be there? Or, in case of "Dear Doctor", it was very easy since they already had the cure (and that was even before the PD - because the writers of ENT wanted to show us that this is the Right Thing To Do).

There's a pretty big room between being under orders to actively seek planets that need help and go and find ways to do so, and being forbidden* to ever help anyone, even if you are in perfect situation to do so, and non-interference clearly will harm the other civilization more than interference could.

(Or rather, allegedly forbidden - I don't recall Kirk being punished for his breaches of the PD.)

And no, your "they should be smart enough to judge when a world is in danger" line of thinking doesn't apply and is again too simplistic.

It's too simplistic to assume that people can use their mind to judge a specific situation, but it's not too simplistic to claim that there is just one right answer to every situation and one simple rule that will work in each one?

 

[Anwar]

Yes it would, Starfleet sends single vessels out on exploratory missions that they return from after set periods of time while the majority of the fleet is set about protecting their actual territory from invasion and other Fed matters. Your PD would require most of the fleet to go around actively seeking out endangered worlds and transplanting entire populations (which would require thousands of ships working round the clock), and then after finding a new world for them (which could take years, during which the endangered aliens would be taking up space on fleet ships or worlds and consuming further resources) they would transplant thema nd have to stay for years further to help establish the infrastructure and technologies needed to sustain a major population. Not to account for the damage this did to their culture in the first place, and that the transplants will likely just be vassals/leeches on the Federation.

It's too simplistic to assume that you can see a world in danger and immediately think "we must help them!" without further investigation and analysis as to what's happening, if it's self-inflicted and thus the fault of the aliens themselves, etc. That's why there's a rule about these situations.

 

[Horga'hn]

But you are basing your decisions on some uncertain alarmist predictions, on fear.
You want to cower under your bed in fear, afraid to go out because some meteor could fall on your head.

You think INACTION washes your hands from the blatant imorality of letting someone die when you can easily save him. You think INACTION is always moral - when the complete opposite is true in the vast majority of cases.

I see strong character judgements, but no foundation whatsoever for those judgements.

Pray tell - where did you dig up these absolutist stances, and why are you attributing them to me?

No, Horga'hn.
This is your argument - these concrete examples are the logical continuation of your ideas. Their concreteness reveals the blatant immorality of your stance - that's why you have no argument to support your position.

Your examples of "logical continuation" are fallacious because you have shifted the context from "in the case of pre-warp alien societies" to "EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE". "Tenuous" is too weak a term for the disconnect there.

I have made numerous arguments to support my position, and they do not cease to be by your say-so.

That's precious.

And that is pointless, petty condescendence.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some semblance of decorum.

If you want to be taken seriously, Horga'hn, don't come with examples from a fictional universe with a fictional history slave to the whims of a scenarist.
Come with examples from REAL WORLD Earth history that disprove my statement:

Oh, really? Well that explains why we're at such frightful odds with one another! You see, I was under the mistaken impression that we were discussing a GODDAMNED FICTIONAL PLOT DEVICE

"In Earth's history - every time there was contact between a more advanced (technologically, culturally) and a less advanced civilization AND the stronger civilization didn't intentionally/systematically try to destroy the other culture, this less developed culture benefitted from the contact."

As noted by Praxius on numerous occasions: we're not talking about Earth history or human societies because the Prime Directive does not apply to that. This is precisely the fundamental flaw in the BUT LOOK AT THESE HUMANKIND EXAMPLES argument; alien cultures on other planets are not human cultures. Their environment would be radically different, and by extension their physiological/psychological/cultural development could walk any one of infinite evolutionary paths.

The good intentions behind even a fleeting contact would therefore hold the potential to spell disaster for any number of alien cultures. There would be scarcely any scope for risk assessment, which itself would necessitate in-depth knowledge of the environment, species, culture and developmental state, with countless further considerations to make within the context of each species.

Take careful note, Prote: I am not saying "OH MY GOD LET'S ALL HIDE AND NEVER DO ANYTHING! KILL ALL BABIES IN CASE THEY ARE HITLER!" What I am saying is that 20th century human moral standards (much less your own) are not necessarily going to dictate prudent action while floating around in space in the 24th century and dealing with alien cultures.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

But you are basing your decisions on some uncertain alarmist predictions, on fear.
You want to cower under your bed in fear, afraid to go out because some meteor could fall on your head.

You think INACTION washes your hands from the blatant imorality of letting someone die when you can easily save him. You think INACTION is always moral - when the complete opposite is true in the vast majority of cases.

I see strong character judgements, but no foundation whatsoever for those judgements.

"Character judgement"? Yes.
"No foundation whatsoever?" Not quite. Read your 2 previous posts for further explanation.

No, Horga'hn.
This is your argument - these concrete examples are the logical continuation of your ideas. Their concreteness reveals the blatant immorality of your stance - that's why you have no argument to support your position.

Your examples of "logical continuation" are fallacious because you have shifted the context from "in the case of pre-warp alien societies" to "EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE". "Tenuous" is too weak a term for the disconnect there.

I have made numerous arguments to support my position, and they do not cease to be by your say-so.

Cute.
So it's all right to condemn alien species because they're not humans - humans who, of course, benefit from a different treatement because they're humans.

As for all other arguments - you don't know what the results will be, etc - these apply to humans, too:

Then I guess you agree that doctors shouldn't try to cure any disease, because there's a chance the cure could become a new plague in centuries to come. They shouldn't save any patient because there's a chance this patient could become the next Hitler.
Then you agree that parents should have nothing to do with their children, because there's a chance the children could become dictators in the future - better let blind fate take care of their upbringing - that should work (sarcasm).

As you can see, they don't make the decision to abandon a patient, your child - or an extraterrestrial civilization - to their fate any less monstruous.

That's precious.

And that is pointless, petty condescendence.

"Condescendence"? Yes.
"Pointless"? Undeserved? Hardly. Read your previous posts for further explanation.

If you want to be taken seriously, Horga'hn, don't come with examples from a fictional universe with a fictional history slave to the whims of a scenarist.
Come with examples from REAL WORLD Earth history that disprove my statement:

Oh, really? Well that explains why we're at such frightful odds with one another! You see, I was under the mistaken impression that we were discussing a GODDAMNED FICTIONAL PLOT DEVICE

Horga'hn, in Star Trek, one has ridiculous concepts such as "any pre-warp society will always/inevitably commit mass-suicide upon first contact" or "Phlox can see the future".
Star Trek is an artificial universe slave to the whims of script writers who absolutely want to sell the PD.
That's why you can't have a serious/relevant discussion about the PD using trekverse events.

And this is why I use real world events/history/sociology as fact upon which to base the discussion about the PD.
I'm effectively discussing: Is PD sensible/moral in the REAL WORLD, regarding contacts with hypothetical alien species?

"In Earth's history - every time there was contact between a more advanced (technologically, culturally) and a less advanced civilization AND the stronger civilization didn't intentionally/systematically try to destroy the other culture, this less developed culture benefitted from the contact."

As noted by Praxius on numerous occasions: we're not talking about Earth history or human societies because the Prime Directive does not apply to that. This is precisely the fundamental flaw in the BUT LOOK AT THESE HUMANKIND EXAMPLES argument; alien cultures on other planets are not human cultures. Their environment would be radically different, and by extension their physiological/psychological/cultural development could walk any one of infinite evolutionary paths.

Horga'hn, human cultures are the only cultures we know anything about.
You can run your mouth all you want about alien species - it doesn't change the fact that you know nothing about them.
For all you, me or any human knows, they're all but identical to human cultures because intelligence only arises in environments similar to Earth's. Is this speculation? Yes. But then again, so is your "ET is so different" argument.

And something else - when dealing with all known human cultures and with the overwhelming majority of ET species/cultures imagined in fiction (I'm referring to the ones that are coherent aka something similar could actually come into being/exist in the cosmos) the PD is an imoral monstruosity.
Why?
Because you don't have - ET will, without fail, commit suicide/mutate into murderous conquerors when we make contact with them.

 

[Horga'hn]

"Character judgement"? Yes.
"No foundation whatsoever?" Not quite. Read your 2 previous posts for further explanation.

If I could establish a basis for said judgement in my posts, why would I bother prompting you for clarification?

I ask again - how have you derived that I consider inaction to always be moral, or that we should hide in our rooms and avoid doing anything? I have neither declared nor implied this at any point, so it seems reasonable to assume that there you have some convoluted reasoning to which I am not party.

Your examples of "logical continuation" are fallacious because you have shifted the context from "in the case of pre-warp alien societies" to "EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE". "Tenuous" is too weak a term for the disconnect there.

So it's all right to condemn alien species because they're not humans - humans who, of course, benefit from a different treatement because they're humans.

Whatever species they happen to be is utterly irrelevant. The whole point of the PD is to prevent causing unintentional harm to undeveloped alien cultures.

As for all other arguments - you don't know what the results will be, etc - these apply to humans, too:

Then I guess you agree that doctors shouldn't try to cure any disease, because there's a chance the cure could become a new plague in centuries to come. They shouldn't save any patient because there's a chance this patient could become the next Hitler.
Then you agree that parents should have nothing to do with their children, because there's a chance the children could become dictators in the future - better let blind fate take care of their upbringing - that should work (sarcasm).

No. We are intimately familiar with human culture and biology; we know that the cures we develop for ourselves do not come back to bite us on the ass, we know that only a small minority of people have the capacity to be Hitlers, we know that children require nurturing, guidance and care to become functional members of society. We know these things because of the sum of human experience gained over millennia of development through adaptability and resilient self-sufficiency.

We DON'T know what the consequences will be if we attempt to (with good intent) reduce the poison in an alien planet's atmosphere, repair the core of a planet, provide medical supplies to an endangered culture without a full understanding of their biochemistry or relocate a culture whose planet is dying.

And that is pointless, petty condescendence.

"Condescendence"? Yes.
"Pointless"? Undeserved? Hardly. Read your previous posts for further explanation.

Not pointless? What exactly have you achieved by talking down to someone who has been attempting to hold civil discourse?

Star Trek is an artificial universe slave to the whims of script writers who absolutely want to sell the PD.
That's why you can't have a serious/relevant discussion about the PD using trekverse events.

And this is why I use real world events/history/sociology as fact upon which to base the discussion about the PD.
I'm effectively discussing: Is PD sensible/moral in the REAL WORLD, regarding contacts with hypothetical alien species?

Did you even read the OP? Go on ahead and do that now. I'll wait.









Back? Good. By now you should have realised that the OP posted a thread concerning the (fictional) Prime Directive within the context of it's application in the (fictional) Star Trek universe. You may also notice an absence of any reference to the REAL WORLD.

As you may also have guessed, due to the subject of debate originating in fiction we must necessarily draw upon the fiction for context, and despite your criticism of my approach you've done it yourself:

Tell me, Praxius, do you think that finding out during high school that you'll have to "pay your bills" or "keep your things in order" would inevitably lead to your suicide?
According to the PD, a pre-warp species finding out about any warp-capable one would lead to a species-wide suicide/extinction - see TNG:Homeward.

Do you think someone saving your life during high school is immoral because it means that you're not allowed to face life on your own?
According to the PD, it is immoral - again, TNG:Homeward

We are discussing an element of Star Trek in a thread which was presented within the context of Star Trek on a forum called "General Trek Discussion", and the only reason you're playing the REAL WORLD card is because you like to hop up onto your moral high horse and arbitrarily decide which parts of the fiction you will use in your arguments while vehemently rejecting that which doesn't suit.

Horga'hn, human cultures are the only cultures we know anything about.
You can run your mouth all you want about alien species - it doesn't change the fact that you know nothing about them.
For all you, me or any human knows, they're all but identical to human cultures because intelligence only arises in environments similar to Earth's. Is this speculation? Yes. But then again, so is your "ET is so different" argument.

Not really. A basic principle of evolution is that life will be shaped by the environment in which it resides, and given the enormous scope for possible life-supporting environments in the universe (with an estimated 10^21 stars at a conservative estimate of three planets per star amounting to trillions of planets) extraterrestrial life is much more likely to be distinct from ours than not.

Because you don't have - ET will, without fail, commit suicide/mutate into murderous conquerors when we make contact with them.

I hereby award to you, ProtoAvatar, the Strawman Of The Thread Award. Congratulations.