Which episode most breaks your suspension of disbelief?

[Sybok]

he'd be a british subject actually, from his point of view

 

[UssGlenn]

So the idea is that Cold War era humans from both sides left Earth together, outdid the Augments by finding and colonizing a planet, populated the planet thoroughly enough to create a “This globe ain’t big enough for the both of us” situation, had a nuclear war, and had descendants born after the war who lived for several centuries before being discovered by the Exeter in the 23rd century? I don’t think that works.

the time period they left Earth from is unknown, early space race is just a theory. If we assume they are a colony attempt, they could have left around WWIII or later, and a convenient encounter with a temporal phenomenon to throw the colony ship into the past takes care of the time-scale problem.

after mulling the issue here's my version of events:
Before WWIII 2 groups of scientists in America and China work together to launch a generational colony ship before the outbreak of nuclear war between their 2 countries. They consider themselves the last hope of a world gone mad. They launch successfully and on the way encounter a phenomenon that sends them many centuries into the past. they eventually land on a planet and eventually have the same problems as their ancestors, culminating in the nuclear war, the very thing they left earth to avoid.

 

[Myasishchev]

he'd be a british subject actually, from his point of view

Well, that.

Before WWIII 2 groups of scientists in America and China work together to launch a generational colony ship before the outbreak of nuclear war between their 2 countries. They consider themselves the last hope of a world gone mad. They launch successfully and on the way encounter a phenomenon that sends them many centuries into the past. they eventually land on a planet and eventually have the same problems as their ancestors, culminating in the nuclear war, the very thing they left earth to avoid.

The one problem with it is it's such a shockingly short time to populate a planet then depopulate it with nuclear war. Was it written back when they had no idea when in the future TOS was happening, like with Squire of Gothos?

 

[Mytran]

That depends how many centuries in time they went back. Would ten or twelve do it?

 

[Captrek]

So, Myasishchev, when the US declared independence in 1776, did all British subjects become American, or just those who had previously visited the colonies?

Since Native Americans are descended from people who left present-day China, I take it you consider them to be Chinese subjects, and enforcement of Chinese law on the reservations a proper function of the Chinese military.

If you trace it back far enough, I imagine we’re all Sudanese. Dang, the conspiracy theorists are right—our head of state really is a Muslim! The middle name is Hassan, not Hussein... Close enough.

Romulus, on the other hand, is property of Vulcan.

Seriously, this planet was until a few months ago completely unknown to the Federation (or any of its predecessor governments such as United Earth, the USA, or China). None of those governments has done anything for anyone living on the planet. They can’t even apply for membership in the Federation because a united planetary government is a requirement of Federation membership. How dare the Federation assert that it has jurisdiction over this planet on the mere grounds that the inhabitants had very distant ancestors on Earth during the Cold War?

Geez, what if they found a planet populated by Human-Klingon hybrids? Who would have jurisdiction over that planet, UFP or Kronos?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As for planets like Omega IV, Magna Roma and Miri's planet being too much like Earth, I'd like to put forth the theory first suggested by the great Nerys Ghemor in her fanfic (Star Trek: Sigils and Unions). She suggests that those planets were actually parallel universe versions of Earth itself, which the Enterprise encountered because the area of space in question was unstable and prone to that kind of inter-universe slipups. I find that a very interesting theory.

Edit: Here it is.

 

[Myasishchev]

That depends how many centuries in time they went back. Would ten or twelve do it?

Yeah. Sorry--I missed the time travel part.

So, Myasishchev, when the US declared independence in 1776, did all British subjects become American, or just those who had previously visited the colonies?

Those who were citizens of the colonies.

Since Native Americans are descended from people who left present-day China, I take it you consider them to be Chinese subjects, and enforcement of Chinese law on the reservations a proper function of the Chinese military.

There's really a lot wrong in that sentence.

If you trace it back far enough, I imagine we’re all Sudanese. Dang, the conspiracy theorists are right—our head of state really is a Muslim! The middle name is Hassan, not Hussein... Close enough.

We're all human. But sovereignty doesn't mean "isolated" or even "functionally self-governing." People groups that established themselves after the migrations out of Africa are not a very good analogue of modern states.

Romulus, on the other hand, is property of Vulcan.

Recognized by other governments? Check. De facto and de jure independent? Check and double-check.

Seriously, this planet was until a few months ago completely unknown to the Federation (or any of its predecessor governments such as United Earth, the USA, or China). None of those governments has done anything for anyone living on the planet. They can’t even apply for membership in the Federation because a united planetary government is a requirement of Federation membership. How dare the Federation assert that it has jurisdiction over this planet on the mere grounds that the inhabitants had very distant ancestors on Earth during the Cold War?

The jurisdiction of the United States reaches to the end of the universe over one of its citizens. Absent any particular reason to believe otherwise, it makes great sense that the Federation would apply the same sort of reasoning and draft the same sort of laws. Indeed, it's all the more vital for them, since their citizens have the ability to actually go to the end of the universe.

Geez, what if they found a planet populated by Human-Klingon hybrids? Who would have jurisdiction over that planet, UFP or Kronos?

Well, that's a weird question.

The real question: V'Ger--Federation citizen?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The real question: V'Ger--Federation citizen?

Or Federation property?

 

[Captrek]

Those who were citizens of the colonies.

There were no citizens of the colonies. There were subjects of the British Empire who were residents of the colonies.

Geez, what if they found a planet populated by Human-Klingon hybrids? Who would have jurisdiction over that planet, UFP or Kronos?

Well, that's a weird question.

I’m serious. It’s a legitimate question.

You have asserted (correct me if I misunderstand you) that if humans leave Earth, find a planet in uncharted, unclaimed space, and their descendants occupy that planet for several centuries before being discovered by the Federation, then that planet and its inhabitants are subject to Federation law, de jure if not de facto.

I presume, by symmetry, that if such a planet were settled and inhabited by Klingons for centuries before being discovered by the Klingon Empire, then that planet and its inhabitants would rightfully be under Imperial jurisdiction.

So what if humans and Klingons go to the same planet and interbreed, and their human-Klingon hybrid descendants occupy the planet for a few centuries before being discovered by the Federation and the Empire? Does the Federation have jurisdiction here, or is it racial purity that entitles the Federation to impose Federation law on our hypothetical Omega IV?

The problem: their states are not sovereign. They are unrecognized governments with less legitimacy combined than Sealand.* Further, Americans cannot renounce their citizenship without complying with the relevant law.

You’re relying on the claim that the distant descendants of emigrants are de jure subject to the law of the place their ancestors left, but that position is untenable.

Britain claims Sealand on the grounds that the sea fort on which it is located, HM Fort Roughs, is and has always been British property. It has nothing to do with the inhabitants or their ancestors being British.

Imagine Americans and Chinese leave Earth together, settle Omega IV, live among each other and interbreed some before splitting into the two nations of Yang and Kohm. The pre-schism, pre-United Earth Omegans can’t be de jure subject to both American law and Chinese law, can they? They can’t be subject to UE or UFP law, as they doesn’t exist yet. How can they not be sovereign? Who else can reasonably claim legitimate sovereignty over these people, some of whom are “crossbreed” descendants of both American and Chinese settlers, and over the planet they inhabit? Obviously their government doesn’t have diplomatic recognition from anybody who is unaware of their existence, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a rightful claim of sovereignty.

 

[skylark14]

Like some of the early first season shows, it depended more on the novelty of Star Trek's premise, than on any additional far-out science fiction premises.

So glad you are here! That's an interesting observation I must mull.

Mudd's Women is about the only episode I haven't watched in the last three years. It's kind of dull, iirc, too.

The leering Spock is AWFUL!

Thanks for the welcome, and I agree leering Spock is awful. That alone breaks my disbelief now that I have come to accept a different personality for him over the years. In the same episode, Mudd says something that sort of implies that Spock may be a very sexual being, just not subject to the messy emotional aspects as humans can be. I think there were a few hints along those lines in the early episodes that quickly disappeared. I'm glad that changed as it made for a more interesting character as it became clearer that he was repressing or struggling internally in all areas.

Anyway, about Mudd's Women, I'm confused by the discussion here because I always thought that the drug was determined to be just a placebo

No, there was a real venus drug, but the pills given to Eve at the end of the episodes were placebo.

Thanks. As there seems to be agreement on this, I guess I've been misinterpreting it over the years so I'll watch it with a different eye next time. I made the assumption that since she had made the transformation without the drug, that the whole Venus drug thing had been just a scam. And the transformation worked just the same way (hair combed, makeup applied etc.) whether drug or placebo. I have misinterpreted other things in this show before and came to see where I was mistaken, so it's very possible.

As far as the other women being uglier, there've been times when I have been afraid and distressed and in a panic, and I went from semi-attractive to sinfully ugly just about as quickly as these beauty drug addicts did, so that alone is not total proof for me. Sorry I didn't add the quote for that particular thought but I'm having trouble figuring out how to put in everybody's quotes in one post. I guess you have to put all the quotes in first and then go back and fill in your responses.

I seem to have broken into the middle of discussions about Omega Glory and Paradise Syndrome. Both are in my least favorite show categories, and are full of things that break my disbelief. The discussion on these has got too technical for me beyond saying that. I think I tend to be most intrigued by the shows that have a lot of dialog and internal drama.

 

[skylark14]

edit: oh, the early episode wear kirk is surprised/agitated he gets a female as yeoman - so much for the 23rd century politically correct paradise

Yes, this is a good example, and does jar me every time I see it. Sometimes it seemed the early 20th century world that formed the writers would peek out in the oddest places in the scripts they wrote. What's surprising is that no one could see them and pluck them out before they made it to the screen. That just shows out deeply rooted these ideas were in everybody's psyche, and I guess just goes to show what a mental stretch it was for all the creators to build this future world. Overall I think they did a decent job; it certainly grabbed onto my psyche with a powerful grip and hasn't ever completely let go.

 

[Captrek]

edit: oh, the early episode wear kirk is surprised/agitated he gets a female as yeoman - so much for the 23rd century politically correct paradise

Yes, this is a good example, and does jar me every time I see it. Sometimes it seemed the early 20th century world that formed the writers would peek out in the oddest places in the scripts they wrote. What's surprising is that no one could see them and pluck them out before they made it to the screen.

The goal wasn’t to create an accurate depiction of what the world is likely to resemble in the 23rd century. The goal was to tell stories that would appeal to American audiences in 1966-69. Roddenberry may have believed that gays will be treated as equals in the 23rd century and I certainly do, but a gay captain would almost certainly have kept the show off the air, and if it did air the gay captain would have repelled viewers. The show had to reflect values and fashions reasonably close to those of the time and place in which it was made, however transitory they may be.

 

[scotpens]

There were no citizens of the colonies. There were subjects of the British Empire who were residents of the colonies. They left England and settled unclaimed territory (Native Americans notwithstanding); that makes them British, by your own assertion.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence didn’t make anyone an American citizen. It simply asserted that the thirteen colonies considered themselves “free and independent States” and were willing to fight for that status. I would assume that United States citizenship didn’t legally exist until Vermont became the last state to ratify the Constitution, leading Congress to formally adopt the document, in January of 1791.

edit: oh, the early episode wear kirk is surprised/agitated he gets a female as yeoman - so much for the 23rd century politically correct paradise

Yes, this is a good example, and does jar me every time I see it. Sometimes it seemed the early 20th century world that formed the writers would peek out in the oddest places in the scripts they wrote. What's surprising is that no one could see them and pluck them out before they made it to the screen.

That’s very much a generational thing. When Star Trek premiered on NBC, Kirk’s irritation at being assigned a female yeoman — and numerous other examples of the show’s “sexism” (a word that didn’t exist at the time) didn’t seem jarring or inappropriate to me at all. Funny, though — we never saw any male yeomen in the original series, did we? At least no characters were identified as such.

 

[Captrek]

Funny, though — we never saw any male yeomen in the original series, did we? At least no characters were identified as such.

I think you’re right. However, there was at least one in TAS (look at 6:43 in the video below). Also, the conspirators Burke and Samno are yeomen in TUC.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjYacGPmkP4[/yt]

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The Mark of Gideon is another. Sure, do an episode dealing with the problems of overpopulation, but taking it so far that people literally only have room to all stand together in a giant crowd is just absurd. Add to that the Gideonites' overly convoluted plan with the duplicate Enterprise and the whole thing just falls apart.

And they reject contraception because of their great love for life, so they figure the better way to deal with excessive birth rates is to introduce a lethal plague into the population.

Actually that's not to unbelievable when you consider that their are pro-lifers that support the death penalty.

 

[scotpens]

Actually that's not to unbelievable when you consider that their are pro-lifers that support the death penalty.

My personal views notwithstanding, I can understand the rationale of those who oppose abortion and support the death penalty, or those who support legal abortion and oppose the death penalty, as well as those against both or in favor of both.

But that’s a topic for TNZ.

 

[Myasishchev]

Those who were citizens of the colonies.

There were no citizens of the colonies. There were subjects of the British Empire who were residents of the colonies.

Colonies was a poor choice of words, but I used it to identify the thirteen states which existed prior to Union. The people who lived there were citizens of NY, NJ, Georgia, etc.

The United States achieved sovereignty by force of arms, recognition of other powers such as France and Spain, and a treaty signed by the government of the United Kingdom. The U.S. achieved statehood under both constitutive (recongition-based) and declarative (fact-based) standards of state creation.

But the Yangs and Kohms never did any of these things. Even under a declarative standard (requiring 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states) they lack at least a defined territory, and you could make an argument about whether the Yangs have a government.

I would note that "capacity to enter into relations with other states" is evidently no hurdle to sovereignty for the Federation, insofar as no pre-warp planet could be sovereign under that definition.

Well, that's a weird question.

I’m serious. It’s a legitimate question.

You have asserted (correct me if I misunderstand you) that if humans leave Earth, find a planet in uncharted, unclaimed space, and their descendants occupy that planet for several centuries before being discovered by the Federation, then that planet and its inhabitants are subject to Federation law, de jure if not de facto.

I presume, by symmetry, that if such a planet were settled and inhabited by Klingons for centuries before being discovered by the Klingon Empire, then that planet and its inhabitants would rightfully be under Imperial jurisdiction.

So what if humans and Klingons go to the same planet and interbreed, and their human-Klingon hybrid descendants occupy the planet for a few centuries before being discovered by the Federation and the Empire? Does the Federation have jurisdiction here, or is it racial purity that entitles the Federation to impose Federation law on our hypothetical Omega IV?[/quote]

All right, it's a valid enough question. The fact that there are two competing claims (or three, counting a claim of inherent sovereignty) would really muddy the waters. I suppose it would really depend on what Fed law, Klingon law, and interstellar law says.

That's pretty much been my position--Fed law controls the situation on Omega, but absent any special reason to think otherwise, why wouldn't the great-grandsons of American (or Chinese) citizens be Federation citizens, just like every other great-grandson of American and Chinese citizens? What about the physical separation to an unclaimed planet makes them special enough to evade that classification?

The problem: their states are not sovereign. They are unrecognized governments with less legitimacy combined than Sealand.* Further, Americans cannot renounce their citizenship without complying with the relevant law.

You’re relying on the claim that the distant descendants of emigrants are de jure subject to the law of the place their ancestors left, but that position is untenable.[/quote]

I think it's totally tenable. It's certainly never been adjudicated either way.

magine Americans and Chinese leave Earth together, settle Omega IV, live among each other and interbreed some before splitting into the two nations of Yang and Kohm. The pre-schism, pre-United Earth Omegans can’t be de jure subject to both American law and Chinese law, can they? They can’t be subject to UE or UFP law, as they doesn’t exist yet. How can they not be sovereign? Who else can reasonably claim legitimate sovereignty over these people, some of whom are “crossbreed” descendants of both American and Chinese settlers, and over the planet they inhabit? Obviously their government doesn’t have diplomatic recognition from anybody who is unaware of their existence, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a rightful claim of sovereignty.

That is, admittedly, a difficult question never faced by modern courts, so far as I am aware. But it's still a jump, I feel, to go from "this is a hard issue of international law" to "they're an independent nation (or pair of nations)."

 

[Too Much Fun]

Which episode most breaks your suspension of disbelief?

Probably "Plato's Stepchildren" and "...And the Children Shall Lead", which feature some of the most laughable and unconvincing excuses for malevolent aliens I've ever seen.

Also, the Plato freaks do some things that I can't imagine aliens ever wanting to do to humans. You're going to punish humans by making them prance, walk around on all fours, and kiss? Two questions: "Why?" and "Who Cares?"

These episodes completely broke my suspension of disbelief, and while they were at it, they also broke my heart and crushed my soul. Worst episodes ever.

 

[Captrek]

But the Yangs and Kohms never did any of these things. Even under a declarative standard (requiring 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states) they lack at least a defined territory, and you could make an argument about whether the Yangs have a government.

Presumably, the Yangs before the war had a functioning government and well-defined territory. If that is no longer the case you could certainly argue that any sovereignty they may have had before the war was lost to conquest by the Kohms, making the Kohms sovereign over the whole planet at least until such time as the Yangs are able to take back, hold, and govern territory.

It’s quite a jump to go from “The postbellum Yangs have lost de facto sovereignty” to “The UFP is the de jure sovereign.”

That's pretty much been my position--Fed law controls the situation on Omega, but absent any special reason to think otherwise, why wouldn't the great-grandsons of American (or Chinese) citizens be Federation citizens, just like every other great-grandson of American and Chinese citizens?

With some brief searching, I was unable to locate any documentation formally laying out international legal standards defining sovereignty and citizenship, and it’s a jump to assume that any such legal standards would still apply in the future depicted in Star Trek, so I can’t really make a formal argument. I’ll just wing it.

One standard is realism: this planet has been governed exclusively by its own inhabitants for many centuries without any help from the UFP. That is, de facto sovereignty, maintained for long enough, endows de jure sovereignty. There are many nations in the world whose governments did not initially come to power through recognized legal means, but by virtue of the fact that held and governed their nations they were quickly recognized as legitimate governments. While there are some exceptions (Taiwan and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan come to mind), de facto governments are usually recognized as de jure governments.

Another standard of course is self-determination.

What about the physical separation to an unclaimed planet makes them special enough to evade that classification?

Suppose I, as an American citizen, leave America for, say, Mexico. I marry a Mexican woman and have children born in Mexico, who in turn do likewise. My descendants are not Americans subject to American law. I’m not the one claiming that the uncharted status of the planet changes their classification in that respect, you are.

You’re relying on the claim that the distant descendants of emigrants are de jure subject to the law of the place their ancestors left, but that position is untenable.

I think it's totally tenable. It's certainly never been adjudicated either way.

I’m going to need a credible reference for that. I don’t think your position is solidly founded in international law.

Your position that they owe fealty not only to the nation their ancestors left but to the physical location they left (i.e., that descendants of Britons who left London are still British, but descendants of Britons who left pre-Revolutionary New York are now American) is especially problematic.

Imagine a group of Spaniards left colonial San Diego for a remote island in unclaimed Pacific waters and governed themselves until being discovered today. Washington tells them, “Your ancestors left San Diego. Quick update on what has happened since then: In 1821 Mexico won independence from Spain and San Diego became part of Mexico, and in 1848 it was ceded to the United States as a result of the Mexican-American war. As a result you are now Americans and have been since 1848. You owe us 162 years of back taxes. Also in accordance with American law, you need to start teaching English in your public schools and get rid of those crucifixes on public land — and it’s all public land, since no legitimate government has ever recognized any individual claims to any of it.” Do you think that would be a legitimate claim under international law?

That is, admittedly, a difficult question never faced by modern courts, so far as I am aware. But it's still a jump, I feel, to go from "this is a hard issue of international law" to "they're an independent nation (or pair of nations)."

Admittedly, I have not proved that they have satisfied the criteria for establishing sovereignty. Absent a credible specification of those criteria, it would be impossible for me to do so, but I believe they probably have been satisfied.

Still I maintain that you are clinging to an untenable standard that distant descendants of settlers in uncharted lands are subject to the laws of the location their ancestors left. Consideration of the paradoxes that ensue if they have ancestors from more than one place, IMO, conclusively establishes the inviability of your standard. The absurdity of asserting American jurisdiction over the descendants of Spanish colonials from pre-Mexico San Diego is another nail in the coffin of that standard.

Even if I haven’t proven that the Yangs or Kohms are de jure sovereign — which I believe they are — I think I have effectively spiked the claim that Omega IV was ever reasonably subject to USA, PROC, UE, or UFP jurisdiction.

 

[Myasishchev]

I really think the main problem is that this is a problem that no court today could face. To frame the issue thusly: to what extent does the political unification of the human race affect human beings born prior to such unification and in a location unreachable by any then-extant government's sovereignty.

I readily agree that without the UE, my position could be considered untenable. But it makes a huge difference.

In your Mexican-American (rather, American-Mexican) example, I believe American law extinguishes citizenship at some point, but your children would be US citizens, I know (since they're born in wedlock--actually, that's assuming you're male, there is no special requirement if your kids were born out of wedlock and you're female, since proving maternity is trivial). The important thing about the American-Mexican example is that you're going somewhere under the rule of a sovereign government, and breeding with someone whose citizenship conflicts with yours. In the Yangs and Kohms case, neither condition holds: Omega is no man's land, and the Americans and Chinese are citizens of the same state.

In the Spaniards' case, they would likeliest, I think, assumed to be citizens of Spain, although they may be able to claim Mexican citizneship or American citizenship. Their island would probably be Spanish as well, although Mexican is a strong possibility; I don't think it would be American, as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, I believe, specifically ceded only North American holdings. But, the island might be claimed by somebody else, or under some sort of treaty; I don't think there's any land left not governed by some kind of law. (Iirc, including land on Mars. Or Omega. Clearly the Outer Space Treaty is null in the future. Although, on the other hand, if it weren't, then no government on Omega could be considered sovereign. )