Don't mind Edit_XYZ -- he always favors the jingoistic policy and imperial domination by the UFP over the ideal of mutual coexistence and peaceful resolution of conflict. To him, any solution to problems that doesn't involve the Federation using its military to impose its will on others constitutes "defeatism."
Really?
With you, Sci, straw-men never end.
Feel free to point out the posts where I supposedly said it.
I stand by my assessment. Every time you have criticized the
Destiny trilogy, and here where you criticize the
Typhon Pact series, your words indicate a jingoistic value system in which any foreign agents who engage in any level of hostilities must represent the entirety of their societies, in which the idea of moral ambiguity or complexity on the part of the "enemy" is disregarded, and in which anything other than battle is disrespected.
There's just no other underlying value system in which the idea that people have "submitted to defeat" is credible just because the narrative doesn't depict their attempts to forge new weapons as being successful, or in which the role of factionalism in foreign states is disregarded, or in which the possibility of peacefully overcoming differences is ignored. You constantly portray the "other" in the most belligerent terms possible. I don't see any other conclusion to come to about what's driving your words.
Of course you stand by your assessment.
If one removes the straw-men, rhetoric and name-calling from your posts, you are left with nothing.
So, dude, let's look a little at your latest straw-man:
In the Typhon Pact books, the nakedly aggressive and/or morally reprehensible actions of all its featured members - tholians, breen, romulans, tzenkethi, gorn - were explicitly said to be decided or ratified by their governments.
And if opposing factions were presented (breen, romulans) these were explicitly established as minorities with no influence. In some cases (tzenkethi) it was established that their societal structure negated the existence of any such significant factions.
And, as for your implication that the borg are not presented as higly aggressive in the 'destiny' series -
.
The books presented the borg and the Typhon Pact as highly aggressive - with little or no ambiguity involved. I am objective and see the Pact as it is in the books.
But you - you pull pacifist factions and ambiguity in the Pact's actions out of your behind in order to make the Pact look better - just because you don't like how it's presented.
And you recourse to straw-men - and name-calling, when someone calls you out on your non-sense.
ˈinstiNGkt Noun:
1. An innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli: "predatory instincts".
2. A natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking: "rely on your instincts".
Neither definition relies upon genetics per se. For instance, homosexuality is generally considered "instinctive" to those who are gay, but the most common theory today is that it's the result of differences in hormone exposure in uteri, not a function of genetics per se. And that's to say nothing of the phenomenon people in the armed forces or law enforcement report of their training -- that is, behavioral conditioning -- "taking over," as if by instinct, during a fight, without their being in conscious control. "Instinct" is a generic and highly unscientific term for a lot of different responses that may or may not be genetic in origin, and behavioral conditioning can lead to the development of new "instincts."
Pointless hair splitting.
"1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
Read Deranged Nasat's post again - he used instinct as biological conditioning, not as intuition, etc AKA for an apologist ~'it's not the gorn's fault they're racist; they're biologically determined to be so' argument.
Of course, the facts never prevented you from coming up with non-sense, Sci.
That seems to have been what he and other posters have been saying, yes. Especially in light of Christopher's post about several positive interactions between the Gorn and UFP.
Which ignores 'Seize the fire'
What part of
Seize the Fire establishes the Gorn government to have been behind the Gorn's terraforming attempt? Other posters have consistently reported that
Seize the Fire establishes this to have been the work of a rogue Warrior caste faction, not of the government itself; what part of the novel establishes them to be wrong? What paragraph are they overlooking?
Further, what part of
Seize the Fire establishes the Gorn government to be hostile to, or to have a history of hostility towards, the Federation?
'
Seize the Fire establishes this to have been the work of a rogue Warrior caste faction'?
Don't insult other posters by attributing such words to them. You're the only one who contradicts the established facts to this extent.
Logic (a skill you have yet to master) 1:1 - repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
'Seize the fire' directly establishes that the central gorn government sanctioned the attempted planetary genocide. You want the paragraph? - search for it yourself.
You know what job would be ideal for you, Sci? Any position at the 'Ministry of truth' from Orwell's 1984.
