True or False: Dear Dr. is most morally bankrupt trek episode evar

[horatio83]

Why don't you say then immediately that you want to see an anti-PD story?

I want a balanced Prime Directive story.

Plenty of instances where the Prime Directive is broken and everybody is happy with it. I mentioned Pen Pals and TOS, a series which you know better than me, seems to feature more such examples.

 

[BillJ]

Why don't you say then immediately that you want to see an anti-PD story?

I want a balanced Prime Directive story.

Plenty of instances where the Prime Directive is broken and everybody is happy with it. I mentioned Pen Pals and TOS, a series which you know better than me, seems to feature more such examples.

Actually, I think Pen Pals is probably the most balanced of the Prime Directive stories and I'd also mention Symbiosis. It's not about how it ends, it's about how they get to that end point.

 

[Miss Lemon]

Talk about another self-righteous guy.

Instead of going at him ad hominem, you could have at least tried to offer some kind of valid counter argument.

It's not like he's going to respond, right?

Why don't you try to built your case yourself, preferably without the big words and latin and all...?

 

[Mach5]

It's not like he's going to respond, right?

Missing the point.

Why don't you try to built your case yourself, preferably without the big words and latin and all...?

I did my best, but my field is structural engineering, not biology.

And the term "ad hominem" is so common, it's practically Internet lingo.

 

[sonak]

Interesting perspective, but that is one person's opinion. Other people, obviously, disagree with that assessment. Each person here gets to have an opinion, whether it is that Archer/Phlox was right, that they were wrong, or something in between. There is no correct answer here, no matter how invested you are in your own opinion.

HopefulRomantic has asked everyone very nicely to tone it down. I am not feeling so nice, so listen up. Enough with the personal attacks, the grudges dragged in from other discussions, and the general disrespect. If you have something new to add, feel free to do so -- civilly. If you've made your point once or several times already, then move on. Any more ad hominem shots will get infractions for trolling. Clear? Good.

Carry on.

arrgh, but that was my whole point. It's not opinion. It's fact that evolution does NOT work that way. Scientific concepts are not like "do you prefer ENT or VOY?"


And as the other poster pointed out, once you get that, you realize that there is no "dilemma." It just falls away.

 

[Miss Lemon]

It's not like he's going to respond, right?

Missing the point.

Why don't you try to built your case yourself, preferably without the big words and latin and all...?

I did my best, but my field is structural engineering, not biology.

And the term "ad hominem" is so common, it's practically Internet lingo.

Awww, don't get cranky; I was just teasing you, hence the wink smiley. You seem to forget that I don't need convincing.

I like hearing different views on a subject, but I just can't set myself to listen to people who claim the Truth and guffah at other people's opinions. I don't think that reviewer is trying to enlighten people with his smart ideas, he's just out there to insult.

 

[Sindatur]

Interesting perspective, but that is one person's opinion. Other people, obviously, disagree with that assessment. Each person here gets to have an opinion, whether it is that Archer/Phlox was right, that they were wrong, or something in between. There is no correct answer here, no matter how invested you are in your own opinion.

HopefulRomantic has asked everyone very nicely to tone it down. I am not feeling so nice, so listen up. Enough with the personal attacks, the grudges dragged in from other discussions, and the general disrespect. If you have something new to add, feel free to do so -- civilly. If you've made your point once or several times already, then move on. Any more ad hominem shots will get infractions for trolling. Clear? Good.

Carry on.

arrgh, but that was my whole point. It's not opinion. It's fact that evolution does NOT work that way. Scientific concepts are not like "do you prefer ENT or VOY?"


And as the other poster pointed out, once you get that, you realize that there is no "dilemma." It just falls away.

There's no warp drive or transporters either. Why are they Okay, but, predicting Evolution means the script should've been tossed in the garbage?

 

[sonak]

Interesting perspective, but that is one person's opinion. Other people, obviously, disagree with that assessment. Each person here gets to have an opinion, whether it is that Archer/Phlox was right, that they were wrong, or something in between. There is no correct answer here, no matter how invested you are in your own opinion.

HopefulRomantic has asked everyone very nicely to tone it down. I am not feeling so nice, so listen up. Enough with the personal attacks, the grudges dragged in from other discussions, and the general disrespect. If you have something new to add, feel free to do so -- civilly. If you've made your point once or several times already, then move on. Any more ad hominem shots will get infractions for trolling. Clear? Good.

Carry on.

arrgh, but that was my whole point. It's not opinion. It's fact that evolution does NOT work that way. Scientific concepts are not like "do you prefer ENT or VOY?"


And as the other poster pointed out, once you get that, you realize that there is no "dilemma." It just falls away.

There's no warp drive or transporters either. Why are they Okay, but, predicting Evolution means the script should've been tossed in the garbage?

As I pointed out earlier to Miss Lemon, the difference is that this time the pseudoscience was used as a justification for an atrocity. Viewers watching this show could start to apply "lessons" from that absurd view of evolution, as it's somewhat similar to Eugenics and Social Darwinism.

If it's just nonsense pseudo-science that has no bearing on anything in the real world like "Threshold," then it's different.

 

[Mach5]

Awww, don't get cranky; I was just teasing you, hence the wink smiley.

Wink smiley can often be interpreted as offensive. As in, "you're adorable!"

But don't worry, the only time I actually took offense on these boards was when a certain poster told me my country didn't even exist any more. Water under the bridge.

You seem to forget that I don't need convincing.

I don't. From what I've seen, you don't believe Archer and Phlox did the right thing, but that doesn't make you dislike the episode. I'm perfectly okay with that.

I don't think that reviewer is trying to enlighten people with his smart ideas, he's just out there to insult.

My impression was that he was trying to shake people out of ignorance. Could have been more subtle, though.

 

[Sindatur]

arrgh, but that was my whole point. It's not opinion. It's fact that evolution does NOT work that way. Scientific concepts are not like "do you prefer ENT or VOY?"


And as the other poster pointed out, once you get that, you realize that there is no "dilemma." It just falls away.

There's no warp drive or transporters either. Why are they Okay, but, predicting Evolution means the script should've been tossed in the garbage?

As I pointed out earlier to Miss Lemon, the difference is that this time the pseudoscience was used as a justification for an atrocity. Viewers watching this show could start to apply "lessons" from that absurd view of evolution, as it's somewhat similar to Eugenics and Social Darwinism.

If it's just nonsense pseudo-science that has no bearing on anything in the real world like "Threshold," then it's different.

Eh...I don't really see the difference. Sure, I can understand you believing it was poorly written and therefore you not liking the episode, but, that was how they chose to write it, and to present that dilemma, so, you can't simply dismiss the dilemma, and say there was no dliemma, because you don't like the device they used to drive the dilemma.

 

[horatio83]

Yep, it's nitpicking, like saying that Tuvix is a bad episode because the biology behind it sucks. Not that Dear Doctor is about biology and evolution to begin with, it is about social stuff, the relation between two cultures and the decision to not assist either at the cost of the other.

 

[sonak]

There's no warp drive or transporters either. Why are they Okay, but, predicting Evolution means the script should've been tossed in the garbage?

As I pointed out earlier to Miss Lemon, the difference is that this time the pseudoscience was used as a justification for an atrocity. Viewers watching this show could start to apply "lessons" from that absurd view of evolution, as it's somewhat similar to Eugenics and Social Darwinism.

If it's just nonsense pseudo-science that has no bearing on anything in the real world like "Threshold," then it's different.

Eh...I don't really see the difference. Sure, I can understand you believing it was poorly written and therefore you not liking the episode, but, that was how they chose to write it, and to present that dilemma, so, you can't simply dismiss the dilemma, and say there was no dliemma, because you don't like the device they used to drive the dilemma.

no, see the difference is that evolution is a real-world concept, it's just presented wrongly in this episode. In fact, I doubt that the writers of it thought that they were writing pseudoscience intentionally. I think that they thought they were creating a "genuine" dilemma because they really don't understand evolution.

I can say that "Tuvix" is a dilemma" because it's all pseudoscience. But I can say "Dear Doctor is NOT because again, there really is something called evolution and it doesn't work this way.


I hope I clarified. Maybe not.

 

[Sindatur]

As I pointed out earlier to Miss Lemon, the difference is that this time the pseudoscience was used as a justification for an atrocity. Viewers watching this show could start to apply "lessons" from that absurd view of evolution, as it's somewhat similar to Eugenics and Social Darwinism.

If it's just nonsense pseudo-science that has no bearing on anything in the real world like "Threshold," then it's different.

Eh...I don't really see the difference. Sure, I can understand you believing it was poorly written and therefore you not liking the episode, but, that was how they chose to write it, and to present that dilemma, so, you can't simply dismiss the dilemma, and say there was no dliemma, because you don't like the device they used to drive the dilemma.

no, see the difference is that evolution is a real-world concept, it's just presented wrongly in this episode. In fact, I doubt that the writers of it thought that they were writing pseudoscience intentionally. I think that they thought they were creating a "genuine" dilemma because they really don't understand evolution.

I can say that "Tuvix" is a dilemma" because it's all pseudoscience. But I can say "Dear Doctor is NOT because again, there really is something called evolution and it doesn't work this way.


I hope I clarified. Maybe not.

Doesn't matter, IMHO, again, yea, you can call it bad science and bad writing and not like the episode, but, that's how they set up the dilemma, so the dilemma exists in the context of the episode.

 

[Mach5]

Doesn't matter, IMHO, again, yea, you can call it bad science and bad writing and not like the episode, but, that's how they set up the dilemma, so the dilemma exists in the context of the episode.

But the whole basis of the "dilemma" is evolution. If we are to accept the dilemma and put it under consideration, we first need to assume that Phlox's concept of evolution is correct. And it isn't.

Phlox and Archer withheld the cure out of fear of interfering with the Menk's natural evolution. There was no other reason. And since their fear was unfounded, so was the dilemma.

 

[Sindatur]

Doesn't matter, IMHO, again, yea, you can call it bad science and bad writing and not like the episode, but, that's how they set up the dilemma, so the dilemma exists in the context of the episode.

But the whole basis of the "dilemma" is evolution. If we are to accept the dilemma and put it under consideration, we first need to assume that Phlox's concept of evolution is correct. And it isn't.

Phlox and Archer withheld the cure out of fear of interfering with the Menk's natural evolution. There was no other reason. And since their fear was unfounded, so was the dilemma.

Except the Valakians were holding the Menk back, just like Black Slaves weren't allowed to read, or Muslim girls aren't allowed to become educated in some countries. The Valakians enjoyed the Menk's servitude and wouldn't allow them to expand their education. The reason many of their were "ape-like" could very well be due to being uneducated and being held back, since some of them showed themselves to be quite intelligent and quite able to learn quickly. So, the dilemma is still there.

 

[horatio83]

The Menk are already quite intelligent, they speak and when Phlox takes his samples one of the Menk arranges them unasked according to family relations and so on. The point is not that they could evolve biologically, that takes thousands of years, but rather that they could evolve culturally with the Valakians being no more around as carekeepers.
The other side of the equation, the genetic disease of the Valakians, is of course an evolutionary matter and Phlox' comparison with Neanderthals is correct. No idea where the pseudo science is supposed to be. And as you pointed out, even if were scientifically flawed it wouldn't matter as the Menk end of the equation is the important one. Doesn't matter why the Valakians might cease to be, all that matters for the dilemma is that via helping the Valakians you might hurt the Menk.

 

[sonak]

Doesn't matter, IMHO, again, yea, you can call it bad science and bad writing and not like the episode, but, that's how they set up the dilemma, so the dilemma exists in the context of the episode.

But the whole basis of the "dilemma" is evolution. If we are to accept the dilemma and put it under consideration, we first need to assume that Phlox's concept of evolution is correct. And it isn't.

Phlox and Archer withheld the cure out of fear of interfering with the Menk's natural evolution. There was no other reason. And since their fear was unfounded, so was the dilemma.

Except the Valakians were holding the Menk back, just like Black Slaves weren't allowed to read, or Muslim girls aren't allowed to become educated in some countries. The Valakians enjoyed the Menk's servitude and wouldn't allow them to expand their education. The reason many of their were "ape-like" could very well be due to being uneducated and being held back, since some of them showed themselves to be quite intelligent and quite able to learn quickly. So, the dilemma is still there.

So instead of just assuming there'd be a civil rights movement in that society, you leap to justifying witholding a cure?

Again, apply this logic to history. Are you saying that if a disease were striking white Americans in the 1930s, then another country shouldn't help them because of Jim Crow laws?


Also, what do you think happens to the Menk if the Valakians are gone, if they're "dependent" on them?

 

[horatio83]

The two species are in a symbiotic relationship, i.e. the Menk do not perceive the Valakans as evil.

HOSHI: The Valakians don't let them live where the land is fertile.
HOSHI: The Valakians give them whatever they need. Food, clothing, medicine.
HOSHI: He says the Valakians are good to them. They protect them.

So your civil rights movement idea is nonsensical and a result of our human perception of the Menk as exploited. Which is the core of the issue, forcing human values down other species' throats while believing that you are doing something ethical. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


I already mentioned what I guess to happen when the Valakians slowly die, the Menk would probably start to rely more and more on their own.
If the Valakian assistance is cut off relatively sharply the transition period might very well be nasty and imply a lot of suffering but sooner or later they will learn to grow food, build a new society, prosper and culturally evolve unlike in this relatively static relationship with the Valakians.

 

[sonak]

The two species are in a symbiotic relationship, i.e. the Menk do not perceive the Valakans as evil.

HOSHI: The Valakians don't let them live where the land is fertile.
HOSHI: The Valakians give them whatever they need. Food, clothing, medicine.
HOSHI: He says the Valakians are good to them. They protect them.

So your civil rights movement idea is nonsensical and a result of our human perception of the Menk as exploited. Which is the core of the issue, forcing human values down other species' throats while believing that you are doing something ethical. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


I already mentioned what I guess to happen when the Valakians slowly die, the Menk would probably start to rely more and more on their own.
If the Valakian assistance is cut off relatively sharply the transition period might very well be nasty and imply a lot of suffering but sooner or later they will learn to grow food, build a new society, prosper and culturally evolve unlike in this relatively static relationship with the Valakians.

Your argument continues to boil down to "they're alien, so they're different. Our values are totally different."

If that's the case, then there's no point in debating any issues with Trek aliens on this message board.

"Cardassians were cruelly oppressing the Bajorans." You're imposing your values.

" the Borg enslave cultures and societies in their Collective."

You're imposing your values.

Either we discuss the situations that come up with our own understanding, or it becomes pointless. Relativism is circular and self-defeating.

 

[horatio83]

I am fully aware of the horrible implications of the Prime Directive, you let millions of people die.
You on the other hand deny the implications of your ethical stance. Once you proclaim human values to be absolutes in the galaxy you have to enforce them everywhere. In this instance this implies curing the Valakans and convincing the Menk that they are exploited plus assisting them in their fight against their oppressors. Same in the case of Cogenitor, you have to help these people free themselves and thus engage in a conflict with a world of billions of inhabitants.
Of course you deny it as you do even deny that there is a dilemma. So yeah, I agree that the discussion becomes pointless.