I hope for more traditional space battles

[yousirname]

That first attack did a lot of damage to the Enterprise including reducing its speed to warp four. So one torpedo is a significant threat (if Nero had had any). You yourself quote Sulu saying they couldn't take two hits from the Narada even with sheilds up. But you are arguing Nero wouldn't bother trying to take a few more humans (maybe even Kirk and Spock) with him if he could? I don't think so.

Let's say that you're right, and that 'Fire everything' indicates that the torpedo bays are empty and the Narada has no shot left in the locker. I don't agree that we can infer that reliably, but for the sake of argument let's stipulate that. It doesn't change things from Kirk's POV because Kirk didn't hear Nero say "Fire everything". Chekov tells Kirk the Narada is losing power and that her shields are down. He doesn't mention a loss of weapon capacity. So even if in fact Nero has no weapons, Kirk doesn't know that he has no weapons.

Well I'm glad of that but that is not the problem. You seem to have misunderstood my question. I asked how much time (from their lives) is it OK to take from them?

I answered that question: Any amount of time is fine so long as the conditions can be expected to remain the same if the events are allowed to play out without pulling the trigger.

And what gives anyone the right to make that decision just because they are going to die at some unspecified point in the future? I am trying to find the ethical principle you are using here. So far it seems if we are talking a couple of seconds its fine, but what about longer periods? There is not apparent logical end point.

It's a complicated issue that in general involves questions of what can be known and what can be reasonably foreseen, as well as what it means to do 'harm' to someone. In real life, these questions almost universally remain too complex and too difficult to resolve for any kind of certain response It is ethically permissible to kill this person to come about.

The movies are different from real life, however, and the situation is one where we have much more information and much greater certainty than can usually be obtained IRL. We know the following about Nero:

His death is imminent and inevitable

It can be avoided with Kirk's help

Given the exhaustive and compulsory choice 'Die or accept Kirk's help' Nero prefers death

Kirk can reasonably suppose that attempting to forcibly rescue Nero represents an unacceptable risk to him or to his crew or to his ship, or to all of the above

No-one currently exists who will mourn Nero

What the above facts do is remove, one by one, every objection I can raise to Kirk pulling the trigger.

Your suggestion it has something to do with Kirk's impression about Nero's chances of changing his mind are not just subjective and arbitrary but don't address the question. Which is: Why is it OK to kill someone just because their death is inevitable (aren't we still robbing them of their life however short), and does the amount of time they have left change how or if it is "OK". Other factors are not relevant. I would be greatful if you could keep that in mind.

As I said, I already answered the time question. Yes, we are still 'robbing them of their life'. From my point of view, all the reasons that it is typically wrong to do that are absent here.

A) Of course it matters if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans. You are trying to claim he was indifferent to his death. Accepting Romulan help would show he isn't.
B) The issue has nothing to do with his actual options but solely how he felt about his death.
C) His preference for death in that situation does not in any way suggest he is indifferent to it or welcomes it.

A) No, it doesn't matter. His rescue by Romulans is a counterfactual - something that manifestly is not the case. Nero would also be happy not to be in a black hole - but he is. Given that fact, his only options are to die or to be rescued by Kirk and he knows this to be true.

B) Of course it has to do with his actual options. If he had viable options for rescue acceptable to him, he wouldn't be telling Kirk anything except 'Get off the line, I'm arranging my rescue'. But he doesn't, so given the only two options available to him, he makes his choice very clear.

C) He chooses death rather than to be rescued. He is sufficiently indifferent to his death to make a choice that he knows will lead to it.

BTW counterfactuals are theoretical exercises. It doesn't matter if the Romulans are really there. All that matters is what Nero would do if they were.

No, that has no bearing whatsoever on anything, in the slightest degree, and here is why: What if there's a crazed Vulcan on board the Enterprise who can and will blow the Enterprise up if Kirk doesn't pull the trigger? Will you allow that it doesn't matter if the crazed Vulcan is actually there? Of course not.

Counterfactuals are indeed theoretical exercises, but they operate by the assumption of their being the case - and I agree that if it were possible for Romulans to rescue Nero and if he were prepared to accept that then Kirk would be wrong to pull the trigger. Counterfactuals do not serve as some phantom objection to any given action, however, as I trust the example above makes clear.

 

[F. King Daniel]

 

[DalekJim]

I see paragraphs?

 

[F. King Daniel]

But "Paragraphs, paragraphs everywhere" isn't as funny.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But "Paragraphs, paragraphs everywhere" isn't as funny.

Yeah but continuity.

 

[UFO]

... So even if in fact Nero has no weapons, Kirk doesn't know that he has no weapons.

Ignoring sensors, observed damage, and such like, the fact that Nero is talking rather than shooting might be clue. If he is so offended by Kirk I am not even sure there was a point in talking anyway.

... The movies are different from real life, however, and the situation is one where we have much more information and much greater certainty than can usually be obtained IRL. We know the following about Nero:

And I don’t agree we (nor Kirk) know the things you went on to assume we do. Eg. We don’t know Krik can save Nero. Kirk barely saved himself! Not that knowing them would justify anything in my view. The assumption it does is your unsupported opinion.

As I said, I already answered the time question. Yes, we are still 'robbing them of their life'. From my point of view, all the reasons that it is typically wrong to do that are absent here.

How strange. I would not have said that any of the reasons you give are why it is typically wrong to do that. It is mostly wrong because we are robbing Nero or anyone in his position of their remaining life and that hasn't been removed.

A) Of course it matters if Nero would be happy to be rescued by Romulans. You are trying to claim he was indifferent to his death. Accepting Romulan help would show he isn't.

A) No, it doesn't matter. His rescue by Romulans is a counterfactual - something that manifestly is not the case. Nero would also be happy not to be in a black hole - but he is. Given that fact, his only options are to die or to be rescued by Kirk and he knows this to be true.

In short, if Nero would be happy not to be in a blackhole, or to be rescued from such a predicament, then he his clearly not "indifferent to his death" (one of your conditions for it being OK to shoot him). This is what the hypothetical tells us. This was its purpose, not to give Nero options he doesn't have. The most you can say is, given his actual situation, he is resigned to his fate. But that is a very different thing.

Your mistake, it seems to me, is in assuming that someone making a choice that leads to their death implies that such a person is indifferent to their death. Obviously there are many situations where that isn’t the case such as when someone puts their life at risk to protect their children. In no way are they indifferent to death. Neither is Nero as far as we can tell.

Of course it is ironic to spend so much effort on such an obvious point, only to have it be irrelevant to the question of whether it is right to kill someone if they did have that state of mind in Nero's position. Quite frankly it wouldn't change anything. Killing them would still be wrong. As far as I can see, you can't base general moral principles on such subjective and arbitrary opinions. Neither yours nor the ones you assign to Kirk.

BTW counterfactuals are theoretical exercises. It doesn't matter if the Romulans are really there. All that matters is what Nero would do if they were.

No, that has no bearing whatsoever on anything, in the slightest degree, and here is why: What if there's a crazed Vulcan on board the Enterprise who can and will blow the Enterprise up if Kirk doesn't pull the trigger? Will you allow that it doesn't matter if the crazed Vulcan is actually there? Of course not.

You haven't told me what you are trying to prove with your situation so I can't judge whether it matters or not. I am saying that in a theoretical situation X, Nero's likely reaction would show us Y. In this case his state of mind. All you have given me is a situation without saying what it is supposed to tell or prove to us. It could matter in a lot of ways. Who knows? What's crucial is that the thing being demonstrated is not dependent on the reality of the counterfactual. The counterfactual is just a tool.

Counterfactuals are indeed theoretical exercises, but they operate by the assumption of their being the case - and I agree that if it were possible for Romulans to rescue Nero and if he were prepared to accept that then Kirk would be wrong to pull the trigger.

Great, then if we assume there was a Romulan rescue ship (and you agree Nero would likely accept help from it), that would show us that he isn't indifferent to his death (not that it matters), just resigned and therefore, according to your own "rules", Kirk shouldn't shoot. Hallelujah, I think we have got there.

 

[Set Harth]

How strange. I would not have said that any of the reasons you give are why it is typically wrong to do that. It is mostly wrong because we are robbing Nero or anyone in his position of their remaining life and that hasn't been removed.

So in other words, X is wrong because it is X?

 

[BillJ]

It is mostly wrong because we are robbing Nero or anyone in his position of their remaining life and that hasn't been removed.

However small it is, there is a chance Nero could pull a rabbit out of his hat and survive the collapse of the Narada. If he survived (remember he had a collection of craft aboard), he could become a huge problem somewhere else in the timeline.

This sounds more like an argument that Kirk is wrong for simply doing something any other rational being would do in his place. It's not about the action taken, it's about whose taking the action.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txVh2QgRmHs[/yt]

I count seven photon torpedoes fired from that clip, four from the Enterprise and three from the Excelsior. with there being three separate firings (1,2,1 from Enterprise and 2,1 from Excelsior) and no one stopped to even give Chang the chance to surrender.

 

[Saul]

It is mostly wrong because we are robbing Nero or anyone in his position of their remaining life and that hasn't been removed.

However small it is, there is a chance Nero could pull a rabbit out of his hat and survive the collapse of the Narada. If he survived (remember he had a collection of craft aboard), he could become a huge problem somewhere else in the timeline.

This sounds more like an argument that Kirk is wrong for simply doing something any other rational being would do in his place. It's not about the action taken, it's about whose taking the action.



I count seven photon torpedoes fired from that clip, four from the Enterprise and three from the Excelsior. with there being three separate firings (1,2,1 from Enterprise and 2,1 from Excelsior) and no one stopped to even give Chang the chance to surrender.

His ship was still a threat since they couldn't see it, only the explosion from the first torp and they had to stop an assassination.

 

[Franklin]

It is mostly wrong because we are robbing Nero or anyone in his position of their remaining life and that hasn't been removed.

However small it is, there is a chance Nero could pull a rabbit out of his hat and survive the collapse of the Narada. If he survived (remember he had a collection of craft aboard), he could become a huge problem somewhere else in the timeline.

This sounds more like an argument that Kirk is wrong for simply doing something any other rational being would do in his place. It's not about the action taken, it's about whose taking the action.



I count seven photon torpedoes fired from that clip, four from the Enterprise and three from the Excelsior. with there being three separate firings (1,2,1 from Enterprise and 2,1 from Excelsior) and no one stopped to even give Chang the chance to surrender.

Would a Klingon surrender? One could say they also had to eliminate the possibility that Chang could have time to radio anyone that the jig was up and the Enterprise and Excelsior were on their way.

I agree totally that the "Nero threat" had to be negated. If he had surrendered, he'd have become the Federation's version of Hannibal Lecter. He'd be incarcerated and never see the light of day or more than two or three people, again. Kirk offered a chance at survival. Nero refused. At that point, you can't even have a 0.5% chance that he lives through what's going on with the black hole and his ship and escapes to freedom -- in any timeline.

 

[SeerSGB]

I have uh, mixed feelings on JJ Abrams Trek to say the fucking least but it never bothered me that Kirk blows up Nero. Kirk is the gung-ho captain and was never much of a goodie-goodie. Also, having Nero Prime around would be dangerous to the timeline.

The timeline? How would he be dangerous to "the timeline"? He doesn't really have time travel powers.

Future tech, future knowledge give whoever he backs a leg up on the enemies.

Which if I was Starfleet I'd be pissed over Kirk not just beaming Nero's ass over whether he wanted it or not. Lock him in the deepest prison you can find, let the galaxy thing he's dead, and bargain with him or interrogate him for information.

A clean death by shooting the shit out of them. What a kind guy.

He executed six billion men, women and children. I have no problem with Kirk giving him a parting shot.

Nor do I. Nero also was responsible for Kirk's Father and Spock's mother. Makes it very personal and if they had played it that way as revenge or pay back I think it would sit better with me. But this way is kinda played for laughs.

Kirk: We show them compassion-- it may be the only way to earn peace with Romulus. It's logic, Spock! I thought you'd like that.
SPOCK No, not really, not this time.
NERO I would rather suffer the death of Romulus a thousand times than accept assistance from you.
KIRK You got it. Lock phasers! Fire everything we've got!

I never saw it as playing for laughs as so much as "Well fuck you too" and/or "I was hoping you'd say something like that"

 

[yousirname]

Ignoring sensors, observed damage, and such like, the fact that Nero is talking rather than shooting might be clue. If he is so offended by Kirk I am not even sure there was a point in talking anyway.

I am not ignoring sensors or damage. The information Kirk has is not sufficient to establish that Nero is weaponless, that's all.

And I don’t agree we (nor Kirk) know the things you went on to assume we do. Eg. We don’t know Krik can save Nero. Kirk barely saved himself! Not that knowing them would justify anything in my view. The assumption it does is your unsupported opinion.

I don't really care if Kirk can or can't save Nero. Indeed, if he can't, all that does is remove one of the reasons why killing him would be wrong. But he appears to think that he can, so I dealt with that issue anyway.

How strange. I would not have said that any of the reasons you give are why it is typically wrong to do that. It is mostly wrong because we are robbing Nero or anyone in his position of their remaining life and that hasn't been removed.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that you and I approach the issue differently and with differing ethical assumptions.

In short, if Nero would be happy not to be in a blackhole, or to be rescued from such a predicament, then he his clearly not "indifferent to his death" (one of your conditions for it being OK to shoot him). This is what the hypothetical tells us. This was its purpose, not to give Nero options he doesn't have. The most you can say is, given his actual situation, he is resigned to his fate. But that is a very different thing.

Your mistake, it seems to me, is in assuming that someone making a choice that leads to their death implies that such a person is indifferent to their death. Obviously there are many situations where that isn’t the case such as when someone puts their life at risk to protect their children. In no way are they indifferent to death. Neither is Nero as far as we can tell.

This is just a word game. Suppose that my very dear friend is suffering from a painful and debilitating illness. So crippling is this affliction that, though his pain is such that he wants nothing more than to die, he is unable even to end his own life. This friend asks me to assist in his suicide. Initially I agree, since I have determined using my criteria that it is not wrong to do so.

Now suppose that, just as I am about to painlessly inject him with a lethal dose of morphine, a thought occurs to me. Say, Bill, I ask him, even though in your current circumstances you want nothing more than to die, wouldn't you prefer to not have this disease? And Bill responds Don't be an idiot, of course I would.

Now, if Bill didn't have his illness, it would certainly be wrong of me to inject him, wouldn't it? Your reasoning would seem to imply that it would be wrong of me to inject him even though he does.

Of course it is ironic to spend so much effort on such an obvious point, only to have it be irrelevant to the question of whether it is right to kill someone if they did have that state of mind in Nero's position. Quite frankly it wouldn't change anything. Killing them would still be wrong. As far as I can see, you can't base general moral principles on such subjective and arbitrary opinions. Neither yours nor the ones you assign to Kirk.

Yeah, as I say, clearly we disagree. All I'll say is that your opinions are no less subjective and arbitrary than mine.

You haven't told me what you are trying to prove with your situation so I can't judge whether it matters or not. I am saying that in a theoretical situation X, Nero's likely reaction would show us Y. In this case his state of mind. All you have given me is a situation without saying what it is supposed to tell or prove to us. It could matter in a lot of ways. Who knows? What's crucial is that the thing being demonstrated is not dependent on the reality of the counterfactual. The counterfactual is just a tool.

I am saying that given circumstances X, Nero's state of mind is Y, and therefore Z, it is acceptable to pull the trigger.

You are responding by telling me that if circumstances were ¬X, then Nero's state of mind would be ¬Y, and therefore ¬Z (it is not acceptable to pull the trigger). And you are claiming ¬Z even though X is in fact the case.

However, it's also true that Kirk's circumstances are such that it's possible for him to rescue Nero (A), that he would save lives in doing so (B), and that therefore if Nero is willing to be rescued, then Kirk must rescue him (C).

However, if a crazed Vulcan is on board the Enterprise who can and will blow up the ship, then it is not possible for Kirk to rescue Nero (even if he beams Nero on to the Enterprise, Nero will die when the Vulcan destroys the ship), (¬A). Therefore Kirk will not save lives by attempting to rescue Nero, (¬B) and therefore Kirk must not rescue him (¬C), and in fact (I would argue) is compelled to pull the trigger (D).

Now you can see that both of these arguments proceed by claiming that a posited counterfactual alters the actual ethical circumstances simply by being posited, and that its falsehood is no objection to that. I don't agree and I think that if you still accept the XYZ argument, you must also accept the ABC argument.

Great, then if we assume there was a Romulan rescue ship (and you agree Nero would likely accept help from it), that would show us that he isn't indifferent to his death (not that it matters), just resigned and therefore, according to your own "rules", Kirk shouldn't shoot. Hallelujah, I think we have got there.

See above for why we aren't there yet.

 

[Opus]

 

[BillJ]

This is just a word game. Suppose that my very dear friend is suffering from a painful and debilitating illness. So crippling is this affliction that, though his pain is such that he wants nothing more than to die, he is unable even to end his own life. This friend asks me to assist in his suicide. Initially I agree, since I have determined using my criteria that it is not wrong to do so.

Now suppose that, just as I am about to painlessly inject him with a lethal dose of morphine, a thought occurs to me. Say, Bill, I ask him, even though in your current circumstances you want nothing more than to die, wouldn't you prefer to not have this disease? And Bill responds Don't be an idiot, of course I would.

Now, if Bill didn't have his illness, it would certainly be wrong of me to inject him, wouldn't it? Your reasoning would seem to imply that it would be wrong of me to inject him even though he does.

Is there something you're not telling me?

 

[yousirname]

Is there something you're not telling me?

(preps needle) You'll just feel the tiniest pinch, and then it'll all be over, relax...

 

[SeerSGB]

Is there something you're not telling me?

(preps needle) You'll just feel the tiniest pinch, and then it'll all be over, relax...

*Pulls up with Uhual and a 6 pack* Alright lets get this party started. I get the computer and the tv....shit, to soon?

 

[Nerys Myk]

I have uh, mixed feelings on JJ Abrams Trek to say the fucking least but it never bothered me that Kirk blows up Nero. Kirk is the gung-ho captain and was never much of a goodie-goodie. Also, having Nero Prime around would be dangerous to the timeline.

The timeline? How would he be dangerous to "the timeline"? He doesn't really have time travel powers.

Future tech, future knowledge give whoever he backs a leg up on the enemies.

Which if I was Starfleet I'd be pissed over Kirk not just beaming Nero's ass over whether he wanted it or not. Lock him in the deepest prison you can find, let the galaxy thing he's dead, and bargain with him or interrogate him for information.

Which doesn't make him dangerous to the timeline, just dangerous in general.

 

[SeerSGB]

The timeline? How would he be dangerous to "the timeline"? He doesn't really have time travel powers.

Future tech, future knowledge give whoever he backs a leg up on the enemies.

Which if I was Starfleet I'd be pissed over Kirk not just beaming Nero's ass over whether he wanted it or not. Lock him in the deepest prison you can find, let the galaxy thing he's dead, and bargain with him or interrogate him for information.

Which doesn't make him dangerous to the timeline, just dangerous in general.

I guess the argument is that Nero's info and tech could change the future. Kicker is the future is already changed so all he can do is speed up the arms race between Empires.

 

[mos6507]

And, honestly, comparing "battle scenes" in a TV show like DS9 with anything from any Trek movie is laughable. Some of the fanboise just went "squeeee!" the first time they saw a bunch of CG starships all crowded into the same shot on their little TV screens and apparently have never recovered any perspective.

Shaky cam and closeups where you never actually see WTF is going on was popularized in the movie Gladiator. Shaky-cam in SF got its start on B5 and I was never much of a fan, but it's become almost sort of a golden-rule in space-shots since. Whether you're talking about swords and sandals or Transformers and Starships, it's all part of the same cinematic fashion-trend, if you will.

My opinion is that it is a FAD, and it will eventually wear thin and become just as tired and dated as anything else. You can say it's some sort of evolutionary improvement and we'll "never go back", but odds are it will become just as dated as bell-bottoms.

It's more visually kinetic than the old-school stuff, but whether that makes it truly "better" is subjective. Making things kinetic for its own sake is really just visual pornography. Give me a story with characters I care about and I don't need sh*t whizzing by the camera constantly for me to feel a sense of excitement or danger, but if I don't care, then no amount of explosions in the world will make a difference.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Future tech, future knowledge give whoever he backs a leg up on the enemies.

Which if I was Starfleet I'd be pissed over Kirk not just beaming Nero's ass over whether he wanted it or not. Lock him in the deepest prison you can find, let the galaxy thing he's dead, and bargain with him or interrogate him for information.

Which doesn't make him dangerous to the timeline, just dangerous in general.

I guess the argument is that Nero's info and tech could change the future. Kicker is the future is already changed so all he can do is speed up the arms race between Empires.

Yeah, no one in the 2250s has any idea what the future is. You can't change what hasn't happened yet.