Do you often wish that you were living in Star Trek now?

[Shaka Zulu]

Wonder what they did with Rasmussen's stolen time machine?

Nothing; it went back to its owner in the future at the end of the episode.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I can come up with a list, but a beginning few would be ...

Lack of privacy, the hero crew can access personal information on anyone inside (and often outside) the Federation on a whim.

The fact that they are officials and (possibly) also law enforcement (they had to do this accessing of info on TOS to figure out who 'Leo Francis Walsh' really was) in the sector of the galaxy where they sometimes are doesn't seem to be apparent to you? It did to me. And one gets the feeling that they were just accessing that info on a need-to-know basis, because they needed to know.

The "you're no supposed to feel anything when someone dies," this was applied once to a child who lost his mother. This was already brought up in this thread.

Accepting death is something that people should be doing, and doing better (although the crying that Troi did when Tasha died and Data died shows that people do mourn, as did the crying of Captain Kirk in Into Darkness.)

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dREijueW2Lo[/yt]

The Prime Directive, especially as applied in the 24th century. Yes there is a chance they might screw it up, but a planet full of screwed up natives is better than a planet littered with corpses.

It's there for a good reason, as shown in 'A Piece of the Action' and a lot of other examples not shown on the series; I think that the story about this powerful alien from this comic book company illustrates why they have it.

The fact that Roddenberry had a problem with Code of Honor, there should have been many more planets of "dem black folks" and not none at all. there were way too many white people planets to start with.

Roddenberry had no business writing TV shows or showrunning again to begin with, IMHO; he was rusty at doing it, and it showed in the quality of the scripts and the way the characters were written, plus it also set a deadly precedent for Voyager, Enterprise, and (to a lesser extent) DS9 that was carried out by Berman & Braga. All that he should have done was come up with the concept, be given the 'created by' credit, and packed off after that. I'll also agree with you on that.

No gays on display, but plenty of heteros, at a certain point it ceases to be a co-incidence.

The question is, is how do you show this (and show it well enough to satisfy a lot of people) on an episode? Especially when said characters aren't the lead characters? It's easy for fans to say 'just do it', but actually executing it (especially in conservative religious fundamentalist North American society) isn't easy, as evidenced by the reaction to the Phase II episode 'Blood and Fire'. (Not to say it shouldn't be done; it should, but just sayin'.)

 

[BillJ]

It's there for a good reason, as shown in 'A Piece of the Action' and a lot of other examples not shown on the series; I think that the story this powerful alie from this comic book company illustrates why they have it.

Overall, I don't think even Gene knew whether or not complete non-interference was a good idea. I point to the episodes "Assignment: Earth", "For the World is Hollow..." and "The Paradise Syndrome", where interference was obviously a good thing.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Heck, I think Spock is truly a "gay" character if we look at him critically. Rejected by his father for his choices, trying to suppress part of who he is and finally finding acceptance for who he is.

That's an interesting way to approach the character. I don't think I've seen that voiced before. Nicely done!

 

[BillJ]

Heck, I think Spock is truly a "gay" character if we look at him critically. Rejected by his father for his choices, trying to suppress part of who he is and finally finding acceptance for who he is.

That's an interesting way to approach the character. I don't think I've seen that voiced before. Nicely done!

Honestly, I don't know if it's something I came up with or if it's something I've picked up somewhere over the past thirty-odd years of being a fan.

It has been rattling around in my brain for a long time though.

 

[Alrik]

^

That being said, its not a bad idea to let it out for a little air now and again.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Phlox, a main character, was in a polygamous marriage. And in Data's Day it was intimated that Andorian marriages are composed of four individuals.

In "The Long Ladder" I think Picard talked mate sharing and multiple languages.

2. In perfect future there is no place for suffering.

I think you are confusing Star Trek with heaven.

No one ever claimed Star Trek shows a perfect future, much less a perfect future without suffering. It's a very dangerous place if you're not living on earth. Certainly I am safer right here in my living room in crappy pre-warp earth than I would be on a starship from the amount of them that get blown up.

Star Trek shows a future that we hope science will take us to. Freedom from hunger and opportunities to rise above subsistence needs as humans, replacing them with higher pursuits. People still get sick and die, shuttles still crash, and even though (supposedly) humans on earth aren't raping and killing each other there's now a whole lot of other species eyeing off the pretties who have no qualms about making us suffer.

I think we may be talking about two types of human utopia--the spiritual/religious version, and the technological based one.

The spiritual version has it that by following a strict moral code 24 hours day, humans can achieve eliminate suffering and achieve Utopia. (There is some truth to this.)


Since Trek's version is more technological, humans aren't really needed to be perfect.

The truth is, discovering that there was life on other planets shocked the human ego into changing (according to trek).

And the resulting technological advancement eliminated greed, hunger, elitism, poverty, social class isms.

I think the two versions clash, because from the spiritual point of view, saying we'll achieve utopia by technology and science seems sacrilegious and arrogant.

The technological view is that by solving the problem, you eliminate suffering- That seems to be Trek's view as well.

 

[Amaris]

I provide both quality and quantity.[...]

And then you proceed to NOT provide any actual arguments, but the usual list of fact-free dictums.
Well...I can't say I'm surprised.

Are you familiar with the mechanics and effects of religious indoctrination, J. Allen?

Okay gentlemen....

That's enough of that.

Thanks.

I'll be good. *crosses fingers*

It's there for a good reason, as shown in 'A Piece of the Action' and a lot of other examples not shown on the series; I think that the story this powerful alie from this comic book company illustrates why they have it.

Overall, I don't think even Gene knew whether or not complete non-interference was a good idea. I point to the episodes "Assignment: Earth", "For the World is Hollow..." and "The Paradise Syndrome", where interference was obviously a good thing.

The Prime Directive was always a sticky wicket for me, anyway. So they won't give technology to developing societies, I get that, but to let an entire planet full of people die off? Nah, I don't get that one. The excuse that "we don't know what might evolve later" is a piss poor one, IMO.

 

[JarodRussell]

Heck, I think Spock is truly a "gay" character if we look at him critically. Rejected by his father for his choices, trying to suppress part of who he is and finally finding acceptance for who he is.

That's an interesting way to approach the character. I don't think I've seen that voiced before. Nicely done!

We already had that with forbidden mind melds and mind meld transmitted diseases.

 

[BillJ]

Heck, I think Spock is truly a "gay" character if we look at him critically. Rejected by his father for his choices, trying to suppress part of who he is and finally finding acceptance for who he is.

That's an interesting way to approach the character. I don't think I've seen that voiced before. Nicely done!

We already had that with forbidden mind melds and mind meld transmitted diseases.

Except Spock preceded Enterprise by close to thirty-five years.

 

[Alrik]

Retcon. That's never a fiery topic.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Yes, because it's a way to nowhere. All this discussion is about our personal preferences. Some people find it funny or cool to watch gay relationships in TV-series and big-screen movies. Some people don't. That's all.

Why don't you try substituting "heterosexual relationships" or "interacial relationships" for "gay relationships" in your sentence.

Your "personal preference" is bigotry whether you realize it or not. How would you feel if you were gay and someone told you they don't want to see your kind of relationship on tv ever?

 

[T'Girl]

Lack of privacy, the hero crew can access personal information on anyone inside (and often outside) the Federation on a whim.

The fact that they are officials and (possibly) also law enforcement ...

Neither officials nor law enforcement should ever be able to access information on anyone without legal cause.

Harry Mudd was in violation of a number of laws, and he was told he would have legal information for his defense, and the accessing of his information occurred at a formal hearing. This was the proper way of doing things.

Not just pull info up casually.

Accepting death is something that people should be doing ...

No, people shouldn't be expected to simply accept death, and placing such a expectation upon a young child is the sign of a twisted culture.

No gays on display, but plenty of heteros, at a certain point it ceases to be a co-incidence.

The question is, is how do you show this (and show it well enough to satisfy a lot of people) on an episode?

Exactly the same way you would with a hetero character.

One example, we learn in Mantrap that Uhura is hetero because when the salt vampire changes into someone Uhura would be attracted to, it becomes a handsome man.

Indicating that a character is gay would be as simple as that.

 

[Amaris]

Remind me to keep the salt vampires at bay, just in case.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Exactly tgirl. Or as simple as the use of pronouns in referencing someone's partner.

 

[Amaris]

Exactly tgirl. Or as simple as the use of pronouns in referencing someone's partner.

This would be the most subtle way of doing it, and something that could be slipped into any conversation without much effort.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Yeah people often react to these discussions with "but star trek shouldn't be about sex it's a family show ". But we are not talking about sex here, it's about no longer clinging to a false normative, gays don't exist, as the default.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Anyway, infertility is not a disease. It's a biological condition (a bunch of them, really) that some people have and many others don't. Many who are infertile, of course, don't like it.

This is like the silly assertion that Picard ought to have hair because baldness will have been "cured."

Let's see:
-life has 2 fundamental features - survive and reproduce. Infertility means many of life adaptations are non-functional. That's a serious design flaw - the same category as genetic diseases.
-hair loss is due to aging, which is a severe decrease in the body's ability to function and reproduce, leading to death - a very serious genetic disease.

Also, infertility can be a choice, accomplished through drugs or employing barrier devices like condoms.

Infertility is the inability to have offspring, NOT the unwillingness to have offspring. A huge difference:
You see, a person who mimics the symptoms of blindness/insert medical condition isn't blind/insert medical condition.

I also find it interesting how most posters complain about the lack of homosexual relations in trek as opposed to, for example, polygamous relations.

Why complain about the lack of something that wasn't lacking?

Phlox, a main character, was in a polygamous marriage. And in Data's Day it was intimated that Andorian marriages are composed of four individuals.

You complain about a lack of homosexual relations in star trek because they're viewed with some social opprobium and you think homosexuality is not propagandized enough in trek/whatever medium.

Well, polygamy is not only viewed with social opprobium, its criminalized - see bigamy.
But you don't even think about complaining vis-a-vis this - asking for the legalization of bigamy, for equal legal standing with monogamous couples, for removal of social opprobium, for propaganda in support of these things.
Why?
Simply because "opinion makers" did not preach about these, and, as such, you were not properly indoctrinated along these lines. Consistency, logic? - these were never part of the equation - but I'm sure you think otherwise.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I'm pretty sure that IF Star Trek ever comes back to TV, not only will there be at least one gay character, there will be plenty of references to gay relationships (not in a sexual way, but in an off handed way, like asking a male officer "how's your husband)and seeing as each iteration of Star Trek tried to push the boundaries of social convention (in a positive way, such as having an articulate black woman and an Asian as officers) there will likely be a transgender human or alien.

 

[Amaris]

Yeah people often react to these discussions with "but star trek shouldn't be about sex it's a family show ". But we are not talking about sex here, it's about no longer clinging to a false normative, gays don't exist, as the default.

Exactly. A same sex relationship is the same as a hetero relationship, except that the genders are the same. Everything else still applies.