• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Cogenitor

I did find it hilarious that Archer didn't know why Trip wanted a transfer off Enterprise. I mean if he didn't know that Chief engineer and the XO were diddling behind his back then maybe he thought he still had a chance with her?

Though if he was really pissed at trip, then he should have let Sim live.
 
commodore64 said:
Guy Gardener said:
You people are tripping to think there was any lasting effect to Trip and Archer's argument in Congentitor which carried over into any further future episodes. Hells bells they didn't even use any of the antics in the most recent episodes to act as the foundations of the vitriol between these too.

Bakula said that Archer and Trip had suffered because of Cogenitor in the Star Trek magazine. As the actor of one of the characters who's in that relationship, I'd assume he has a decent grasp of the situation. And it's not something he said as a one-off. He repeated his comments in subsequent interviews. I encourage you to look it up. :)

the effect only lasted a little while.
by the end of first flight they had started to grow close again and in bounty we see that they had spent time mountain climbing together,
 
Those scripts were written simultaneously by different people who didn't talk to each other... Or at least that's a safe bet.
 
I know you won't agree with me but this happened the way it should have (at least as far as Archer's involvement). Archer was also an ambassador so he did not want to interfere with another culture's way of doing things (because of the cogenitor) if it was going to ruin their chances of remaining friends with these people. Let's face it, no person is perfect. No race is perfect and without doubt no species is perfect. If the major flaw with this species is that they treat their cogenitors like tools rather than people (or like pets), it wasn't up to Archer to try to change it then and there. Good relations with that world would have been vastly preferable to start off with and PERHAPS, eventually, that species might rethink their position. And if they didn't, would it be worth it to humanity, new to space, to go around trying to force our culture on those people. So while I was sympathetic to the cogenitor's plight, I would have, as a captain, been aware that that good initial relations were more important than the removal of that one person from the vissians ship. There was no way to know for certain that she/he was going to kill herself. It was one possible outcome. Her making changes once she got back was another. We couldn't tell.

Personally, the only wrong choice made here (aside from Trip's interference in the first place...as altruistic as it may have been) was that Archer shouldn't have taken out his anger so harshly on Trip for it. I sorta got the feeling that I was missing something, like I'd missed a scene or an episode where Trip had made similar mistakes, but I couldn't recall anything. So I thought Archer's anger a bit much.

Phlox's approach would have worked fine. He was consistent in this as he was with the species in Dear Doctor. He looked at their problem but accepted that this was how they lived at THAT time, and that perhaps, interference, wasn't the best course of action. He (and Archer) ultimately provided medicines to alleviate pain and suffering but left it up to them to either find the cure on their own, wait for another warp tech species to help them or to let genetics follow it's course. I don't think Phlox was insensitive to the plight of those people or the Menk. He just had the wisdom to step back after a while and not play God. We see later on in Similitude that playing God (in terms of creation) had such painful consequences, even if it ultimately helped Trip suruvive. Phlox trusted Archer by that point, enough that he was willing to provide ALL options and let the captain make the best choice he knew how.
 
LadyNRA said:
I know you won't agree with me but this happened the way it should have (at least as far as Archer's involvement). Archer was also an ambassador so he did not want to interfere with another culture's way of doing things (because of the cogenitor) if it was going to ruin their chances of remaining friends with these people. Let's face it, no person is perfect. No race is perfect and without doubt no species is perfect. If the major flaw with this species is that they treat their cogenitors like tools rather than people (or like pets), it wasn't up to Archer to try to change it then and there. Good relations with that world would have been vastly preferable to start off with and PERHAPS, eventually, that species might rethink their position. And if they didn't, would it be worth it to humanity, new to space, to go around trying to force our culture on those people. So while I was sympathetic to the cogenitor's plight, I would have, as a captain, been aware that that good initial relations were more important than the removal of that one person from the vissians ship. There was no way to know for certain that she/he was going to kill herself. It was one possible outcome. Her making changes once she got back was another. We couldn't tell.

Archer was not asked to change their culture, nor did he have to, he did not even have to try. All he needed to do was grant asylum to one individual. This asylum, does not require a judgment upon the culture, the judgment, comes from our culture - again, not upon their culture - but upon the individual. In our culture, the needs of the individual, of the one, exceed the needs of the many. The philosophy ultimately behind it is rather simple: how can you guarantee the rights and freedom of the many, if you can't even guarantee it of a single individual? The questions that need to be answered is simple: will this individual be robbed of her/him/its freedom, will she/he/it be restricted, or repressed, and will this be done unreasonably so - aka, is she/he/it a criminal? If the answer is "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second one, then the asylum must be granted.

If, of course, this culture they are in contact with, are as enlightened as they claim to be, they will understand that Archer's/our culture is in the same way just as important as theirs, and they will understand that we cannot compromise our culture just to please some individuals from another. The asylum would be granted, and there should be no repercussions in their relationship.

Phlox's approach would have worked fine. He was consistent in this as he was with the species in Dear Doctor. He looked at their problem but accepted that this was how they lived at THAT time, and that perhaps, interference, wasn't the best course of action. He (and Archer) ultimately provided medicines to alleviate pain and suffering but left it up to them to either find the cure on their own, wait for another warp tech species to help them or to let genetics follow it's course. I don't think Phlox was insensitive to the plight of those people or the Menk. He just had the wisdom to step back after a while and not play God. We see later on in Similitude that playing God (in terms of creation) had such painful consequences, even if it ultimately helped Trip suruvive. Phlox trusted Archer by that point, enough that he was willing to provide ALL options and let the captain make the best choice he knew how.

But Phlox and Archer ARE playing god by withholding the cure! Phlox essentially claims in Dear Doctor that he a. there is some type of plan to the universe and evolution, that b. he understands this plan, and that c. because of that he can forsee the future, and d. that that future means one species has to die off in order to let another flourish.

It's playing god, ALL the way through. When I saw that episode, I so wanted Q to show up, grab Phlox and Archer, and zap them hundred years to the future, and watch the planet from orbit. Q: "Watch, Phlox, John, the species you did not want to give the cure to died out some 50 years ago."

Phlox: "Yes."

Q: "You know, you're right. The other species is flourishing. They already got the first spears, and started building their own wooden huts."

Archer: "So we did the right thing."

Q: "Oh, yes, the plan is going perfectly... well, that depends on what the plan is, cause I got no clue. Actually, as far as I know - there is no plan."

Phlox: "Yes, well... you obviously believe that we should not have given them the cure. It is short-sighted-"

Q: "You are short-sighted, not me. I'm omnipotent, not quite omniscient, but close enough. To the right."

Phlox: "What? Right?"

Q: "To the right, before that asteroid that's coming up behind us reduces you to a bloody smear."

Phlox turns around looking straight a giant rock, the left edge about crush him. He jumps to the right, in front of Q and Archer and asteroid careens by... straight for the planet. Phlox and Archer look short. The asteroid hits the atmosphere and quickly because glowing hot fireball. The atmosphere starts to burn and becomes a plasma. Than it slams in the planet, reducing half a continent to a smoking crater, the dust all but instantly taking one hemisphere from sight.

Q: "Well, that species you wanted to see flourish, Phlox: it's just been wiped out, destroyed, reduced to ashes, vaporized, annihilated. Catch my drift? Interestingly, if you had given the other species the cure, they were, and would have been now, advanced enough to deflect that asteroid. You would have saved two species - instead, you committed double genocide - great going, friends."

He claps their shoulders, and with a white flash the two are gone, and find them in Archer's office on the Enterprise. They looked shocked at each other. Suddenly Q's head sticks inside through the outer hull, and he speaks.

Q: "Oh, in case you hadn't figure it out yet, Phlox. You're not me, you can't predict the future. You need to make the decisions that are best now, not best for an imagined future. What you should have done, is give that species the cure, and then explain to them what you found out about their brethren, and let them find a way to stimulate these people, so both can grow... as well as survive. In case you hadn't notice yet, but where the Denobulans were wiping out all blue-haired individuals of their own species, and Archer's people of his skin color were enslaving people with Wayweather's skin color, these people didn't even enslave an entire different primitive species. They're the type of people you want to lead a Federation of Planets your future visitor always talks about."


Oh, and you went to talk about how the Enterprise should not be pissing of the Cogenitor's species' culture. Tell me something, if Dear Doctor's people found a way to survive, what do you think would be worse for relationships between cultures: granting one individual asylum, inconveniencing a few individuals, or consigning an entire species to their deaths by not giving them a cure you have?

Me, I'm going with the latter - I mean, that's actually good enough reason for me to go to war with these people to teach them the error of their ways.
 
LadyNRA said…

I know you won't agree with me but this happened the way it should have (at least as far as Archer's involvement).

Anything is possible. ;) But you’re only agreeing with the show, which was excellent because of its flaws and mistakes. My ability to yell at the tv calling Archer a moron, and before that Trip a moron is what makes this slippery slope so fun, because it’s a painful and unavoidable slow motion car crash.

LadyNRA said…

Archer was also an ambassador so he did not want to interfere with another culture's way of doing things

Hmmm. Since the day Archer was born, he’d seen a Vulcan foot crushing his father’s neck. Jonathan must’ve been itching to meddle as soon as he got into space, pulling all the aliens up by their bootstraps until they were as cool as he was… Whatever that might mean? Broken Bow: ignored Klingon customs and forced Klaang to live, possibly dishonoring his family name for the next 10 generations, and telling the Vulcans to shut up when they tried to educate him about this protocol… Fight or Flight there was this race of organ harvesters which had an economy that relied on gutting people wandering in neutral space foolishly unprotected and milking them of there vital juices. Archer morally decided that this was wrong and almost got milked himself for his hubris. Terra Nova The Novans were human, so do they count? The Andorian Incident Archer decided that the Vulcans were not allowed to “spy” on their aggressive and warlike nieghbours inside Vulcan controlled space which changed the balance of power completely in that region forcing the Andorians to attack the Vulcans for being outted as pricks. Archers sence of right and wrong started a war and a whole lot more. Fortunate Son Archer cites manifest destiny, that fleets of NX star ships will be operating as a frontier police force and that the Norsican piracy migration patterns ought’a (*&^ off. If the Norsicans can’t steal from humans and eat humans then their culture is pretty much (*&^ed. But they got *&^%ed by a bluff. Too stupid to survive. Rogue Planet these creatures were being hunted for quasireligious reasons and ecologically speaking their numbers were being maintained so that licensed hunts could continue in perpetuity. This was different from when Chenney went to that ranch to shoot a caged Turkey and missed… If the Turkey could talk, and if it was given a 5 minute head start. It’s more accurate to compare this to what the worst of Germans Soldiers were allowed to do to the French during WWII “for fun” since it was an occupying army handling a quelled and subservient civilization that wasn’t in a position to complain about mass executions of the joy division, because the hunter race that those hunter people belonged to, owned that moon and chose to let those metamorphs(Cattle can be sentient.) run “free range” for entertaining hunts, rather than strip mine the place and then force mating the metamorphs to be grown in kennels for meat and clothing (Isn’t it disgusting when you have to allow others the right to practice slavery?). Archer removing the “tell” from the metamorph is no different from time traveling to an 18th century US plantation and giving Colonel Sander’s faithless salves a dozen or so machine guns. Mauraders Archer did not teach these idiots how to fish. He gave them fish. He even did it as difficultly as possible, since we know Reed is a crack shot who must have been under orders not to kill those 6 klingons in 2 seconds with his first 5 shots. Archer ripped off the plot to Blazing Saddles and then T’Pol kunfu-ed people and Reed missed his targets dozens of more times. These miner people are weak and if they’re not preyed up by the devils they know, then someone else, possibly worse, is going to come along who will kill them for standing up for themselves. Precious cargo Archer really thinks he is a police man when most of the time he’s backpacker trader from a fledgling startup civilization. Judgement Wow. Archer stole some slaves. And got thrown into jail because the slave owners(conquered territory, whatever, the Klingons owned them.) got super pissed about the interference. And that’s like 2 episodes before Cogenitor? Christ on a bike! Maybe it was Klingon jail, which taught Archer that stealing slaves, is not emancipating slaves, which will result, for him, in a world of pain?

Archer did what Trip did over and over again. The only difference is that the Nissians were nice and didn’t understand that they were bastards. That, and I so think the Nissian Captain rooted Archer. It was straight out of Happy Days when G’Kar was teaching Archer how to drive, and they were on their way to Inspiration Point…. I’m not joking.

LadyNRA said…

(because of the cogenitor) if it was going to ruin their chances of remaining friends with these people.

South Africa from 1950 to 1993? Germany 1939 to 1945? Cuba 1957 – Now? Iraq 1967 –2003?

In all relationships there is a deal breaker. Moral or otherwise. Say, what if a famous football player invites you and his friends around to his place to bet on dog fights in his back yard, but there’s nothing immoral about this at all because (I (*& you not, that they actually used this next bit on Fox News as a credible defense because he’s form the south) “it’s part of his culture”? Sure, this footballer forces animals to kill each other for entertainment and profit, but how cool is it to hang out with real live Football players form TV?

Slavery is obviously not a deal breaker for Archer since in season 4 he openly went into business with the Orion’s, but you see how well that worked out going into business with the morally bankrupt if only from a human perspective.

LadyNRA said…

Let's face it, no person is perfect. No race is perfect and without doubt no species is perfect. If the major flaw with this species is that they treat their cogenitors like tools rather than people (or like pets)

Turkey basters and dildos. Basic economics says these congenitors should be alpowerful if supply and demand counts for anything but… Do you think that there is a Cogenitor black market? From how the couple of Nissians described it, they got their Cogenitor from some sort of national health service? Unless they did have to pay someone else for it’s services, which turns it all into literal prostitution as well as slavery, that rather than being evenly distributed by the government that you can’t go to some place that looks like a used car lot or a chop shop to buy your own? And then they start putting Cogenitors on the commodities market, and entering them in “Dogshow” like events?

LadyNRA said…,

it wasn't up to Archer to try to change it then and there. Good relations with that world would have been vastly preferable to start off with and PERHAPS, eventually, that species might rethink their position. And if they didn't, would it be worth it to humanity, new to space, to go around trying to force our culture on those people. So while I was sympathetic to the cogenitor's plight,

What I was saying abut a “deal breaker”. He just had to withdraw. I mean what if the Cogenitor wasn’t a marital aide but a food source? She was used as readily as a snickers bar already if you ask me, but one of the many points is that, no matter what Trip did wrong, and he never should have gotten into that situation in the first place, he practically took someone’s million dollar sports car for a joyride into a brick wall, so I find it astounding that Archer still considered that a relationship with these people was possible and that the only thing in the way of a Nissian human alliance was this Cogenitor was asking for asylum. The existence of Congenitors as a “slave race” should have been enough to keep these people at arms length, not that one of them getting uppity stops Archer from getting his hands on their warp technology. Its like saying Hitler was grand except for that business with the Jews? It wasn’t Archers job or business to fix these people but still he desperately wanted to hop into bed with them, when their culture was fundamentally and dangerously flawed.

Did you consider where the Congenitors come from? Well, from a regular pregnancy of course, but you have this couple who wanted a baby and got a “thing” instead. Not a baby at all. But some soulless thing sex toy. Are they honor bound to hand it into the state? Should they try and see if it can pass and raise it as one of the acceptable genders? Or do they ru7n away and sell it to the black market? Because fiscally there has to be an incentive to hand the Congenitors into the government, otherwise it’s a waste of a pregnancy isn’t it? And if you are the golden goose who is producing Congenitor after Congenitor, if the government isd polite enough to replace your unsatisfactory pregnancy with a pregnancy for a “real” child, then surely that “threesome” would run the risk of becoming property themselves too wouldn’t they?

LadyNRA said…I would have, as a captain, been aware that that good initial relations were more important than the removal of that one person from the vissians ship. There was no way to know for certain that she/he was going to kill herself. It was one possible outcome. Her making changes once she got back was another. We couldn't tell.

The suicide was gravy. If the suicide was supposed to convince Trip that he was wrong, then that’s just whack, because that Congenitor was going to be forced to have sex with hundreds a couples a year for the rest of its life on pain of persuasion and locked in a closet when she wasn’t being used to make other peoples babies… Has any one really discussed that this Congenitor has been divorced of any parental rights for the thousand and thousands of babies her dna has brought to life? Mother of a fricking nation? I’d imagine that in the beginning that the Congenitors were like ant queens with everyone else running around to please them. This current status quo is a funny reverse of my hypothesis that it would have taken a couple generations for the Congenitors to forget they were ever the undisputed rulers of Nissia.

LadyNRA said…

Personally, the only wrong choice made here (aside from Trip's interference in the first place...as altruistic as it may have been) was that Archer shouldn't have taken out his anger so harshly on Trip for it.

I loved it how the Nissians were so nice about it. No threats. They probably would have allowed the Asylum and everything. But Archer was right that every other time he thought he had the moral authority to change a culture (se above list) he had been wrong, not that he remembered any of that as he ripped Tucker a new one for being just like him.

LadyNRA said…

I sorta got the feeling that I was missing something, like I'd missed a scene or an episode where Trip had made similar mistakes, but I couldn't recall anything. So I thought Archer's anger a bit much.

Alliance. Technology. Protection. Everything the Vulcans held back on. Imagine (Not that it was possible since the Brits had their racist moments as well. Churchill on India is just so awful.) if in WWII that the English (And the rest) wouldn’t let the Americans help because of segregation? That they wouldn’t let America kill Germans until they let the black folks sit at the front of the bus and eat where the white people ate, oh, and legalized interracial marriage if they hadn’t already, I think that happened in the mid thirties?

LadyNRA said…

Phlox's approach would have worked fine. He was consistent in this as he was with the species in Dear Doctor. He looked at their problem but accepted that this was how they lived at THAT time, and that perhaps, interference, wasn't the best course of action.

Archer wanted to integrate with the Nissians. How’s that for noninterference? But then he was just as hunger for a powerful ally with the Orions too, but I already talked about that. Just imagine the size of the Nissian fleet which would have followed Archer into he Delphic Expanse to tack against the Xindi at an even keel?

LadyNRA said…

He (and Archer) ultimately provided medicines to alleviate pain and suffering but left it up to them to either find the cure on their own, wait for another warp tech species to help them or to let genetics follow it's course. I don't think Phlox was insensitive to the plight of those people or the Menk. He just had the wisdom to step back after a while and not play God. We see later on in Similitude that playing God (in terms of creation) had such painful consequences, even if it ultimately helped Trip suruvive. Phlox trusted Archer by that point, enough that he was willing to provide ALL options and let the captain make the best choice he knew how.

Which brings us straight back to organ harvesting like in Fight or Flight. Phlox said the technology was outlawed. So they were criminals before they were gods.
 
Archer did what Trip did over and over again. The only difference is that the Nissians were nice and didn’t understand that they were bastards. That, and I so think the Nissian Captain rooted Archer.

Well, really it's about Archer growing. We see him make decisions that aren't based on human's values that hold less judgment. Trip just hasn't gotten there yet. Archer is already seeing what the Vulcans do.

Trip made a decision against T'Pol's command and appeals to Archer about it. Archer and T'Pol, if you remember the episode, have a pow-wow where they wonder what's gotten into Trip.

When Trip, at the very end, tells Archer "I learned it by watching you, okay, Dad!" (just like the anti-drug commercial), Archer has a "oh, damn" moment. Archer realizes how far he's come, but understands why Trip made the bone-headed decision.

And then it's the end. The two, other than a climbing expedition, don't hang out for an entire season as he distances himself from everyone.
 
Archer's talk about non interference and believing in T'Pol is most evident in Communicator. :)

Maybe he was growing up? Was this a decision from the Top, or did the writers just get sick of making Archer out to be niave?

But what about ENT Raijin? He just stole a slave from a market place... Which is effectively what Trip did isn't it?

Though the next really pertinent decision placed on Archers shoulders was in ENT Extinction when he chose not to destroy the Civilization Virus, despite the peoples in that region of space being shit scared about it, and that Phlox had supplied a cure... Both decisions maintaining that he was choosing the shape of the galaxy and lives in the billions were on the line because of it.
 
I agree with you, LadyNRA, and I think you state your position very nicely. I think we can all agree that Charles' situation was sad, but, as I've said before, that does not mean that asylum should be granted.

All [Archer] needed to do was grant asylum to one individual. This asylum, does not require a judgment upon the culture, the judgment, comes from our culture - again, not upon their culture - but upon the individual. In our culture, the needs of the individual, of the one, exceed the needs of the many. The philosophy ultimately behind it is rather simple: how can you guarantee the rights and freedom of the many, if you can't even guarantee it of a single individual? The questions that need to be answered is simple: will this individual be robbed of her/him/its freedom, will she/he/it be restricted, or repressed, and will this be done unreasonably so - aka, is she/he/it a criminal? If the answer is "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second one, then the asylum must be granted.
I'm sorry, but, even though this is widely held belief here (and I'm not just picking on this poster), it's not correct. If we assume that 22nd century asylum is in line with 21st century principles, much more is necessary to grant asylum than two simple questions. In order to get asylum in the U.S., which since the Refugee Act of 1980, conforms to U.N. conventions and principles, you have to show: a "well-founded fear of persecution" based on (1) political opinion, (2) religion, (3) race, (4) nationality, or (5) membership in a particular social group." It's not membership in a group that is the trigger; it's persecution (which can include torture). Therefore, it is a comment on the culture - you're essentially saying to a sovereign government that you are stepping into the relationship between government and citizen in order to protect a citizen from its own government. That is a huge statement, and it's why asylum is not frequently or lightly granted.

A petitioner can't just show that he or she is unhappy, or not fulfilled, or even that certain rights (which we might be guaranteed in our Constitution) are being denied him or her. He or she has to show fear of or actual persecution. I've seen denials of asylum based on petitioners' claims of forced abortion in a one-child society; denial of one's right to attend religious worship; denial (for women) of the same opportunities for education, etc., as men; conscription in the army; and economic hardship. But I've also seen asylum granted where a petitioner fears or has experienced systematic kidnapping and assassination of family members because of a political position the asylee has taken publicly; female genital circumcision; state sponsored or approved genocide and ethnic cleansing through murder and rape.

From what we learned about the Cogenitor, it was not being persecuted or tortured. It was unhappy. It only has the freedoms and rights granted to it by its own society. Humans had no business essentially bestowing rights on it, and then determining that those rights were violated. (That's where the Dred Scott analogy fails; the Supreme Court could have recognized the rights of slaves - it chose not to.) We don't know what the Cogenitor's role was in reproduction: people seem to be assuming that it was akin to "A Handmaid's Tale," but it could just as well have been a painless extraction of a blood enzyme or hormone, as Phlox suggests.

I think LadyNRA has a good point. Charles could have gone back to its room and said, Hey, let me show you something. The Vissians were convinced that the Cogenitor was incapable of wanting, needing, or learning anything. It could have proved otherwise.

The only thing I fault Trip for here is going behind Archer's and T'Pol's backs. That really created a situation where nobody was going to listen to anybody else. But I do believe his heart was in the right place, and ultimately the technologically advanced Vissians could learn a lot about compsassion from him. The moral dilemma here, and the way there could be no happy ending, makes this, imo, one of the best Trek episodes I've ever seen. It's also why this is a very difficult episode to re-watch.
 
I know I'm inviting flame city, but while watching the show I wondered whether Trip was falling in romantic love with Charlie (more than just feeling sorry for her). This episode reminded me a lot of the one with Will and the gender neutral race with the chick who thought she was "she." She and Will started having feelings and eventually "she" was caught and her race identification wiped.

Although I'm glad that wasn't the result, it sure seemed to be heading that direction during the show.
 
bluedana said:
I agree with you, LadyNRA, and I think you state your position very nicely. I think we can all agree that Charles' situation was sad, but, as I've said before, that does not mean that asylum should be granted.

All [Archer] needed to do was grant asylum to one individual. This asylum, does not require a judgment upon the culture, the judgment, comes from our culture - again, not upon their culture - but upon the individual. In our culture, the needs of the individual, of the one, exceed the needs of the many. The philosophy ultimately behind it is rather simple: how can you guarantee the rights and freedom of the many, if you can't even guarantee it of a single individual? The questions that need to be answered is simple: will this individual be robbed of her/him/its freedom, will she/he/it be restricted, or repressed, and will this be done unreasonably so - aka, is she/he/it a criminal? If the answer is "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second one, then the asylum must be granted.
I'm sorry, but, even though this is widely held belief here (and I'm not just picking on this poster), it's not correct. If we assume that 22nd century asylum is in line with 21st century principles, much more is necessary to grant asylum than two simple questions. In order to get asylum in the U.S., which since the Refugee Act of 1980, conforms to U.N. conventions and principles, you have to show: a "well-founded fear of persecution" based on (1) political opinion, (2) religion, (3) race, (4) nationality, or (5) membership in a particular social group." It's not membership in a group that is the trigger; it's persecution (which can include torture). Therefore, it is a comment on the culture - you're essentially saying to a sovereign government that you are stepping into the relationship between government and citizen in order to protect a citizen from its own government. That is a huge statement, and it's why asylum is not frequently or lightly granted.

And that's exactly what's happening with the Cogenitor. It'll be used as a sex slave for the rest of its life. That is indeed a form of persecution or torture. Hence, the Asylum should be granted, and the Asylum should be granted more often on our planet if they're afraid on stepping on a countries toes.

A petitioner can't just show that he or she is unhappy, or not fulfilled, or even that certain rights (which we might be guaranteed in our Constitution) are being denied him or her. He or she has to show fear of or actual persecution. I've seen denials of asylum based on petitioners' claims of forced abortion in a one-child society; denial of one's right to attend religious worship; denial (for women) of the same opportunities for education, etc., as men; conscription in the army; and economic hardship. But I've also seen asylum granted where a petitioner fears or has experienced systematic kidnapping and assassination of family members because of a political position the asylee has taken publicly; female genital circumcision; state sponsored or approved genocide and ethnic cleansing through murder and rape.

From what we learned about the Cogenitor, it was not being persecuted or tortured.

How about being a sex slave for life? Essentially state-sponsored rape - over, and over, and over, and over again until it dies? Having no freedom - being essentially imprisoned from birth to death. Is that good enough of torture and persecution for ya?

It was unhappy. It only has the freedoms and rights granted to it by its own society. Humans had no business essentially bestowing rights on it, and then determining that those rights were violated.

Of course we have that business. That's our culture - individuals, regardless of gender, skin color, religion, political view, or species all are considered equals and have thus the same rights. Any individual who is not given these rights, and is abused, enslaved, imprisoned, tortured, or is otherwise violated gets asylum granted to it.

(That's where the Dred Scott analogy fails; the Supreme Court could have recognized the rights of slaves - it chose not to.) We don't know what the Cogenitor's role was in reproduction: people seem to be assuming that it was akin to "A Handmaid's Tale," but it could just as well have been a painless extraction of a blood enzyme or hormone, as Phlox suggests.

Yeah, you know, the extraction of one's seed through a blowjob is not only painless, but is even pleasurable. If it's done against your will though, while your chained to a table, it's still rape, hell, torture and a violation of everything you are. Or for that matter, putting a girl under narcosis before circumcising her would also be entirely painless - still torture.

I think LadyNRA has a good point. Charles could have gone back to its room and said, Hey, let me show you something. The Vissians were convinced that the Cogenitor was incapable of wanting, needing, or learning anything. It could have proved otherwise.

BUAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You don't actually believe that, do you? They just SAID that. As a nice lie they speak to others, and maybe even to themselves. But they all know, and the very least deep down, it's bullshit.

The only thing I fault Trip for here is going behind Archer's and T'Pol's backs. That really created a situation where nobody was going to listen to anybody else. But I do believe his heart was in the right place, and ultimately the technologically advanced Vissians could learn a lot about compsassion from him. The moral dilemma here, and the way there could be no happy ending, makes this, imo, one of the best Trek episodes I've ever seen. It's also why this is a very difficult episode to re-watch.

And the fact that Archer betrayed his own culture so he could jump into bed with the Vissians and consigned an individual to ever lasting sex slavery, and thus committing suicide to avoid that fate, is the sick thing. It makes this episode bad, almost as bad as "Dear Doctor", but not quite.
 
commodore64 said:
I know I'm inviting flame city, but while watching the show I wondered whether Trip was falling in romantic love with Charlie (more than just feeling sorry for her). This episode reminded me a lot of the one with Will and the gender neutral race with the chick who thought she was "she." She and Will started having feelings and eventually "she" was caught and her race identification wiped.

Although I'm glad that wasn't the result, it sure seemed to be heading that direction during the show.
The only reason I'm inclined to disagree with the romance aspect is that when Charles comes to Trip in engineering and tells him "they" won't let it choose it's own life, he tells it to give it time. Doesn't seem like a very strong reaction to me.
 
The dehumanizing(don't pick! Dealienizing? Get the )(&* out of town!) of the Cogenitor constructed a mindset incapable of being tortured or offended. Ignorance is bliss. This was a societal device invented to protect the Cogenitor from feeling used, and protect everyone else from the guilt of using the Cogenitor.

It was Trip who gave her the apple.

Trip is the snake and the Nissian Politisocioengineers behind the scenes who we do not see, are God
 
And that's exactly what's happening with the Cogenitor. It'll be used as a sex slave for the rest of its life.
Where is the evidence for this proposition? I don't remember any dialogue establishing that the Cogenitor's contribution to reproduction was sexual, or that it was a sex slave.
 
Uh... Three genders? Cogenitors being needed to have children, which is why the engineer and his wife are so lucky because it's hard to get one? Tucker asking how it would work with three genders and Phlox offering to show him some pictures? :wtf: You think they just touch fingers like Q or something?
 
bluedana said:
And that's exactly what's happening with the Cogenitor. It'll be used as a sex slave for the rest of its life.
Where is the evidence for this proposition? I don't remember any dialogue establishing that the Cogenitor's contribution to reproduction was sexual, or that it was a sex slave.
The issue isn't that it's needed for reproduction. The issue is that it is involuntary. The wife gripes to Archer about having to wait to be GIVEN a cogenitor. The third sex is not free to choose its mating partners. It is not free to decline a mating. It has no role in raising the child it helps bring into existence. It can't be an engineer. Or a biologist. Or a starship captain. It has absolutely nothing to say about any aspect of its EXISTENCE.
 
HA! But it wasn't involuntary! The Cogenitor didn't know that refusal was an option and she didn't know that it wasn't supposed to dislike being used. It just wasn't part of it's world. You might as well be using a hammer to screw a screw. The Cogenitor did what it was told because it was raised to think like a thing which did what it was told with out remorse or a second thought like a well trained dog or horse.

Only by explaining to it that it was a sex slave did it notice that it was a sex slave, which is exactly what Trip did. So now that it understands that there are options when exactly did it decide to top itself? Merely at the thought of being returned to its previous life, or after she had been forced kicking and screaming to... As much as the Cogenitor had been socially programed, the Nissians were too. Did they really understand when a Cogenitor said no? and did they really know how to rape their Cogenitor if it is trying to rip the throat out of the happy couple trying to make a baby?

Did she really kill herself? As much as I have always said that the Nissians lied, and that she was still alive, just so the humans would shut up and move along, forcing the Cogenitor to fuck against it's will could have been so dangerous and adversarial that she could have been accidentally killed while the Nissian couple were defending themselves... or worse. What happens to a dog when it attacks a person? The state puts it down. At least in the outcast they brainwiped the "person" who thought it was merely a woman.

I was listening to Chris Rock going on about how black people used to be killed for reading and knowing what rectangles were by their white masters... A notion which was touched on slightly via a distantly tethered metaphor in Northstar.
 
:wtf: Are you serious? Are you actually being an apologist for the Vissians and their treatment of the cogenitors?
 
I'm not apologizing.

I'm stating for a fact how they thought. Whether by our standards it is wrong or right. It was made abundantly clear thoughout the episode that the Vissians didn't know that what they were doing was immoral or wrong, just like some of us think it's ridiculous to consider eating meat is murder and the cigarette advertising targeting children is tollerable.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top