Did Vulcans seem hypocritical at times?

[Anwar]

The Vulcans have always been rather...well, dick-ish. All the way to TOS.

Spock was a royal asshole some of the time, like when he made fun of how Rand was nearly raped.

Sarek stopped speaking to Spock for 18 years due to Spock's career choice (even though he was fully aware that Spock was seen as a type of outcast who was mocked during his upbringing and thus it's logical he wouldn't want to be around bigots like that), not caring how this probably made his wife unhappy too.

T'Pring wasn't a terribly nice person.

T'Pau was xenophobic and racist.

That's from TOS alone.

Is there really a lot of logic in these attitudes?

 

[Timo]

Why not? The human society is based on the telling of pleasant lies in the vain hope that there might be future social benefit - which is why game theory is piss-poor at describing true human interaction, as it assumes all long-term planning to aim at rather straightforward maximizing of personal gain, not a settling for inoffensive levels of gain. Vulcans could well be different, believing that flattery and groveling will merely bite them back in the future.

Being racist when only Vulcans are around is no doubt very logical, that is, rational, and helps the species survive in their demanding environment (both planetary and mental). Is being racist logical in a multicultural environment? Vulcans no doubt use their version of game theory to come up with an answer of resounding yes. We've heard of no downsides so far.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JesterFace]

It's hard to like Vulcans... Often they just seem to think they're better at everything.

But... it's also common in our culture today.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The human society is based on the telling of pleasant lies in the vain hope that there might be future social benefit - which is why game theory is piss-poor at describing true human interaction, as it assumes all long-term planning to aim at rather straightforward maximizing of personal gain, not a settling for inoffensive levels of gain. Vulcans could well be different, believing that flattery and groveling will merely bite them back in the future.

Being racist when only Vulcans are around is no doubt very logical, that is, rational, and helps the species survive in their demanding environment (both planetary and mental). Is being racist logical in a multicultural environment? Vulcans no doubt use their version of game theory to come up with an answer of resounding yes. We've heard of no downsides so far.

There are groups which exist today, that think the same way. They tend to wear pointy hats and white robes.

 

[Autistoid]

The human society is based on the telling of pleasant lies in the vain hope that there might be future social benefit - which is why game theory is piss-poor at describing true human interaction, as it assumes all long-term planning to aim at rather straightforward maximizing of personal gain, not a settling for inoffensive levels of gain. Vulcans could well be different, believing that flattery and groveling will merely bite them back in the future.

Being racist when only Vulcans are around is no doubt very logical, that is, rational, and helps the species survive in their demanding environment (both planetary and mental). Is being racist logical in a multicultural environment? Vulcans no doubt use their version of game theory to come up with an answer of resounding yes. We've heard of no downsides so far.

There are groups which exist today, that think the same way. They tend to wear pointy hats and white robes.

This is a very counter productive way of thinking.


Racism is a pseudoscientific belief that different racial groups have different genetic superiorities.

This doesn't carry over to alien species.

If you concede that vulcans are actually a species not related to humans at all you can't call it racist.

By that logic all meat eaters are genocidal maniacs.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The human society is based on the telling of pleasant lies in the vain hope that there might be future social benefit - which is why game theory is piss-poor at describing true human interaction, as it assumes all long-term planning to aim at rather straightforward maximizing of personal gain, not a settling for inoffensive levels of gain. Vulcans could well be different, believing that flattery and groveling will merely bite them back in the future.

Being racist when only Vulcans are around is no doubt very logical, that is, rational, and helps the species survive in their demanding environment (both planetary and mental). Is being racist logical in a multicultural environment? Vulcans no doubt use their version of game theory to come up with an answer of resounding yes. We've heard of no downsides so far.

There are groups which exist today, that think the same way. They tend to wear pointy hats and white robes.

This is a very counter productive way of thinking.


Racism is a pseudoscientific belief that different racial groups have different genetic superiorities.

This doesn't carry over to alien species.

If you concede that vulcans are actually a species not related to humans at all you can't call it racist.

By that logic all meat eaters are genocidal maniacs.

Race and species are probably interchangeable in this context. Calling an extraterrestrial species a different Race might be more accurate than identifying different groups of humans as different races.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

I always had just a wee bit of sympathy with T'Pring. I don't justify what she did, but she was a victim of archaic and sexist laws. She had no sane and harmless option available to her if she didn't want to marry Spock. She was in her own way of a victim of Vulcan's oppressive and hypocritical laws.

Sarek always infuriates me with his own prejudices against Spock's human traits after he himself chose to marry and have a child with a human woman. It seems terribly illogical and hypocritical to demand that his half human son repress any human traits.

Vulcans are really fascinating, but part of their appeal is their deep flaws and contradictions.

^This.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't see why T'Pring is a victim, to be honest. She didn't want to marry Spock, so she was perfectly free to choose a champion to fight him. (And if that champion loses, I'm not aware of any Vulcan laws against divorce...we saw T'Pol and Koss do that, didn't we?) If anything, Kirk was the victim here, not T'Pring.

As for Vulcan's marriage laws: The husband who doesn't want to go through with it, and I'm sure there's plenty who don't, is just as much a victim as the wife, isn't he? Unless there's something I'm missing here.

 

[Anwar]

I can sort of see it from her POV. I mean, she's set up in this arranged marriage she had no say in, and when her Husband to be shows up he makes it totally clear he is only doing this because of the link that was created between them and is leaving as soon as the wedding is complete. If it was a choice between that and someone who she loved (and loved her)...she has a right to want to protest the marriage. Obviously Stonn was going to be her champion, and she only chose Kirk because she didn't think Stonn could defeat Spock.

Of course, there's the possibility she didn't want to be married to a half-human. Which makes her less sympathetic.

 

[Nerys Myk]

She didn't want to be married to a legend.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

She didn't want to be married to a legend.

Very good point. Not everyone wants to live in the limelight, especially as a consequence of a loveless marriage with an absentee husband.

Speaking more broadly, some Klingons are arguably as hypocritical about honor as some Vulcans are about logic. Thus the peril of basing--or claiming to base--an entire society on a single abstract principle. It can be too easily distorted by those with unscrupulous motives. (See: "The devil can quote scripture for his purpose." )

 

[Tracy Trek]

She didn't want to be married to a legend.

Very good point. Not everyone wants to live in the limelight, especially as a consequence of a loveless marriage with an absentee husband.

Speaking more broadly, some Klingons are arguably as hypocritical about honor as some Vulcans are about logic. Thus the peril of basing--or claiming to base--an entire society on a single abstract principle. It can be too easily distorted by those with unscrupulous motives. (See: "The devil can quote scripture for his purpose." )

As much as I love Star Trek, this has always bugged me. It makes the alien races being depicted seem a bit one dimensional.

 

[C.E. Evans]

She didn't want to be married to a legend.

Very good point. Not everyone wants to live in the limelight, especially as a consequence of a loveless marriage with an absentee husband.

Speaking more broadly, some Klingons are arguably as hypocritical about honor as some Vulcans are about logic. Thus the peril of basing--or claiming to base--an entire society on a single abstract principle. It can be too easily distorted by those with unscrupulous motives. (See: "The devil can quote scripture for his purpose." )

As much as I love Star Trek, this has always bugged me. It makes the alien races being depicted seem a bit one dimensional.

To be fair, there's also the issue that during encounters with aliens, only a particular group of them are usually present (for example, Starfleet crews may encounter Klingon warriors far more than any other group in Klingon society).

Likewise, to some aliens, the only members of Federation that they may encounter are Human Starfleet officers. To them, the Federation may seem one dimensional or "a Homo Sapiens-only club."

 

[Tim Thomason]

Now does it seem logical for a race that is supposed to embrace infinite diversity in infinite combinations (IDIC) to denigrate someone for being different? At least in the 2009 movie, it wasn't just the children who were doing it. The old men on the committee for the Vulcan Science Academy just had to bring up the fact that they thought his human mother was a disadvantage to him.

Logical deduction: Denigrate the half-human child Spock into an emotional breakdown = remove him from the grading pool and perhaps receive a higher position in their academic studies.

These are children, btw, who probably don't see the consequences of their actions. I like to think they were given a very long lecture on how this was actually a very illogical course of action to take.

 

[The Old Mixer]

If IDIC is supposed to be a culture-wide ideal, then it appears to be "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations...but not in our backyard."

However, there is the possibility that IDIC is a movement on Vulcan, of which Spock is a champion, towards greater acceptance of diversity (which would entail Vulcans recognizing that they have a problem with it).

On the subject of T'Pring...don't forget that she was also scheming to get Spock's lands out of the bargain.

Spock was a royal asshole some of the time, like when he made fun of how Rand was nearly raped.

I would chalk that much up to Spock's awkward early development as a character. The more refined Spock who eventually emerged probably wouldn't have had that beat, at least not played quite the same way.

Early Spock had issues with gender sensitivity.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=703HLytSAFQ[/yt]

 

[T'Girl]

I'm not aware of any Vulcan laws against divorce ...we saw T'Pol and Koss do that, didn't we?

Just because T'Pol and Koss separated, does that automatically mean T'Pring would of had the same option? A century later and on (perhaps) a different part of Vulcan?

Kirk was the victim here, not T'Pring.

Kirk could have withdrawn, T'Pau made this clear to him. He agreed for his own reasons, but he did agree freely.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

Kirk could have withdrawn, T'Pau made this clear to him. He agreed for his own reasons, but he did agree freely.

He didn't know it was a fight to the death at that point.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ And the reason I said Kirk was the victim was because T'Pring's machinations forced him to - as far as he knew it at the time - kill his best friend. Kirk was the innocent party in all of this. Neither Spock nor T'Pring are, because they are simply following Vulcan custom. Kirk was dragged into it against his will.

I'm not aware of any Vulcan laws against divorce ...we saw T'Pol and Koss do that, didn't we?

Just because T'Pol and Koss separated, does that automatically mean T'Pring would of had the same option? A century later and on (perhaps) a different part of Vulcan?

There's no evidence that marriage laws are different in various areas of Vulcan. That would be rather illogical if they were, anyway. Vulcan is a unified world government, so why would such an important custom be any different?

And in any case, T'Pring specifically pointed out that Spock would surely divorce her if he won the fight. (actually she said he'd "release" her, but it's obviously the same thing.) So they must have had the right to end the marriage if it had been carried out.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

I've always had the impression that Spock's family was highborn and T'Pol's marginally less so. Perhaps couples in highborn families felt more pressure to remain married given their increased social standing. Vulcan was a conservative society, after all.

 

[Anwar]

Spock's family may be and old and noble ranked one, but by the time of Amok Time they probably had a less than stellar reputation. Sarek was probably seen as an oddball for choosing to spend his time interacting with illogical barbarian aliens, his firstborn son rejected logic and tried to lead a revolution on Vulcan; Sarek then married an illogical barbarian alien and had a hybrid child (Spock wasn't the first hybrid Vulcan, but it's probably still rare).

So to other Vulcans, Sarek's family probably come off as a bunch of nutters.

 

[T'Arwen]

Since the general consensus is that Vulcans can be hypocritical, why do some people have an issue with this in ENT to the point where they say it's a continuity issue? From what I saw in Amok Time and Babel (Spock feeling out of place as a child because he was half-human), it's pretty well-established that some Vulcan have bad attitudes toward anyone who's different. Why wouldn't the racism be worse in ENT? Just 50 years ago, a huge chunk of America was segregated. ENT is over 100 years before TOS.

Speaking more broadly, some Klingons are arguably as hypocritical about honor as some Vulcans are about logic. Thus the peril of basing--or claiming to base--an entire society on a single abstract principle. It can be too easily distorted by those with unscrupulous motives. (See: "The devil can quote scripture for his purpose." )

The ENT episode Judgment actually has Kolos addressing that. His words:

My father was a teacher. My mother, a biologist at the university. They encouraged me to take up the law. Now, all young people want to do is to take up weapons as soon as they can hold them. They're told there is honor in victory – any victory. What honor is there in a victory over a weaker opponent? Had Duras destroyed that ship, he would have been lauded as a hero of the Empire for murdering helpless refugees. We were a great society, not so long ago. When honor was earned through integrity and acts of true courage, not senseless bloodshed.