I don't know why you associate my position on this with being a neocon, as you continue to do, but you're wildly off on that point. I think you're understanding of the political spectrum is a little skewed. Others on this thread have also taken the same position I have: are they all would-be imperialist, neocon, whatever-other-buzz words you want to use, etc.?
Learning to love "Insurrection"
- Thread starter Trek Survivor
- Start date
I don't know why you associate my position on this with being a neocon, as you continue to do, but you're wildly off on that point. I think you're understanding of the political spectrum is a little skewed. Others on this thread have also taken the same position I have: are they all would-be imperialist, neocon, whatever-other-buzz words you want to use, etc.?
but you realize that's a slippery slope argument, right? I mean, there's a big difference between relocation of a small artificial village to bring a revolutionary medical benefit to countless billions, and just conquering a nation to steal its wealth.
That's why we use things like good judgment, common sense, etc. to avoid the problem of adhering to an abstract principle or law in a case where it ends up doing more harm than good.
Sonak, you're using an ad populum argument so must really be at the end if your rope here. This is not an artificial village, it's a 300 year old community which makes it older than the united states is today. If you think it's ok to take away someone else's stuff without asking or even offering anything in return you are an imperialist. There's no argument you can make otherwise.
If I'm an imperialist for putting the needs of the many before the needs of the few... so be it.
But what does it make Picard who violated multiple orders before he ever knew what was going on in the Briar Patch? Violated orders of a democratically-elected government he swore to protect and uphold? But let's not gloss over the fact that the S'ona had every-bit as good of claim to the planet as the Ba'ku. Let's also not forget that Picard should've recused the Federation from the whole mess once he found out it was a blood feud. But he didn't. Picard's motives weren't driven by the plight of the poor Ba'ku, they were driven by a hot piece of ass. Which is why he threw around the Prime Directive at the thought of moving the Ba'ku, but didn't utter a word after he found out (until the very end) that it was a blood feud and an internal matter for the S'ona and Ba'ku to hash out .
But what does it make Picard who violated multiple orders before he ever knew what was going on in the Briar Patch? Violated orders of a democratically-elected government he swore to protect and uphold? But let's not gloss over the fact that the S'ona had every-bit as good of claim to the planet as the Ba'ku. Let's also not forget that Picard should've recused the Federation from the whole mess once he found out it was a blood feud. But he didn't. Picard's motives weren't driven by the plight of the poor Ba'ku, they were driven by a hot piece of ass. Which is why he threw around the Prime Directive at the thought of moving the Ba'ku, but didn't utter a word after he found out (until the very end) that it was a blood feud and an internal matter for the S'ona and Ba'ku to hash out .
an "ad populum" argument would be if I said that you should agree with me because the majority of the people on this thread agree with me therefore I must be right. I don't know where you got that from in my previous post.
at any rate, I and a bunch of other people on this thread have made sound arguments as to why we think the way we do on this. If you want to keep saying "imperialist!" over and over again because you have a thing for that word, then have fun.
Because a lot of people believe something it must be this or that. How is that not ad populum? So you don't understand logical falacies, you don't understand the prime directive, and you don't understand that making excuses like "they haven't been there that long" or "We have a bigger need than them" is imperialism. That's problematic.
BillJ said:
Yes, you are. I've always found that quote from Spock to be fascist. It's fine for personal decisions and sacrifices, but it's an entirely other thing when it's you dictating to someone else that they need to do the sacrificing.
I tell you two egalitarian angels what: Name me some instances in history where a large group forcing a smaller one to give something up has resulted in an ethical greater good. They have to be forced, unwillingly with no reward at all and modern society has to look back and consider it for the best.
Because so far I and others have backed up our points with examples, which is what you do in arguments. All you've done so far is make statements of emotional, gut feelings but you haven't actually shown them in practice.
I find it funny that you didn't actually answer a single question that I asked of you. But that's probably because you have no answers that fit your point of view.
I would say the very existence of the United States is a good thing in the long run (built by removing populations and on the backs of slave labor). We built a great democracy and have been a world leader for over a century. It's a shame that it was done the way it was, but hindsight is 20/20.
Would the advances the world knows today have been possible without the U.S.?
But we're not talking about native populations are we? We're talking about squatters. We're talking about people who exiled their own because their philosophies didn't match up (which to me would seem like something the Federation would frown upon). Not to another part of the planet, but off the planet completely. Doing nothing short of sentencing them to death.
There was no treaty where the S'ona agree it's best to live off-world. There were no reparations for the S'ona who lost what they had worked for while on the planet. The Ba'ku found the S'ona a nuisance and sentence that nuisance to death.
I still can't get over the fact that the Ba'ku stood face to face with the S'ona in the village and had the audacity to play ignorant of the whole affair.
Without a doubt, I move the Ba'ku. The benefits for the Federation far outweigh the damage to six hundred squatters.
The whole Federation didn't exist thing bothers me as well. The Briar Patch could've well fallen under the jurisdiction of any number of species that are or were Federation members prior to its formation.
But Spock was speaking from the point of personal sacrifice, so it's not facist. He didn't send ensign no-name to sacrifice himself to the needs of the many, he sent himself. On the other hand, the military itself is based on the principle that the needs of the many (the civilian populace) outweigh the needs of the few (the soliders who risk themselves to protect said populace). Generals send privates in to do fighting, they don't sacrifice themselves.
As there's no way to actually know how world history would have gone or what world events might have transpired over the last 200+ years had the United States not been formed, it's a pointless argument. For all we know a greater and fairer country might have risen up in such an alternate history and the world might actually have become a better place overall. There's absolutely no way to know.
That sound a little "the end justifies the means", even if it wasn't intended to be.
None of this is to defend anything that happens in Insurrection, which is a badly written, bland film.
Last edited:
Oops. Corrected. Though that same description applies to Nemesis as well!
Oops. Corrected. Though that same description applies to Nemesis as well!
Very, very true.
I didn't answer them because they have nothing to do with the conversation. I hate insurrection. I don't care what Picard did or did not do right, what his motives were, or whether he should have worn blue or pink. Those are total strawmen. The issue is whether it's ok to move a small population by force without compensation for a so called "greater good". That I've answered very clearly on every point.
This despite the fact that most of our problems today still stem from inequalities created 500 years ago. I don't see why you think the States couldn't be a better nation today if there had been cooperation with natives and an economy that was not based on slave labor. Right now it's those very post-slave economies that ignored industrialization and are faltering today.
The same applies to the Baku. There's every reason to believe that a way to harness the planet's energy could be found in the long run through cooperation. That energy was not needed RIGHT NOW. There were no plagues in the federation, no lack of proper care. There is no "many" in that situation to do good by.
DS9Sega said:
I'm just acknowledging that it is a two edged sword. You can't use that line the way BillJ did without calling up a lot of bad history. And, of course, that line of thinking also neglects the Constitutional protection of minority rights from the interests of the majority.
Ahem...
Star Trek: Insurrection said:
The movie doesn't make clear how many "some of them" are? But it could be anywhere from ten to thousands.
If the Ba'ku have no problem turning away their own kind so they can be killed by the ravages of time... they should have no problem doing it themselves.
I don't think so. The whole movie is about the Ba'ku being these poor, defenseless people who never did anything wrong and how Picard is their 'knight in shining armor'.
But neither of these are true in this movie. The Ba'ku exiled (The state of being barred from one's native country, typically for political or punitive reasons.) their own kind and by doing so sentenced them to death. They used Picard as a putz, knowing damn well who they were dealing with from the moment the duck-blind mission was exposed. Using him as a shield because they knew that the S'ona had come home to take back what was taken from them. Picard got all wrapped up in moral indignation at the thought of moving the Ba'ku but didn't recuse the Federation the moment he found out it was an internal matter. Seems to me the first thing he would've done when Crusher enlightened him to the issue was to have a conference with Dougherty. That's where Picard's vaunted moral compass should've led him... but it didn't.
Not to mention the wanton violation of orders from both his superior officer and his government.
I guess that some rules and values are just easier for Picard to totally ignore than others are.
They are all threads in the grand scheme of the movie that show neither Picard nor the Ba'ku were following anything other than their own personal motives.
Doesn't matter. Prime Directive. It's a completely internal matter between the Baku and the Sona. Those people are also dying because they left their immortality atoms behind, not because they can't make Sona babies. There was absolutely no Federation interest there except some long term hope of better than already awesome health care.
You can frame it however you like, it's still their land and Star Fleet had no right to take it.
This, of course, is dumb on the part of the film and TNG's love of monocultures. The Sona attempted to violently overthrow the government and where exiled. That's their problem, not the Federation's. If the Sona had won they would have done the same, or worse, to the Baku. Considering the Baku are a village on a very large planet there's no reason the Sona couldn't have just moved to the other side of the planet. Or, if they chose to leave earlier, come back later and live on the other side of the planet.
The Sona could come back and execute every single Baku by cutting off their genitals and beating them to death with them. I couldn't care less. All that matters is that the Feds were going to help. That's all that's at issue here: Federation involvement. Period. Stop going outside that scope.
Again, whether Picard eats his eggs with the pointed or round side up is irrelevant to the topic.
I'm sorry. It seems that you've arbitrarily decided what scope the discussion should be. But very seldom does an issue have no outside factors that led to it. Every element I've hit on is in the body of the movie. I'm not making things up to fit my viewpoint.
Picard is wrong. He was wrong from the moment the movie started until the end where he blows up the collector. Either he believes in Federation values or he doesn't.
And I still move the Ba'ku, they're nothing more than squatters.
Whatever, dude. This is the topic I entered into with Sonak which you decided to join in on. You just want to change the subject to something you think you can win. Fine, you win. I'm bored.
Wow. Petty much? It's not about winning or losing... it's about the fun of discussing it (it is a message board).
Might want to go back and review the thread, there were many people discussing the ethics of this particular film (it actually started with HaventGotALife).
I'm not an idealist and neither is America. We would invade Bak'u for the oil I mean rings and launch a swift massive aerial assault and send in the ground troops to find their weapons of mass destruction (I'm actually half serious here). But honestly, I think DS9 should have just let the Federation die in the Dominion War. The Federation is held hostage by its own morals, which is why Section 31 continues to save its ass time and time again. Morally, its wrong to interfere with the Bak'u but it still is 600 people. I think Eddington said it best "the Borg actually tell u what they will do but the Feds will beat around the bush with moral blah blah" something like that. I wouldn't feel bad personally if the Feds went in there and said "look we're annexing this planet you are allowed settlement on any other world of your choice and if you refuse we'll take it by force." But maybe I'm just a heartless, realist individual. And for some reason, I think this attitude would actually strengthen the Federations position in the quadrant, and strengthen their alliance with the Klingons (who respect the Feds but openly hate the moral bullshit).
