you know what amazes me about the discussions here? That there are folks who have actually given the matter some serious thought and STILL side with not removing the Baku. I mean, I can understand if someone was just watching a film they found entertaining, and didn't really think too deeply about it. But to actually analyze the situation as it is in this film, NOT using historical analogies or metaphors, and still say it's wrong to remove the Baku is just baffling to me.
Learning to love "Insurrection"
- Thread starter Trek Survivor
- Start date
you know what amazes me about the discussions here? That there are folks who have actually given the matter some serious thought and STILL side with not removing the Baku. I mean, I can understand if someone was just watching a film they found entertaining, and didn't really think too deeply about it. But to actually analyze the situation as it is in this film, NOT using historical analogies or metaphors, and still say it's wrong to remove the Baku is just baffling to me.
You're changing the parameters of the debate. Just like I remember in one early form Geordi was actually dying from something and only the radiation in a concentrated form could save him.
We can go "what if?" til we're all blue in the face, but so far the debate (at least for me) has centered on the elements actually in the film.
Becuase if it was so right why the secrecy and why did the Federation council CHANGE THEIR MINDS, and thats if they even new about the plan before Riker called them which considering the history of antogonistic Admirals in Star Trek means it's possible he was doing the whole thing on his own.
But why would he bring Data on the mission? Why would he bring an officer who had no reason to be loyal to him beyond wearing the uniform?
This is where the "evil" Admiral charge loses all credibility.
Probably to avoid anyone asking too many questions. Though if this was an official mission why was Data SHOT?
He was more than likely shot by one of the S'ona who were protecting the holoship.
Star Trek: Insurrection said:
There seemed to be a very special brand of S'ona (the no-brain kind) defending the holoship. Because we see them fire on Picard, Data and Anij later in the film when they board the holoship.
And yet no one here finds it interesting that they would be guarding it from Starfleet officers when this is suppost to be done with the Feds blessing or the fact that Dougherty wanted Picard gone as soon as Data wasn't a concern anymore or even mentioned to plan until he was found out.
1. They were hiding it from the Ba'ku, no one has debated that point. I don't believe the S'ona were suppose to shoot but did so anyway. Why would you bring an officer that can essentially live underwater to a top secret mission that's most important piece is underwater?
2. Why is Dougherty required to make the mission known to Picard? From all appearances Dougherty is in command of the mission to remove the Ba'ku and an Admiral to boot, Picard is a starship captain who has no part in the mission. I'm not aware of too many instances of Picard having to inform a lesser officer who had no official part in a mission, of that mission.
Except Data DID NOT KNOW about it and was shot when he found out, who would shot someone who is hepling you with your secret thing? The answer is becuase he isn't helping, doesn't know about it, and you DON'T want him to know.
Still doesn't explain why he was teying to get Picard to leave quickly if this was the up and up.
Also
Did Picard ever flat out LIE to the Junior officer in those cases?
Which brings it back to the very first question: if it was so top secret, why bring Data in the first place?
One, there is no instance of Picard ever having to report on a current mission to a junior officer who wasn't involved in the mission. Two, there is no instance of Dougherty lying to Picard in any way shape or form. The worse you have is Dougherty stating he didn't know what precipitated the issue with Data. The S'ona could've just as easily lied to him about what happened and without the hard evidence Dougherty wouldn't be any the wiser.
Never mind the fact, yet again, that Picard violated both Starfleet's and Dougherty's orders in regards to going to the Briar Patch to begin with. Then continues to violate Dougherty's orders and the orders of a democratically-elected body.
But some people are so wrapped up in the need for Picard to be right, they ignore huge chunks of data that exist right in the body of the film.
For me, Picard inserted himself into a situation he knew little about and started waving the flag of immorality. He stuck his nose into a situation it didn't belong. This was Dougherty's mission and Dougherty's responsibility for good or ill. YMMV.
I watched this turd yesterday and actually almost liked it because it was more like an episode than any of the other films, but there was just too much horse shit right from the very beginning for me to get into it.
One thing that I noticed is that everything we're talking about. Every argument that people here are making about how the baku should be evacuated was made by Dougherty in the film and it also applies to the sona. Let's review:
"The Prime Directive doesn't apply." - BS. Prime Directive applies to any culture not a part of the federation, even if they are warp capable... but moving on...
"These people are not indigenous to this planet." - Neither are the Sona
"They were never meant to be immortal." Then neither would the Sona. Any argument that they were "sentenced to death" or that they need to be saved is BS from this point on.
"We'll simply be restoring them to their natural evolution." Which sounds like the Prime Directive - which supposedly doesn't apply. Again, the Sona have no more or less of a right to be immortal.
Later on we get the reason why the E-E can't even report publicly what they've found: "If the Enterprise gets through with news about their brave Captain's valiant struggle on behalf of the defenceless Ba'ku, your Federation politicians will waver, your Federation opinion polls will open a public debate, your Federation allies will want their say. ...Need I go on?"
Yeah, democratic process. Everyone against the Baku is not getting that the Fed is a democracy. Sure, make the point until you're blue in the face about the needs of the many. But if the conspirators are afraid of debate then the many haven't had their say. I still think any reasonable law system protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority (the only thing Ayn Rand got right), but to not even allow the public to knowledge and protest is ridiculous. That's what bad government does.
I think, at this point, Insurrection is ethically sound about the Baku. About letting Ruaffo die and making Data into a kid and dwelling on time stopping moments, etc etc its totally wrong. But the Baku deserve their planet.
One thing that I noticed is that everything we're talking about. Every argument that people here are making about how the baku should be evacuated was made by Dougherty in the film and it also applies to the sona. Let's review:
"The Prime Directive doesn't apply." - BS. Prime Directive applies to any culture not a part of the federation, even if they are warp capable... but moving on...
"These people are not indigenous to this planet." - Neither are the Sona
"They were never meant to be immortal." Then neither would the Sona. Any argument that they were "sentenced to death" or that they need to be saved is BS from this point on.
"We'll simply be restoring them to their natural evolution." Which sounds like the Prime Directive - which supposedly doesn't apply. Again, the Sona have no more or less of a right to be immortal.
Later on we get the reason why the E-E can't even report publicly what they've found: "If the Enterprise gets through with news about their brave Captain's valiant struggle on behalf of the defenceless Ba'ku, your Federation politicians will waver, your Federation opinion polls will open a public debate, your Federation allies will want their say. ...Need I go on?"
Yeah, democratic process. Everyone against the Baku is not getting that the Fed is a democracy. Sure, make the point until you're blue in the face about the needs of the many. But if the conspirators are afraid of debate then the many haven't had their say. I still think any reasonable law system protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority (the only thing Ayn Rand got right), but to not even allow the public to knowledge and protest is ridiculous. That's what bad government does.
I think, at this point, Insurrection is ethically sound about the Baku. About letting Ruaffo die and making Data into a kid and dwelling on time stopping moments, etc etc its totally wrong. But the Baku deserve their planet.
your interpretation of the PD as applying to any "non-Federation" culture would of course mean that the Federation should give up exploration, first contact missions, etc. since all these things are "interference." They should stay home and engage in sexually satisfying holodeck programs.
your interpretation of the PD as applying to any "non-Federation" culture would of course mean that the Federation should give up exploration, first contact missions, etc. since all these things are "interference." They should stay home and participate in sexually satisfying holodeck programs.
Is the same one the shows have been using.
um, yeah, if you'd followed Trek from TOS onward, you'd know that the definition of what the PD means has changed dramatically.
watch TOS' "the paradise syndrome," then TNG' "pen pals," then "redemption" and tell me Trek's interpretation of the PD has remained static and coherent.
The writers just use the PD as a plot device to mean whatever puts arbitrary obstacles in the way of the characters.
Um, no it wouldn't. Interference would be getting involved with a culture. Obviously revealing yourself, even to a prewarp culture, is not completely out of the question. The PD may fluctuate from show to show, but it's core stays stable. And moving people off their world would violate every permutation. Which episode are you basing your interpretation on? I don't think you can find one. Just like you couldn't seem to answer any of the other points I made above. Seriously, just because Roger Ebert said something doesn't mean it's true.
It violates every version, eh? Is that why Dougherty explicitly says the PD DOESN'T apply? Oh, but wait, Dougherty is the "bad guy" right, so Picard's b.s. interpretation is obviously right.
Yeah, your arguments are so wise I can't wrap my mind around their brilliance.
Yup, good way to avoid actually answering me. Of course, Dougherty also says several other things that are completely wrong and hypocritical in that conversation, as I pointed out. But he's just right about that one? Makes sense. I've also made several hundreds of points pages earlier on why it would violate the PD, which you've also never answered. This is exhausting. It's like you think just tiring someone out is going to make you right. It doesn't work that way.
Doesn't Picard say to Doughtery that he brought the Federation into the middle of a "blood feud"? Isn't that a violation as well?
For example, the Federation refused to interfere in the internal matters of the Klingons such as with their civil war. This sounds like a similar situation.
For example, the Federation refused to interfere in the internal matters of the Klingons such as with their civil war. This sounds like a similar situation.
