Oh man...do you mind if I use your post as my signature?
I don't care who ya are...that there is funny stuff! Funny, but TRUE! 
Last edited:
Not rescuing Nero: thumbs up or down?
- Thread starter Franklin
- Start date
Oh man...do you mind if I use your post as my signature?
I don't care who ya are...that there is funny stuff! Funny, but TRUE!
No it doesn't. It puts him in the camp of JUSTICE (and the true definition of "Rule of Law"). The rules are...one shouldn't go and commit acts of war and genocide without provocation and not expect consequences for one's actions. Those consequences can include forfeiture of life/existence.
The consequences are there to serve as a deterrent. If the deterrent doesn't work, well then we have to impliment our laws. Thus, rule of law...
Yes, we live by rule of law...and the basic laws should be upheld. In other words, if one commits mass murder the penalty should be death.
Do you have some kind of "emotional shunt" in your brain that prevents you from comprehending and accepting the concept of consequences for actions and implimentation of contemporary law?
I truly do not get/understand people like you.
I'm not saying your intent is not honorable or respectable (in an idealistic and utopian kind of way), but what I am saying is that you're not considering that people like you would be taken advantage of by a person like Nero (and I can think of some real life people would also take advantage of a person who thinks as you do).
I thought Kirk was nuts for offering to assist Nero to begin with, but Kirk demonstrated throughout the movie that he was not the kind of guy to put up with any nonsense. He (and Spock) upheld the "rule of law" most admirably in my opinion...
Do you have some kind of neurological disorder in which you read what you want to instead of what the words actually convey? I never said we shouldn't punish mass murderers, but that we have formal institutions that are geared towards punishing these people and the mechanisms of enforcement do not include individuals doling out punishment. Summary execution and the blood feud is NOT a form of modern justice, and deserves to stay in early human society not in today's society and most certainly not in the future. I invite you to research the Germanic blood feud and how much damage it did to society, to the point where rulers in the late migration period had to pass laws explicitly banning such activity.
If one commits mass murder the punishment should be what the court determines it to be based on their legal code and academic consideration. If the Federation does not have the death penalty, as demonstrated by the series, then that precludes the doling of death even at higher levels (the court), nevermind the summary execution determined by one or two individuals.
Also, do not confuse my personal position with the one I am arguing. I am talking about the Federation's laws here and consistency of such, not my own personal viewpoints. While I observe deontological laws, they have limitations, though they were more or less entirely corrected with W.D. Ross. You also fail to realize our legal system is heavily influenced by deontological philosophy.
And no, summary execution does not put you on the side of justice if the person was a bastard. Otherwise you must concede the Soviet Union had the right idea after WW2.
So I have to swallow the bitter pill and throw out the 40 year history of Trek that is ignored completely by this film? The idea of firing on a wounded enemy is so against what Starfleet and the Federation is supposed to stand for, isn't it?
I don't think they had time to setup a court. And courts can be setup and politically undermined to serve an agenda NOT in the interest of others -- or the rule of law.Because of that, sometimes a court is NOT the way to go. I can think of a few real world mass murderers/tyrants who should be smoked...no questions asked.
You criticize me for not understanding your position, but there are others here in this thread who read your posts on this the same way I do...
So, we must not all be misreading your intent or ideological position on how to deal with mass murderers or Nero in this case.
And underlying my point is the firm belief that simply bringing Nero before a court to be tried would not necessarily dole out justice. What if he got off the hook and was released? Or allowed to live?
That would be acceptable to you?
Well, not to me...and not to others. I realize we are talking about a movie here but it rings very true to real-world situations where I would genuinely want the perpetrator of the genocide smoked.
No kangaroo court...no prison time...
Just smoked. Send em to hell to be judged.
Because of that, sometimes a court is NOT the way to go. I can think of a few real world mass murderers/tyrants who should be smoked...no questions asked.
You criticize me for not understanding your position, but there are others here in this thread who read your posts on this the same way I do...
So, we must not all be misreading your intent or ideological position on how to deal with mass murderers or Nero in this case.
And underlying my point is the firm belief that simply bringing Nero before a court to be tried would not necessarily dole out justice. What if he got off the hook and was released? Or allowed to live?
That would be acceptable to you?
Well, not to me...and not to others. I realize we are talking about a movie here but it rings very true to real-world situations where I would genuinely want the perpetrator of the genocide smoked.
No kangaroo court...no prison time...
Just smoked.
Individuals not having an adequate background to understand arguments made from a certain position does not make the majority correct in their assertions or opinions derived from the statements. If I got together with 9 other people and debated about the nature of quantum mechanics with a theoretical physicist and we (the group) come to a conclusion that the physicist did not intend and may very well be grossly incorrect, we are not correct because we are in the majority. Argumentum ad populum is logical fallacy, after all.
Also, of course the Federation courts are equipped to handle this case, they seem capable of handing most situations that require legal intervention in some capacity and come to conclusions that are not only internally consistent, but correct.
If Nero was deemed unfit for trial and instead confined somewhere for the safety of the Federation, I would not mine. Unlike some people who want moral gratification instead of justice, I don't have the conclusion predetermined. This is extremely unlikely however, as the body of evidence and Nero's own pride would likely give him a true life sentence, if not some kind of exception regarding the laws of capital punishment in the Federation.
There is also the option to just let him become torn apart by the black hole, that is also a possibility. But killing him outright? Illegal as well as not consistent with the Federation's belief systems.
Because of that, sometimes a court is NOT the way to go. I can think of a few real world mass murderers/tyrants who should be smoked...no questions asked.
You criticize me for not understanding your position, but there are others here in this thread who read your posts on this the same way I do...
So, we must not all be misreading your intent or ideological position on how to deal with mass murderers or Nero in this case.
And underlying my point is the firm belief that simply bringing Nero before a court to be tried would not necessarily dole out justice. What if he got off the hook and was released? Or allowed to live?
That would be acceptable to you?
Well, not to me...and not to others. I realize we are talking about a movie here but it rings very true to real-world situations where I would genuinely want the perpetrator of the genocide smoked.
No kangaroo court...no prison time...
Just smoked.
Individuals not having an adequate background to understand arguments made from a certain position does not make the majority correct in their assertions or opinions derived from the statements. If I got together with 9 other people and debated about the nature of quantum mechanics with a theoretical physicist and we (the group) come to a conclusion that the physicist did not intend and may very well be grossly incorrect, we are not correct because we are in the majority. Argumentum ad populum is logical fallacy, after all.
Also, of course the Federation courts are equipped to handle this case, they seem capable of handing most situations that require legal intervention in some capacity and come to conclusions that are not only internally consistent, but correct.
If Nero was deemed unfit for trial and instead confined somewhere for the safety of the Federation, I would not mine. Unlike some people who want moral gratification instead of justice, I don't have the conclusion predetermined. This is extremely unlikely however, as the body of evidence and Nero's own pride would likely give him a true life sentence, if not some kind of exception regarding the laws of capital punishment in the Federation.
There is also the option to just let him become torn apart by the black hole, that is also a possibility. But killing him outright? Illegal as well as not consistent with the Federation's belief systems.
We're not talking about a disagreement on scientific theory here. We're talking about a gross and blatant example of genocide (in the case of Vulcan) and attempted genocide (in the case of Earth).
This, on a cosmic scale that was witnessed by many in Starfleet and on Earth. What's to debate or put on trial? It is what it is...and was pepetrated by Nero.
Granted, they could have just let the black hole take care of Nero, but again -- who's to say he wouldn't resurface later even more hellbent on revenge?
Last edited:
I find this quote by J.J. Abrams interesting. He's talking about revisiting characters like Khan in this new timeline.
The key there is he says, "I would argue that a person's character is what it is." So can we accept that TOS Kirk and TOS Spock would've fired on Nero in this situation?
Before anyone says this Kirk and Spock were younger and less experienced, well, they weren't that much younger than when we first met the TOS characters. And what happened was about character, not experience.
And, before one says that TOS Kirk and Spock never faced a similar circumstance, fine, but this was them, they were just facing it in this timeline.
And, before one says they grew up with different experiences, character shapes the environment as much as it's shaped by it. Context can't explain everything about what makes an individual.
The key there is he says, "I would argue that a person's character is what it is." So can we accept that TOS Kirk and TOS Spock would've fired on Nero in this situation?
Before anyone says this Kirk and Spock were younger and less experienced, well, they weren't that much younger than when we first met the TOS characters. And what happened was about character, not experience.
And, before one says that TOS Kirk and Spock never faced a similar circumstance, fine, but this was them, they were just facing it in this timeline.
And, before one says they grew up with different experiences, character shapes the environment as much as it's shaped by it. Context can't explain everything about what makes an individual.
