Yes, I'm sure you're having a lovely time repeating yourself, but you haven't actually provided any evidence that he's speaking legally and formally, you've just repeated the assertion that he is.
About 'repeating myself' - look at yourself, Sci: you keep repeating the same unconvincing, canon-contradicting arguments. Repeat them all you want, Sci - it won't make them more convincing.
And I have provided evidence:
"And the problems with your argument are:
-that
Dougherty (aka canon) directly said the federation has the planet aka it is not independent (your convoluted interpretation doesn't change this in the least);
-
that Picard confirmed Dougherty is speaking "legally and formally" when saying the planet is not independent by NOT contradicting him on this essential point (with ANY arguments, whether legal and moral).
Any half decent diplomat/reasonably intelligent person would contradict Dougherty regarding this point on which their entire discussion hinged - if this diplomat/person (aka Picard) has any arguments to contradict with, that is (your convoluted interpretation would have Picard be an incompetent moron)."
You want further evidence?:
When the enterprise tried to leave the Briar Patch, it did it NOT do so in order to notify the legal system, which would most definitely enforce a law (that's why laws are binding), but in order to notify public opinion, so that maybe they'll vote this way - or maybe not (meaning there is no law to invoke in favor of the ba'ku).
Once again, that Picard does not construct a legal brief is not evidence that a legal argument does not exist.
And once again, Picard does not construct ANY argument against Dougherty's points (essential to the discussion they had).
And, when a competent diplomat does not contradict such points by invoking a law granting independence or Prime Directive non-interference, then yes, such a law does NOT exist - it's too obvios and powerful an argument not to be invoked by even a mediocrily competent diplomat.
Whether or not Picard is a moron is entirely separate from the question of whether or not Ba'ku is Federation territory.
A, yes - your 'interpretation' not only ingnores canon just because you don't like it, but it would have Picard (an accomplished diplomat) be a complete moron - I already told you, Sci:
your interpretation is a convoluted mess.
So, wait, you just accept the most informal, ambiguous statements from Federates as the gospel truth, but when a Ba'ku says something very simply and plainly -- that they've lived on the Ba'ku planet for three hundred years -- then suddenly it's "not proven, not even close?"
Wow. Inconsistent standards much?
Sci -
actually watch the movie.
The ba'ku left their parent world 300 years ago. They did NOT arrive at the fountain of youth planet 300 years ago.
And one more thing, Sci.
What is the federation? An alliance of species that put their resources and
territory in common in 2161.
Before 2161, the future federation territory was
sovereign territory belonging to vulcans, andorians, tellarites, etc, etc - and this, since time immemorial.
After 2161, their sovereignity was continued with
federation sovereignity over the territory.
The ba'ku - no matter when they found the fountain of youth planet - settled a planet that was NOT theirs - it was already vulcan/andorian/etc and it became federation in 2161.
Yes. And as I've said before, it was wrong of the United States to take that land. Had I been alive then, I would have opposed American imperial designs on Central North America. The same way, for instance, I opposed the Iraq War.
I love my country; that doesn't mean I think that its imperial history is a good thing. And the Federation, because it is a society that has learned from the horrors of the past, would not engage in that sort of imperialism. The Federation Charter would have banned it from the start.
Sci, it's not too late to give your country back to the native americans. Do you support this?
You profit from a long history of imperialism - one that continues to this day.
Much of which, you accept/condone because ~'it happened in the past'.
Words are easy. Deeds speak louder than words.
Next time you're throwing insults regarding imperialism left and right, remember, those insults are more appropriately addressed to you, Sci.
Indeed, he went on and on with morality and rhetoric - and never once invoked a far more powerful legal argument
Probably because he figured if Dougherty wouldn't respond to basic human decency, he certainly wouldn't respond to something as blase as the law.
And even when the law is binding, that doesn't mean that people always obey it. If someone's not going to obey basic morality, why would they obey the law?
But not every
speaks in legalese.
"If someone's not going to obey basic morality, why would they obey the law?"
Because if one does not obey the law, you can enforce this law by appealing to a court of law.
That's what 'the law is binding' means, Sci -
you either obey the law or you are FORCED to obey it - it's not your choice, no matter what kind of person you are.
Which cannot be said about morals.
And a diplomat speaks in "legalese" - or invokes a favorable law - when discussing the legal status of something (if such a law exists, that is).
