Phlox was a Great Doctor

[Riker'sMailbox]

I am on season 3 of ENT and I do not know if I like him yet. I think he is a well acted character.

I don't know that I have to like him, though. I find his brand of Star Trek frontier medicine interesting. Seeing the a doctor before the Prime Directive, before the 24th century technology I first saw (did not watch TOS) is fascinating.

 

[bookworm8571]

I definitely liked Phlox as a character. I thought some of his choices were ethically questionable, like creating and then killing Sim to save Trip. But he is an interesting alien doctor from an interesting culture. The doctors tend to be among my favorite Star Trek characters anyway.

 

[Verthicha]

I liked phlox from the moment i saw him, and he became an awesome character later on. he seemed to be lacking in development early on, but they eventually rectified that.

 

[Reanok]

I really like Phlox is an really interesting character.

 

[TheDarkCrystalineEntity]

I love watching debates like this one play out. Most people who've given ethical reasoning any serious thought, assume the most basic building block of genuine morality is the Golden Rule...do unto others, as you'd have them do unto you. It's not perfect - not everyone wants the same thing. And assuming otherwise, is a fast way to hurt others.

But it's still a good start, compared to classics like "Eye for an eye." or "manifest destiny". The twenty-first century wouldn't be possible without it. Humanity works best when we build on each other's strengths, rather than dividing up into warring tribes.. Elevating our best voices, rather than silencing them. Learning from the mistakes of the past, rather than seeking revenge for them in a cycle of pain and suffering that never ends.

So why are so many Enterprise fans too bloody thick to figure any of this out for themselves? Why do they think "Should we let millions of people suffer and die?" is a question that ever needed asking, and demonstrates maturity?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.htm

My theory is that, scientifically speaking, they're half-wits. At least, in the sense that they're either unable or unwilling to use the other half.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

I love watching debates like this one play out. Most people who've given ethical reasoning any serious thought, assume the most basic building block of genuine morality is the Golden Rule...do unto others, as you'd have them do unto you. It's not perfect - not everyone wants the same thing. And assuming otherwise, is a fast way to hurt others.

But it's still a good start, compared to classics like "Eye for an eye." or "manifest destiny". The twenty-first century wouldn't be possible without it. Humanity works best when we build on each other's strengths, rather than dividing up into warring tribes.. Elevating our best voices, rather than silencing them. Learning from the mistakes of the past, rather than seeking revenge for them in a cycle of pain and suffering that never ends.

So why are so many Enterprise fans too bloody thick to figure any of this out for themselves? Why do they think "Should we let millions of people suffer and die?" is a question that ever needed asking, and demonstrates maturity?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.htm

My theory is that, scientifically speaking, they're half-wits. At least, in the sense that they're either unable or unwilling to use the other half.

(Bold/italics mine.)

Welcome to TrekBBS, TheDarkCrystalineEntity. Glad to see you contributing right away, but it's a good idea to have a look at our board rules. Your characterization of a large swath of Enterprise fans as "bloody thick" "half-wits" simply because their opinion differs from yours is not at all courteous, and kind of flamey, which we don't allow here. Please avoid name-calling in future.

Also, when a thread has lain fallow for over 5 months, it's best to let it rest, and start a new thread to engage in discussion with your fellow members. Thanks.