Oh please - did you WATCH this scene in STIII:TSFS?
And here's a link to the actual line:
Code:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkJ3--2K7yo&feature=youtu.be&t=245
Spoilers Season 2 Trailer
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
And here's a link to the actual line:
The above presupposes some things. I certainly grant that people can have different opinions on what logically follows from an event or fact. Some view Spock having a human girl in the house as no big deal, while others recognize that it utterly changes his character. Opinions differ here based on people's understanding of nature versus nurture, how the psyche is shaped, how events shape outlook and how outlook shapes future events, et cetera, not to mention whether one even gives a damn.
That said, I feel confident that the presence or absence of a human sister and related changes to the Sarek character and Vulcan society at large (e.g. institutional racism) are objectively demonstrable to one who will listen. Most effortsefforts I have witnessed just result in cursing, claims of not being a true fan, et cetera.
In the spore drive case, the opinion of many seems to be that it needs to get permanently broken (a task more difficult since it is, to paraphrase Timo, hardwired to multiversal Armageddon). Most other answers like secrecy or eco-friendly conquistadors are objectively unsatisfactory. Such things work for, say, the Omega Directive, but you literally can't police the universe for spore drive.
The Donatu V briefing example, if ignored, requires that Spock leave out the most major details from briefings to his captain for no reason. I suppose there is wiggle room depending on one's view of Spock, but generally speaking the argument he'd forget that or fail to note it is pitifully weak and believable only by fiat.
My continued participation in this thread is literally because folks say I am wrong when I state my view and its evidence, soo.…
Oh honey, we're well past that point. You cannot heap interpersonal communication failures on me for not approaching people sweetly pages deep into a conversation where attacks are already in progress, especially when you are replying to my response to same.
A good discussion from here out would be to confine ourselves to the facts and logic, rather than critique one another's perceived or imagined tone.
On what basis do you assert that?
I think the issue people have is the "squish" factor. "Gowron wrote a self-serving history so therefore all Klingons do and so L'Rell did and that's why Martok said something wrong a century later to Sisko who did not contradict him" is . . . squishy. It's not just the fallacious logic of one guy doing something so it must be a Klingon trait, though that's bad enough. It's the great mental distance that one had to travel to get to a destination not worth going to. No one wants to bicycle cross-country to Cleveland.
I, for one, have no interest in tying my brain in knots trying to find escape routes for obvious continuity failures by the writing staff all the time. That's part of why I wish they'd admit the reboot and move on, but they seem to think acknowledging the wide-scale re-imagining is tantamount to stepping onto Paramount's toes.
I would also love to see Discovery apologetics that didn't rely on attacking the rest of Star Trek.
Yes, I have a large amount of training in this area, strangely. So, I feel confident that Spock's lack of commentary on Michael is well consistent with his established character.
Institutional racism has been a part of Vulcans since ENT. There have been hints about it since DS9. I do not see that as being a left field expansion of Sarek's character, but one that sheds light on his reservations regarding Starfleet and his overall demeanor towards Spock in general.
I think it does too. I have already listed ideas to how that could happen.
I'll need to find the relevant quote to speak adequately on this matter.
Participation is not required. That is only logical. People say lots of things that I think are wrong.
I was merely making an observation based upon years of working in relevant fields involving human communication, development and interpersonal relationships. What I know is that attacking back in kind is an escalation and not productive. Thus, my commentary is regarding what is effective in communicating your points regarding Discovery breaking continuity and the evidence there of. Thus far, it has not come across well, to my reading.
I have a book that proves the contrary.
I would love to see people not attack Discovery. Wouldn't that be nice?
Well, I'm going to critique your tone. You need to dial back the rhetoric and intensity about 900%. When you start mentioning infidels and making Hiroshima comparisons and talking about thoughtcrime it's probably a good indication that it's time to take a step back and reevaluate how you're engaging with people. I'm not saying no one has counter-punched against you, but you have been the most consistent escalator of invective in this discussion, and you need to back off a lot. You don't have to stop discussing this, you just need to stop discussing it with so much hostility and over-the-top language.
And that goes for everyone else as well. Lay off the personal remarks and hostility.
I am not talking about merely commenting, but who he is.
The existence of illogical Vulcans was a thing on DS9 (the murderer of those who laugh, the racist baseballer and his enablers), and of course Enterprise was based on a planet Vulcan that had completely lost its way, paying only lip service to the ideals they purported to represent.
What i refer to as institutional racism is the official decision in Discovery that only one of Sarek's not-Vulcans could participate in the Vulcan Expeditionary Group. Even in the JJ-verse the comment that Spock was offended by when he was accepted into the Vulcan Science Academy was more a casual remark than an official institutional decision.
(For a show that tries to present "Remain Klingon" as a bad thing, that they made the Vulcans be the same is an interesting choice.)
Perhaps, but it should be expected in that context.
I don't mind others being wrong. I haven't been on TrekBBS in years, after all, and am even taking a quasi-break from Twitter. :-)
In the sorts of contexts your profession may relate to, that's true. A couple where no one ever employs an olive branch won't last long, most likely.
However, this isn't that context. I brought my own . . . an outside context problem, if you will. I'm not terribly interested in making friends with those whose knee-jerk reaction is to question my faculties of reason when I post a fact they don't like, and I'm not terribly interested in the squabbly nonsense anyway. What I am interested in are the facts, the strongest logical arguments, and, if I'm to be damned, being damned for the right reasons.
Pointing out continuity differences is not an attack. Now, if I say that the pilot was crappily written or that some of the actors are made of wood or that it's a stupid show . . . then you can have at me. However, other than the fact that the pilot was badly written, I don't attack Discovery as a show . . . it's pretty good by modern Hollywood standards. As I've noted in this thread, I am perfectly content that people like it. Indeed, I consider myself a moderate voice about it compared to some.
I just wish they'd acknowledge it's a reboot so everyone could just sit back and enjoy it.
^^^
If you don't like to 'tie your brain in knots' - yet EXPECT 100% consistent 'Star Trek' - you're watching the WRONG FRANCHISE.
I've been watching Star Trek first run since 1969 on NBC (I was 6); and it's NEVER been 100% consistent. Not TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, what little I could stomach of ST: V, ENT or ST: D.
EVERY ONE of the above series has retconned/changed one or more major events in 'Trek History' to either suit an episode story, or even a plot point. Anyone who also somehow believes:
"Okay, TOS wasn't consistent but that was the 1960ies; by TNG and 1980ies Star Trek, they started being way more consistent, especially once DS9, ST: V and ENT came along..."
^^^
BZZZT! - WRONG!
There's a fan term that's been around since the start of Star Trek Fandom..YATI = "...Yet Another Trek Inconsistency..."
BBSes and other Internet sites have spprung up and survived over the decades because SOMEONE (myself included) occasionally ENJOY coming up with crazy rationalizations to make the 52+ years of Star Trek lore MAKE SENSE and be more consistent.
If that drives you nuts, you're on the wrong BBS.
It would be nice, but I don't need CBS' blessing to see it as a reboot.
Who is he is someone who denies his human side at almost every turn for many years. I do not see the contradiction in terms of the psychology of Spock.
It is an interesting choice, juxtaposed in a season that demonstrates that our enemies are often not to dissimilar from us in many ways. The Vulcans are an interesting paradigm comparison against some of the more traditional members of the Federation, of which the Vulcans have always been. So, far from being out of step with what has gone on before, I see it being an appropriate expansion upon prior knowledge of the Vulcans.
I expect nothing in this context. Arguments are ignored points are made over and over again without any mutual sharing, and nothing changes.
There is no "right" in this context. And if you did bring in your own outside context then perhaps the emotional reactions are not appropriate either given how discussions have gone.
People enjoy things for different reasons. I happen to enjoy Discovery as a part of the overall story of Star Trek, even if the finer points of the visuals and tech are not 100% accurate or consistent with fan expectations. I have strived to divorce myself of expectations regarding Star Trek and try to approach Discovery on its own terms. Thus far, I can state the following: Michael is among the more interesting Trek characters for me, and I find her fascinating from a psychological POV. I could not stand Lorca but his whole Mirror Universe persona was interesting. The spore drive is something that takes real world science and explores possible consequences.
So, if that is treating it "as a reboot" then fine. I'll do that. I just want to enjoy the show, not force fit it in to every single Star Trek mold and box ever developed. Star Trek was developed as an "action adventure series with social commentary." Give me that.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make.
I don't think that's really a fair characterization of the argument. I think it's more of a "You're species has done it once, so your species could do it twice" thing instead of a "You're species has done it once, so it always does it".
The line is:
"If he tries to get away using Warp Drive...He's really in for a shock..."
^^^
So, I''m refuting and disproving your point is quoted above (but yeah, you knew that).
Yeah, you're not making sense. Sure, Excelsior's transwarp drive is faster than Constituion class' warp drive. That is not remarkable, every modern ship in TNG era would be faster than Constitution too.
May I say that being told to dial back my rhetoric and intensity by user "The Great Trumpkin" is pretty dang hilarious, as a Trump-related joke? Can we all agree on that?
As in "not true believers"? Seems fitting, to me, given all the Discovery fans who claim non-Discovery fans aren't true Star Trek fans. What term would you suggest instead? It needs to encapsulate the lack of belief in something which, in and of itself, produces anger in the believer.
I'm not generally known for my brevity and am usually chided for my lengthy posts, so having my shorthand terms rejected is perplexing.
I made no Hiroshima comparison. I made a reference to anti-chronological thinking, wherein something after is said to justify something before. My example was the Japanese justifying Pearl Harbor retroactively via Hiroshima, but if the very word Hiroshima alarms you we can use Doolittle's Raid without the point changing.
But again, that's not a comparison. It's an example of two well-known connected events that occurred in a well-known order. There aren't many universal examples like that. Can you suggest an alternative?
I was accused of, in my own mind, not being open to different opinions (despite having agreed with several people whose opinions I don't share) and thus not being worth talking to.
Again, as with "infidel", I don't know what term you'd prefer to explain the idea.
Historically, it's meant I'm on the right path.
I'm actually the calm one, here. I did take umbrage at whatzisname's attempt to personally besmirch me, but it wasn't like I actually cared about his opinion given that he'd already made it clear he didn't care about mine or me. I just wanted to be sure to nip in the bud his whole attempt to paint me a certain way rather than have the whole lot of them start parroting it rather than addressing my points. (For that, I'm glad you noted that others needed to tone down the personal hostility, too . . . it helps prevent myths forming about evil old DSG2k.)
But, all that said, barring any good points that are made and which I need to reply to, I'll shove off a bit and let folks recover from my "intensity".
Thanks.
No they weren't by anything on screen. The fastest the 1701-D did was "Warp 13" (Riker in TNG: "All Good Things").
The original 1701 managed Warp 14 in TOS: "That Which Survives". they traveled 997 light years in under 3 days.
And again we're talking on the screen canon here.
I would throttle back a bit, until you get a feel for the lay of the land. It is easier for people to evaluate your points, even if they end up disagreeing with them.
Similar threads
