Section 31 poll
- Thread starter Abi Smith
- Start date
It doesn't underpin those values, it creates spaces were those values can prevail in large part whilst violating those values in the creation of those spaces.
It doesn't undermine those values in large part because Section 31 remains unknown, its operations are covert and the vast bulk of the Federation and Starfleet are none the wiser about these 'violations'.
It doesn't undermine those values in large part because Section 31 remains unknown, its operations are covert and the vast bulk of the Federation and Starfleet are none the wiser about these 'violations'.
That's right! When are these shitty-assed writers going to understand? Don't piss in STAR TREK, Trekkies don't swim in your toilet ...
Because Starfleet Intelligence is on the job!
Violating values always undermines them. Section 31 is a perfect example of this.
Ignorance is no excuse.
We watch regular Starfleet violate its values all the time.
Most of the time, it's a case of violating the letter of the law to uphold its spirit. Section 31 is not one of those cases.
We have Pressman ("The Pegasus"), Kennelly ("Ensign Ro"), Daugherty (Insurrection) to name a few who aren't violating the letter of the law nor upholding its spirit. It seems Starfleet has long-running institutional problems.
All those cases were called out as illegal and punished.
The argument that "You have to break your values in order to create places where your people can ignorantly live by them" is a poor one. That's saying "It's okay to benefit from mass murder as long as you see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". It's the same argument people are using to ignore millions of people dying in foreign countries as long as it helps us get the oil we need to preserve our comfortable lifestyle.
It's not ambiguous, it's not "There must be evil to protect good", it's just endorsing evil because you benefit from it. It's just evil.
But how many don't get caught? And we have no idea if Dougherty would've been punished had he lived, and we don't know the ultimate fates of either Kennelly nor Pressman. For all we know, both ended up being cleared for any wrong doing.
There is obvious long running institutional problems within Starfleet. An obvious, long running theme of "the ends justify the means" thinking. Section 31 just seems to be more openly honest in what they are about.
To many bat shit cray human admirals...(add reboot Admiral Marcus)
Admiral Shanti, descendant of Joseph McCarthy perhaps lolThere are more! Just some names are escaping me right now. Sucks getting old.
My impression of the righteous Federation came from how Picard sang its praises, I suspect he was drinking the kool aid of Terran privilege.
Last edited:
And were probably all Section 31 anyway. Pressman surely was.
Indeed.
How can principles have any meaning if they are not absolute? Think about it.
Absolute principles are not always moral ones
Yes....but....can absolutes have meaning if they are not principles?
Ponder THAT, ye learned philosophers.
No, of course not. But shouldn't all moral principles be absolute?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
