Sisko's Pale Moonlight

[RobertScorpio]

[Picard] had a chance to destroy the Federation's most brutal enemy ... He had a chance, via Hugh, to inflict harm.

Actually, I explained above why I agree in some measure with this. He could have acted both morally and against the Borg, if he'd given it a modicum of thought.

Of course, in retrospect, it's highly unlikely their little virus would have done significant damage—not delivered as it was.

He allowed sensitive information to be taken from his mind to be used against the fleet at Wolf 359. He knew f[rom] the first hour of "BoBW" he was their target and he made no effort to secure that information. He failed his crew, and ultimately, he failed Starfleet.

Your point about securing "the information" is conveniently vague.

What do you propose that he should have done? Commit suicide so as to avoid capture? Ridiculous, even in context.

Remember, they had no idea at that point that assimilation was a Borg capability. Previously, they had been interested in nothing but technology.



If the implication there is that Sisko is a great man, or greater than Picard, well ... you're entitle to your opinion. I find that assertion laughable.

Patton-MacArthur-Grant, sometimes you have to make decisions that the eggheads will debate for decades, if not centuries, to come...

Because anyone who questions a real man's decision-making is an "egghead," of course.

Nice.

Picard's fence-sitting cost the Federation far more lives than Sisko's questionable acts in PALE MOON LIGHT.

Assuming facts not in evidence, Counselor.

I think once we start seeing perjoratives like "egghead," the productive part of the discussion has passed.

Eggheads is the term the military uses to describe those who debate the decisions of military men long after the choice was made..I know..I was a military "person".

Some people like to stand on a perch, like a neutral bird, and discuss actions outside the timeline they happen in, its the best part of discussions like this...

But when you cut it to the bone, and unwrap the fancy lango, it all comes down to the perception of the masses, or the thoughts of the elite...most of the people in this poll think Sisko was a hero. In fact the numbers are so lopsided it is what I call a landslide..

Only an elitist would argue the other way. Or, an egghead as "we" in the military call them.

Rob
Scorpio

 

[JM1776]

"Eggheads" is the term the military uses to describe those who debate the decisions of military men long after the choice was made ... I know ... I was a military "person."

Is that some sort of appeal to authority? If so, it's fallacious. I'm also ex-military ... but I eventually reconciled said mentality with a broader perspective.

The term is used as a perjorative. Deny it if you like; the facts are self-evident.

Some people like to stand on a perch, like a neutral bird, and discuss actions outside the timeline they happen [to be] in; it's the best part of discussions like this...

Well, you happen to be a fellow parakeet, bear in mind.

[Cheep cheep.]

But when you cut it to the bone, and unwrap the fancy lingo, it all comes down to the perception of the masses, or the thoughts of the elite ... most of the people in this poll think Sisko was a hero. In fact the numbers are so lopsided it is what I call a landslide ...

Easily ... but it's also a poll conducted in a forum overwhelmingly dominated by those who think Deep Space Nine a bold move forward for Star Trek—hardly a conclusive or definitive sampling.

Let me put it this way: Do you really think that at the Bugs Bunny forum Mickey Mouse would win a popularity contest?

I readily accept the role of "voice crying out in the wilderness" when visiting this forum.

Only an elitist would argue the other way. Or, an egghead as "we" in the military call them.

The idea that a simple majority, no matter how overwhelming, constitutes victory in a dispute of this sort is beyond laughable.

Long before Benjy's pop, Samuel Johnson said, in part, that "[the road to] 'Hell is paved with good intentions.'" Jesus, long before that, said it was "wide"—the implication being that the majority take it. You may take it, as well ... literally, figuratively or with a grain of salt, as you prefer.

I'm now done, here. The field is yours, gentlemen.

 

[Sci]

Respectfully, I didn't see much of anything new in the above two posts that wouldn't simply inspire another round of refutation, riposte, etc. ad infinitum, ad tedium et ad nauseam. Suffice to say that I could respond substantively ... but to no discernable purpose.

Will you at least acknowledge that we're all trying to find the most moral decisions we know how to find?

Indeed ... but that some know how to do and perceive what's moral much better than others.

A Baptist and a Catholic go to lunch together. The Catholic turns to the Baptist and says, "How about we both say grace, to thank God in the manner dictated by our consciences?"

The Baptist turns to the Catholic and says, "Sure. You worship God in your way and I'll worship God in His way."

My goal in the above post was to reaffirm a common respect for one-another over what was, certainly, an issue that we all disagreed strongly about. I wanted to show you respect and to be shown respect in return; you basically just spat in my face and in the faces of your other debating partners, there, JM1776. It was incredibly rude and disrespectful to your fellow posters -- an ad hominem attack for no particularly good reason.

You want to talk about morality? Show some towards your fellow posters.

That we all wish to be moral and are making the most moral decisions we know how to make?

Within the dodgy framework of espousing moral relativism, that the ends justify the means, and a slippery slope school of ethics—all principles that from where I stand largely invalidate the morality of a position and/or decision—such is indeed the attempt being made.

I find such justifications to be based in a myopic, arithmetic and (to my way of thinking) anemic weltanschaaung, which I utterly reject, but ... sure. Perhaps (because I wouldn't deign to speak for anyone else here) you find my take fanciful, superstitious, Pollyannish and/or logically unjustifiable.

No. I just don't trust moral absolutism and never have. And that's all I'm going to say.

 

[JM1776]

I wanted to show you respect and to be shown respect in return; you basically just spat in my face and in the faces of your other debating partners, there, JM1776. It was incredibly rude and disrespectful to your fellow posters—an ad hominem attack for no particularly good reason.

Stop looking for and finding insults where none are intended. It's tiresome, frankly, and I've never been particularly impressed by ad hoc sensitivity training delivered as chastisement—despite my status as an egghead.

I specifically phrased the next sentence—which you conveniently cut so as to perhaps further bolster your opportunistic (and specious) indignation—to indicate that it could well be either side that was seeing things more clearly, and that the issue was still in doubt in the minds of the participants.

I followed what set you off with [bold new]:

As to who is who, well ... as I've already said, no one's budging from their position, and all concerned feel their side is more justified.

In other words, as I've said above, we've gone round and round, and settled nothing here. Both sides think they're seeing things more clearly. That's all that's been established here, and that's all I said and implied.

Both sides can't be right.

The fact that you needed to interpret what I wrote in that fashion speaks more to your sensibilities than my rudeness or disrespect.

You want to talk about morality? Show some towards your fellow posters.

What about the morality of assuming an attack rather than asking for a clarification?

No. I just don't trust moral absolutism and never have.

And I just don't trust moral relativism because it's the open gateway to the wide road discussed above.

And that's all I'm going to say.

Hope springs eternal, but ... I very much doubt that.

Nobody here seems capable of letting the other side have the last word. [God knows I've come back time and again after saying, "That's it for me."] Your last word, if it stands, consists of an attempt to gain the moral high ground by painting me as the villain—it would seem.

[Note the qualifier above, because I can't read your mind and/or know your intent.]

Alternately, it's a simple misunderstanding due to my imprecision and/or your faulty interpretation.

You want to dig in your heels and assume I meant insult? Knock yourself out, Sci. You just got all the explanation I'm giving. I'm half past give a shit whether or not you accept it.