• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

So why doesn't Spock save Vulcan?

Status
Not open for further replies.
^
^^ Even if there is a flaw (plot hole, inconsistency of logic, or whatever you want to call it) in this film concerning this subject, it seems that most people aren't really that concerned with it.

Of course not, it's just banter for us Trek geeks.

I do think, however, that this discussion shows the uneasy instability of inserting a walking spoiler alert into the past. As I've noted in another thread, Spock has the EZ-Button answer to every major challenge the Federation will be seeing for the forseeable future. The Doomsday Machine? Doomed. The Horta? Vindicated. The Salt Monster? Desalinized! Etc., etc., etc.

It all comes back to what I said before about the way we fans are so used to rationalizing away the many plot holes that have arisen in Star Trek over the past 45+ years. Rationalizing the inconsistencies and plot holes is what we do...

...We adjust the canon to make it fit what is presented to us on screen.

But if you can easily rationalize ALL plot holes without ANY resistance then the game is too easy. Our game should have successes and failures or there are no stakes.
 
But it's not a service for which I have any recollection of registering.

You are using bad reasons in a discussion with me. Reasons are designed to compel agreement. They are parts of proofs, things to which a reasonable person of goodwill must respond honestly. If the proof is good, I should say "Yes!" If the proof is bad, I am obligated to show how it does not command assent before saying "No."

I did not register to be presented with, for example, the intentional fallacy as a proof. When I am presented with it, I have every right, and am obligated to provide reason why such reasons are not compelling.

Perhaps it might be dialed back a little, or even provided only upon direct request.

In that case I would be dishonest and indirect in reasoning with you.

<snip>
You know, if it would significantly reduce the sort of smug, condescending and pointedly uncooperative which currently permeates this thread, I think I'd probably be able to live with that. Yes, I think I could.

I don't have anything to contribute here ... just wanted to say that I'm enjoying the hell out of this. :lol:
Well, I'm happy someone's been having fun, but I think we're done here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top