Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x05 - "Choose Your Pain"

[Guy Gardener]

Here's the thing.

When Tyler's turn came to chose his pain, being an honourable Starfleetofficer, or Voq... He picked to take the beating, which was actually pounding L'Rell into a delirium of pleasure flutters, and not a beating, so no one ever beat up Mudd, and that is why Mudd looked unscathed.

 

[Refuge]

The internal consistent logic of the character, is that Lorca should have killed Mudd to spare him more Klingon torture. Mudd lives, because either Lorca killed his crew becuase he loved them, and he does not love Mudd, or Lorca is lying about killing his crew.

It's kind of consistent still. Crew left to face the music = dead meat. Lorca free and clear.

Mudd left to face the music = dead (?) meat. Hello, teflon Lorca free and clear again.

 

[The Habs Fan]

Lorca leaving Mudd on the prison ship is hardly the worst thing a Starfleet Captain has done. How about the time Sisko facilitated the murder of a Romulan to get them to join the war. I suppose you hate Sisko too?

 

[BillJ]

Lorca leaving Mudd on the prison ship is hardly the worst thing a Starfleet Captain has done. How about the time Sisko facilitated the murder of a Romulan to get them to join the war. I suppose you hate Sisko too?

That was what started us on this slide to begin with. People wanting edgy characters that are more Dirty Harry than Starfleet officers.

Sisko should've been tried and convicted for murder, and for war crimes when he used a biological weapon on a Maquis planet.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

It's kind of consistent still. Crew left to face the music = dead meat. Lorca free and clear.

Mudd left to face the music = dead (?) meat. Hello, teflon Lorca free and clear again.

That's the other thing: I still don't like the music much in this series!

 

[The Habs Fan]

That was what started us on this slide to begin with. People wanting edgy characters that are more Dirty Harry than Starfleet officers.

Sisko should've been tried and convicted for murder, and for war crimes when he used a biological weapon on a Maquis planet.

And here is probably where the disconnect happens. DSC is a lot more like DS9 than TNG. If you want TNG, watch the Orville.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

At which point we are again at the point where it's obvious you clearly have no fucking clue what torture in real life entails. And I have to, again, recommend a certain video people really should watch as a starting point to educate themselves:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Everybody will do anything to evade torture. Even if that entails "selling out" your fellow inmates. That's what torture does. That's what would happen to anybody. Even Picard. And especially someone without military training.

Mudd clearly wasn't being tortured by the Klingons. It's pretty telling that when we meet Mudd, he doesn't have a scratch on him. he looks well fed but his starfleet cellmate has had a mental breakdown. He was working with them. And he was lucky that he had honorable starfleet officers willing to get pounded in the face for him. I don't have any sympathy for mudd.

 

[Rahul]

After all this discussion, I've come to one, major conclusion:

This episode REALLY needed to invest more time into the klingon-prison subplot. As it was just one minor B-plot, together with "Saru's first command" and Burnham's "Devil in the Dark"-subplot, the episode was clearly overloaded, and didn't gave the prisoner dilemma the time it deserves.

It could have actually been a really brilliant episode, that delves deeper into the characters, how far everyone is able to go morally uptight, and what it takes to break them. And what scars that type of treatment leaves behind.

But as it is, with clearly not enough information, everybody sees in it only what he wants to see, and the human desire for some nebulous form of "vengeance" brings out the worst in some people here, arguing in what little deeds they already believe is enough for deserving torture and death as punishment. Purely out of spitefullness, and not the logic or morality of the situation.

 

[The Habs Fan]

Star Trek is a lot of things. It is not all squeaky clean. It can be pretty dark at times (as proven by some episodes and movies of TOS, DS9, and season 3 of ENT). TNG the TV series was a utopia, but it doesn't mean Star Trek as a whole should be.

 

[BillJ]

And here is probably where the disconnect happens. DSC is a lot more like DS9 than TNG. If you want TNG, watch the Orville.

It isn't about being a TNG fan. I actually think it hasn't aged well. But it is about wanting something positive. Doing negativity on TV is like shooting fish in a barrel nowadays. It is simply everywhere.

"Don't trust the government!", "Brown religious people are bad!", "The ends justify the means!"

I think Hollywood's fascination with dark and grim is a component of what has led us down the path we are on.

 

[indranee]

This isn't a 'Discovery' fan forum. This is a 'Star Trek' fan forum. Discovery is Star Trek. In fact, it's new Star Trek. You kinda' have to live with fans of the older Trek coming over to see "what's new". It seems some people here would be way better off to check for a seperate, "Discovery only" Internet Forum.



Condeming leaving someone behind for torture and death REALLY shouldn't be one of those cases where one has to argue about wether or not to condemn it...

In a civilised society something like that should be self-evident.

What about Khan? Kirk "marooned" him and never bothered to check. Is that better or worse than someone Lorca felt was "assisting" the Klingons?

 

[Rahul]

Star Trek is a lot of things. It is not all squeaky clean. It can be pretty dark at times (as proven by some episodes and movies of TOS, DS9, and season 3 of ENT). TNG the TV series was a utopia, but it doesn't mean Star Trek as a whole should be.

TNG went into a lot of dark themes. "Chain of command" is just one example. The difference is, it went into it with much more thoughtfulness of the situation, and maturity to handle these complex topics.

What about Khan? Kirk "marooned" him and never bothered to check. Is that better or worse than someone Lorca felt was "assisting" the Klingons?

There is a difference to be made between "exile", and "physical torture and death". One could certainly make the case Khan should better have been brought back home and trialed by judge and jury., where he's arguibly be sentenced to a life in prison for his crimes against umanity in the 20th century. Kirk, in fact, oversaw an orderly trial at the end of the episode. He only swapped "imprisonment" for "exile". It's certainly not comparable to what Lorca did.

 

[Refuge]

Lorca leaving Mudd on the prison ship is hardly the worst thing a Starfleet Captain has done. How about the time Sisko facilitated the murder of a Romulan to get them to join the war. I suppose you hate Sisko too?

I'm not really a DS 9 expert but what I remember is that Sisko wasn't just a prick, he might have had other aspects to his character. Maybe a fan could elaborate.

You're right in that leaving Mudd is not the worse thing a Captain could do or has done. Hardly an endorsement of what is right.. I would imagine being a Captain of a ship and not going down with your ship would traditionally be the worst thing. Now who has done that??

 

[BillJ]

What about Khan? Kirk "marooned" him and never bothered to check. Is that better or worse than someone Lorca felt was "assisting" the Klingons?

Well, Kirk gave Khan an option. Either a penal colony or wild uninhabited world. Khan chose the uninhabited world.

Would it even be Kirk's personal responsibility to check on Khan? Everything was logged and would be passed off to Starfleet Command. It seems like it would be their responsibility, if anyone's, to check in on him.

 

[indranee]

We're debating whether or not leaving a civilian behind to be tortured and possibly killed is acceptable. There should be no fucking debate at all about this kind of treatment.

Yet here we are. Thanks Discovery!

I don't see a problem with the debate. Why do you? I think debate is good. I'm glad DSC is forcing this ongoing conversation about morality and ethics (esp during wartime). It's what Trek has always been about -- discussion about the issues of our time.

 

[The Habs Fan]

I'm not really a DS 9 expert but what I remember is that Sisko wasn't just a prick, he might have had other aspects to his character. Maybe a fan could elaborate.

You're right in that leaving Mudd is not the worse thing a Captain could do or has done. Hardly an endorsement of what is right.. I would imagine being a Captain of a ship and not going down with your ship would traditionally be the worst thing. Now who has done that??

There have been 5 episodes of DSC. You can't say Sisko had other aspects to his character when compared to Lorca because of course he does. He had over a hundred more episodes to show those aspects more than Lorca. You can't criticize what Lorca did and then defend other dark and disturbing things perpetrated by main characters that we have already seen in Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

I don't see a problem with the debate. Why do you? I think debate is good. I'm glad DSC is forcing this ongoing conversation about morality and ethics (esp during wartime). It's what Trek has always been about -- discussion about the issues of our time.

Debate can be good. But here? There is a clear cut ethical line that Lorca crossed by leaving a civilian behind.

 

[Rahul]

Star Trek is a lot of things. It is not all squeaky clean. It can be pretty dark at times (as proven by some episodes and movies of TOS, DS9, and season 3 of ENT). TNG the TV series was a utopia, but it doesn't mean Star Trek as a whole should be.

Let me put it this way:
I think Lorca leaving Mudd behind was NOT as immoral as Sisko firing biological weapons on a human Maquis colony. Maybe comparable to Sisko being an accomplice in murder and conspiracy of Senator Vreenak and the blue alien to bring the Romulans into war. But then again: Sisko had very distinct reasons to do so. Reasons Lorca didn't have, or at least weren't explained in the episode. And yes - those two instances are the reason why Sisko is never mentioned in the big "Kirk vs. Picard"-debate, despite being a pretty well-rounded character otherwise.

 

[BillJ]

There have been 5 episodes of DSC.

That's the problem. They didn't allow us to get to know these characters.

 

[Feron]

At which point we are again at the point where it's obvious you clearly have no fucking clue what torture in real life entails. And I have to, again, recommend a certain video people really should watch as a starting point to educate themselves:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Everybody will do anything to evade torture. Even if that entails "selling out" your fellow inmates. That's what torture does. That's what would happen to anybody. Even Picard. And especially someone without military training.

That is simply categorically false.

In the real world, countless thousands have endured torture without ever buckling and giving in. Many resisted torture even without military training. Just last year, small Coptic Christian children who had seen their own parents murdered and tortured refused to give in to ISIS demands.

It is not in the least surprising that Picard would give in to torture though. His socialist utopianism did not give him sufficient moral fiber to resist.