Yeah, it's what we do. You see this sort of thing on gaming boards too. People have feelings, and then they try to make up reasons which justify those feelings. I don't think this is quite what Hume meant when he said “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions," but it's not far off.
The age of the antihero
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
Yeah, it's what we do. You see this sort of thing on gaming boards too. People have feelings, and then they try to make up reasons which justify those feelings. I don't think this is quite what Hume meant when he said “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions," but it's not far off.
In film criticism, yes, it is largely subjective, but not completely. A story's logical consistency and internal structure can be objectively assessed, right?
A "poorly" written paragraph might be subjectively critiqued, but "poor" grammar can be a factual error.
A "poorly" written paragraph might be subjectively critiqued, but "poor" grammar can be a factual error.
You Dare to attack my pop culture thing?!????You must be stopped!!!
It is the "poorly" written paragraph (example) that represents Discovery plot holes. That is where we do apply our subjective understanding and where logical inference and consequence comes in. A conclusion (regards Discovery plots) should be arrived at as a consequence of its 'premises'. Example, significant telescope gift is the conclusion. A whole mishmash of how the telescope was retrieved, how and when it was even sourced from a conveniently intact ship left to float around for all and sundry, how it took priority over military components - in duh a time of war, how it was not delivered to Michael for months but just happened to be delivered so she could give it to Saru who apparently may have got it in the first place.. that beggars belief let alone qualifies as formed premises with any credibility.
No, not really.
Morally questionable decisions do not make one an anti-hero. Lorca I can see, but Burnham? Not to my mind.
He's not bad looking if I may say.
Making morally questional decisions isn't limited to anti-heroes.
Okay? Antiheroes don't have a sense of morality or ethical convictions that heroes have. They are self serving protagonists.
If a hero makes a morally questionable decision, that goes against their conscience, that doesn't make them an antihero.
Why have words if we can't use them?
If a hero makes a morally questionable decision, that goes against their conscience, that doesn't make them an antihero.
Why have words if we can't use them?
One more time: heroes, antiheroes, and villains can be human or otherwise. Thus, to argue that the opposite of an antihero is a human being is illogical.
Last edited:
But can't a processor also be used to power up a warship that can in turn help in doing what Starfleet wants to prevent?
At the very least, it should have been disabled to deprive the enemy of its use for any purpose, and then if possible retrieved later.
That does not make sense for crews of armed starships. The fortunes of war may change, such that what was perceived as irrelevant may actually be important later. Given that, common sense will call for at least disabling such devices, and for possible retrieval later.
They don't, but they guard them given availability of resources, and if these planets are needed by Starfleet. That's why they have outposts, bases, etc. The same goes for their foes.
Of course, that's based on the assumption that Starfleet is not that stupid. Reminds me of what happened to those mines in STD.
But from what was transcribed and shared here, it was functioning. The crystal residue had to be removed, through.
Absolutely agree!
Apparently, you're completely oblivious to the Geneva Conventions:
Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
[. . .]
Article 35 bans weapons that "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering," as well as means of warfare that "cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment."
Scorched earth:[. . .]
Article 35 bans weapons that "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering," as well as means of warfare that "cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment."
It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
Geneva Protocol of 2155:
The Geneva Protocol of 2155 was a treaty created in 2155 in Geneva on Earth, prohibiting the use of biological weapons. In 1928, a previous treaty dealing with this subject had been created.
Michael Burnham cited both Geneva Protocols in a discussion with Gabriel Lorca in 2256. (DIS: "Context Is for Kings")
Michael Burnham cited both Geneva Protocols in a discussion with Gabriel Lorca in 2256. (DIS: "Context Is for Kings")
The Geneva and Hague Conventions, which, evidently, exist in the Star Trek universe, usually go together. Unless, for some reason they've abandoned the former and kept the latter.
Also, I don't know about Starfleet's aforementioned "high-minded principles," considering Starfleet Command's decision to approve the forgery of evidence in order to bring Romulans into war in DS9: "In The Pale Moonlight":
SISKO: . . . Starfleet Command had given the plan their blessing. . . .
Plus, there is the Voyager with its banned (by the Khitomer Accord) subspace weapons.
Speaking of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols or the Hague Conventions, are there any that would explain the situation with the Shenzhou and the Sarcophagus?
In the meantime, have a look at this Trekyards episode analysis linked to the relevant part at 15m16s, as well as their additional analysis titled "Why was the Sarcophagus ship ignored for 6 months?" for a similar discussion, if you like.
That's all.
Last edited:
