So was Tom Paris. So was the founding fathers.
The age of the antihero
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
That makes no sense? Unless people are moving the goal posts again.
Not really. As the Glenn was a unique ship rather than a standard vessel. Destruction of Starfleet property does not appear to be standard protocol.
As was Kirk. And Sisko. And Spock.
Lorca blew up the Buran too. I guess his crew were valuable resources. Move the goal posts again and again and it still doesn't negate that these ships can and have been destroyed. That Starfleet has no trouble doing it if they choose and twice on 'Discovery' have proven that.
The Germans weren't protecting U-boats because the latter had "some codes." Rather, the Germans were using code to encrypt messages not only to U-boats but for other operations. The Allies had been trying to break the code and succeeded only by recovering an Enigma machine and code books that a U-boat crew was not able to destroy. Worse, the Germans thought that the machine and books were lost with the sub.
This helped in turning the tide of the war.
Hmmm... If they never cracked those codes, the Nazis would've won WWII ?Sure, it was an important thing. It may have saved a lot of lives and that's good. But I really doubt the codes were the reason why the Soviets pushed back after Stalingrad and basically won the War, for example. At the end of the day raw things like manpower and resources matter more. The Nazis lost in the Eastern Front because they lacked that. Not because they lacked codes.
It wasn't a matter of using the codes to win the war but to shorten it as the Allies could now read classified information sent by the German generals to each other concerning defense emplacements, troop movements, etc.
And likely because the evacuation proceeded quickly. Otherwise, they would have been disable those easily plus retrieve whatever personal effects they had, plus that of their dead commander.
I didn't say that they can't. And if they were empty-handed that's probably because the escape codes already contained emergency supplies, radio transmitters, etc.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, anti-grav devices in the show consist of machines that look like handles and that are attached to heavy objects so that they can be carried easily. That means one can't be empty-handed when using them.
Breaking the code allowed the allies to read encrypted communications between Rommel, Rome, and Berlin, thus allowing them to shorten the war. It was only by D-Day that code breaking became less important.
That's because they thought it was unbreakable and secure. And the Nazis did take efforts to make the system secure, even to the point of using only water-soluble ink for code books so that they could easily be destroyed.
There is no need for others to explain that to me because that's what I've been telling you from the start: the power cores should have been disabled because the enemy could recover and use them. Your counter-argument makes no sense at all: it doesn't matter if they don't have a shortage of resources because what they don't disable can be used by the enemy.
The fact that the ship drifted for months in the area shows that the Klingons had no control of the area. The crew even faced food shortages!
People acting of their own passions can do very horrible stuff, endanger others and commit terrible mistakes. Are you sure... You're a fellow Human ?Because that's Humanity 101.
That's not sentimentality.
And the fact that you now refer to "terrible mistakes" proves that this is a plot hole!
Exactly! That's why not only is this a plot hole but your claim that characters are "hippie" explorers is questionable.
Now, you're beginning to understand my argument! Let's see if you will do more of this in subsequent posts.
Now, you're getting it. A plot hole is a gap that may be created by "[c]haracters who lack common sense." Every point you've raised so far points to that.
Apparently, that's the case given STD. And yet Lorca starts blabbering about spore tech used by the Disco to a POW he hardly knows in the Klingon brig.
As I said before, it's a badly written show.
I never made those arguments. Everything that I said is based on common sense: crew members protect themselves first before evacuating, then disable or recover to deny the enemy an advantage, and then act on what you think is sentimentality. You insist it's the other way round!
I didn't argue that the Fed is made up of psychopaths. What is said is that the ships are armed, and that's because those are military vessels with scientific and diplomatic roles. That does not show that their crews are "hippie explorers," as hippies are part of a counterculture which ironically goes against the meritocratic hierarchy that describes Star Fleet!
You keep using words that you can't define correctly!
I didn't argue that it is bad. What I'm saying is that they're obviously not hippies.
So hippies, yippies, yuppies, whoever you call those related to counter-culture movements, are against mining and self-defense?That doesn't make any sense. Material conditions and Culture are two separate spheres. You can still mine, defend yourself, etc. and believe in a certain set of cultural values.
See what I mean? You throw around words whose meanings you don't know! A yuppie is the far removed from a hippie, and if any is ironically a better description of the STD crew. LOL.
Counterculture movements, especially of the 1960s, were very much against anything that they believe destroyed the environment and promoted war, including the formation of standing armies even for self-defense!
Of course, they are! But hippies? I don't think so.
Lorca concerns himself only with the mundane? You're probably watching another show. LOL.
That is a ridiculous argument, i.e., equipment isn't scuttled because the enemy has lots of it or resources that can be extracted from it. I'll let you figure out why.
Leftist? Leftist is not the same as defensive or even isolationist!
And when resources of the enemy are attacked, it's not necessarily because one is expansionist. I'll let you figure that out as well.
Fan fiction? All I said is that crews prioritize based on common sense. That means if they were able to retrieve the personal effects of a dead commander (to be given a mutineer), then they could have also disabled the power core. That's similar to destroying an Enigma machine and code books before, say, retrieving personal belongings of a dead officer. And if they didn't because they were hippies, leftists, yuppies, yippies, sentimental, irrational, flawed or anything else you thought of in your fan fiction world, then that doesn't counter this plot hole but proves it, as plot holes are also created by characters who don't follow common sense.
No, she didn't, because if she did then she would have been sent back to prison. And in that place, determining whether or not one can be useful becomes irrelevant.
The fact that they retrieved the scope but did not disable the power core still shows that it's a plot hole. The only thing that can resolve it is the argument that one of the crew members just happened to be near the captain's quarters or the place where the telescope was found and got it. But since there's no evidence of that, then the plot hole remains.
BTW, there are more plot holes and writing problems in the show, and to remain on-topic, we can connect them to the topic thread. That is, some plot holes involve characters lacking common sense, and the reason for that lack may be one point used to explain why they are anti-heroes.
If they didn't have time to disable the power core, then it's reasonable to argue that they didn't have time to bring personal effects of dead crew members.
That's a nonsensical point given shows depicting a self-destruct mechanism for ship!
What are those reasons?
Why not?
Then why were the Klingons able to use it?
Which is ironically what happened.
Except that there was no need to tow the vessel to use the power core, as shown in STD.
Which is also enough time to disable the core.
Disabling the power core is logical whatever happens because that makes it difficult for the enemy to use it. And if there are a dozen examples showing that they did otherwise, then that only shows that the plot holes are consistent across the shows.
What needs to be demonstrated, then, isn't whether or not this is SOP for Star Fleet but why is it logical to leave a functional power core given the possibility that the enemy can retrieve and use it.
I'm aware that this is off-topic, but one has to wonder why the same cloaking tech still caused problems for the TOS and subsequent crews.
What was recovered after the battle? Please quote the rest of the lines from my message.
Is that some sort of not-so-subtly racist dig at Klingons? Kirk would be so proud!
Actually, it's the other way round.
See, I told you it's the other way round. LOL.
And yet they left the power core functional.
Which means they had the time to disable the power core.
Disable or booby trap. Given tech like self-destruct mechanisms, that should not be difficult.
And the opposite, which is the default. That's why it's a plot hole, as sentimentality in such circumstances is an example of the lack of common sense.
Doesn't counter what I said.
And yet they did, which is one good reason why it's SOP to disable or booby trap such devices.
Where a Klingon ship lay stranded for months, with its crew facing even food shortages.
All the more reason for following common sense, which includes disabling the power core.
I wasn't talking about U-570. I was talking about U-505. That was a completely different incident several years later under significantly different circumstances.
Yes. It does happen. The REASON it happens is because preventing the enemy from capturing your hardware and technology is RARELY a priority for any military commander on the battlefield. Their number one priority is to get their people to safety, and their number two priority is to carry out whatever mission or orders they've been given. If your position is about to be overrun and your commanding officer specifically orders you to demolish all your equipment so it can't be captured, you do that. If nobody tells you to do that, then you pack up whatever you can carry and get the hell out of there.
This is now the fifth time I have pointed out that self-destruct mechanisms have only ever been activated in order to prevent an enemy from using a starship's equipment and weapons against the ship's own crew. The very first time this mechanism is employed it's to prevent Bele from stealing the Enterprise in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" and the second time it's used is to prevent Kruge from stealing the Enterprise from Kirk (who, incidentally, had already stolen it from Starfleet).Well, they must have cared at least a little about it if they have thought of such a grim contingency!
In fact, the only exception to this standard seems to be "Nemesis" in which Picard orders auto-destruct as a desperation tactic and then gets all sad when it doesn't work.
Not moving goal posts. Noting that the Glenn was destroyed due to strategic value, but that the Shenzou did not have the same value. It's not a question of can they be destroyed. We've seen that before, even with Kirk. The question is whether or not it is standard protocol after evacuation. It doesn't appear to be so.
That is literally the exact opposite of what I said.
The "power core" whatever that is, was ALREADY DISABLED. If there was any hope of the Shenzhou actually leaving the system under its own power, they wouldn't have abandoned ship in the first place.
You're asking me? Aren't YOU the one insisting that preventing Starfleet technology from falling into enemy hands is supposed to be their highest priority above all other considerations?
They weren't. They took the engine apart and scavenged a (relatively) intact component of it to repair their OWN "power core" as you call it. This is the equivalent of stealing a coil pack out of a wrecked car with a completely different make and model and using it to get your own busted jalopy moving again just so you can drive it to a service station and fix it for real.
Do you suppose the U.S. Army has standing orders to rip the spark plugs out of all their humvees whenever they abandon them just in case the enemy manages to scavenge the remains?
That is literally the OPPOSITE of what happened.
That is completely NOT what STD showed us. First of all, to repeat, if the "power core" had been serviceable at all, Shenzhou wouldn't still be there in the first place, they would have just limped away at impulse power and met up with another starship or else just repaired their battle damage and flown to the nearest starbase. Second of all, nobody used the "power core" from the Shenzhou, just one intact component of it that probably only worked as a temporary fix.
There's nothing to disable. The core was dead. YOU were referring to the effort of going through the entire ship, deck by deck, compartment by compartment, stripping out any engine components that could POSSIBLY be of value to anyone ever. That is a silly thing to ask your crew to do, especially in the case that they are actually sitting in their ship sending out a distress call, trying to get someone from Starfleet to rescue them.
Why would you go out of your way to disable something that has already been rendered inoperable by enemy gunfire?
Because "the enemy retrieving and using it" is not something any of Starfleet's enemies have ever been known to do. This is mainly because anyone with a level of technology sufficient to threaten Starfleet will have their OWN so-called "power cores" in mass production and have ZERO reason whatsoever to scavenge one from Starfleet wrecks. Pirates, freighters and Ferengi might do this on a for-profit basis, but Klingons have shipyards and factories of their own, if they need a power core they just order one from the quartermaster.
T'Kuvma's people weren't military. They're just a bunch of whacky cultists flying an ancient starship that they slapped together by scavenging parts. That Shenzhou had the one missing engine component they actually needed was really just an amazing coincidence. More importantly, it's an irrelevant one: if the dilithium processor HADN'T been recovered, Kol would have just had one of his ships deliver one from his own supplies. He probably intended to do this anyway, but then L'Rell handed him the processor and started eating chicken and he was all "Well, fuck it, we can leave right now."
What makes you think it's the same tech?
Last edited:
I have. Several times now.
Because "common sense" and "What I feel makes sense without having to actually research the topic in depth" are completely different things. Common sense develops from common experience, and none of us have any experience operating starships.
And Shenzhou wasn't. So Shenzhou wasn't a "sensitive Starfleet resource."
That's the main question being asked in the last several pages of this thread which as yet no one has answered. You've been making this exact argument since at least a full week ago and have received responses but haven't replied directly to any of them. Do you want to have a conversation or to just repeat yourself?
And by this point you've made it clear that your definition of "common sense" involves seeing into the future:
Put yourself back in September when we've all just seen episode 2. Without referencing future episodes, explain precisely why they should have "disabled the power core" of their defeated vessel. And, why did you not mention it back then?
I don't remember, was it explicitly stated that Saru or someone recovered the telescope during the evacuation, and not during a later salvage operation?
If it was during the evacuation I think it was bad writing because it is not plausible to recover a telescope during a time-critical situation, without showing us that it happened. If your characters are going to do something that is not the most likely course of action, you should show the audience.
If it was in a later salvage operation I think it was bad writing because they should have destroyed the ship or in some other manner deal with the Klingon ship or give us an explanation on screen as to why either didn't happen.
If it was during the evacuation I think it was bad writing because it is not plausible to recover a telescope during a time-critical situation, without showing us that it happened. If your characters are going to do something that is not the most likely course of action, you should show the audience.
If it was in a later salvage operation I think it was bad writing because they should have destroyed the ship or in some other manner deal with the Klingon ship or give us an explanation on screen as to why either didn't happen.
You're a little late to this party, but it was earlier asked, Why are we talking about the evacuation like it was a time-critical situation? With their ship dead in the water and the battle effectively over, they wouldn't have been in any particular hurry. They weren't evacuating because the ship was about to explode, they were evacuating because they were stranded and were running out of power. Basically, the same reason Picard's crew evacuated the Stargazer after the Battle of Maxia.
I don't know, it was just the impression I had from trying to remember the pilot episodes. I'd have to go back and check to see if there was any urgency presented. Anyway, my point wasn't that it was bad writing that someone brought the telescope, the badness is in the fact that we have to have this long speculation because they didn't tell us. There's having to read behind the lines and there's having to guess between the lines.
