Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence?

[Anwar]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

TOS basically said that things hadn't changed one bit aside from us being in space and fighting aliens, and despite Kirk's speeches things never were going to change. That humanity's innate murderous desires would always be right there and could never ever truly be overcome but merely delayed. Not really hopeful at all, makes it sound more like humans are just a nanosecond away from perpetual barbarism and there was no way to really overcome it. That's why culture wise everything was pretty 60s, including treatment of women and the like. Until the movies when they wised up slightly but still stupidly made the 23rd Century otherwise 100% exactly like the 20th.

TNG was about humans believing they had gotten things right, realizing they were wrong and started working on it again. Which is something plenty of people go through. Course people can't get over the earlier bits of the crew encountering nastier folks or getting backstabbed by said folks which would lead to the (justifiable) moments where they mention their superiority despite TOS doing it too.

Behr, well he wanted Trek to be something more like District 9 so who cares what he thinks?

 

[jojolimited]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

I think those that see the parallels between TOS and DS9 are on to something.
Exploring what humanity does when confronted with enemies who don't share their values. Who want to conquer and subjugate them.
What do you do when forced to protect the home that you love. Just how far are you willing to go.

 

[Destructor]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Behr, well he wanted Trek to be something more like District 9 so who cares what he thinks?

You realize District 9 did not exist until after DS9 aired so this is a literal impossibility.

Anyway, +1 on Temis.

 

[Anwar]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Fine, he wanted the show to be more like District 9 ended up being. Worded correctly .

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

... and then comparing our relatively pampered heroes to the grunts who suffer the most in any war.

Robert Heinlein once said that the difference between the Infantry and the Navy (his own service) was when the Navy went in combat they were wearing clean uniforms, had showered recently and usual died with full stomachs.

Live with it, for crying out loud. You accept scientific impossibilities like beaming and warp speed, yet you don't want to accept the other things

Transporters and engines are simply ways of moving around and their impossibility ultimately meaningless.

Certainly in comparison to the greater impossibilities that Humans will somehow psychologically evolve more in the next 300 years than we have in the last 10,000 or that Roddenberry's Kumbaya utopia is going to be accepted by the majority of Human society or that all people on Earth will embrace a single culture of "we seek to better ourselves" and that single culture will never ever change in a different direction for all the rest of time.

Remember, anyone one who doesn't agree with this enlightened lock-step can then watch another show, and stay away from Star Trek.

 

[jojolimited]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Part of why I like DS9 is because it's a disruptive force (storywise) in the Trek Universe.
The fact that so many trek fans are offended by Section 31 makes it even better.

The federation was trying to maintain the facade of a superior culture in the face of their enemies and their own mistakes. Didn't always pull it off. That made for great drama.
Utopia is f#cking boring anyway.

 

[jojolimited]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Hate speech has a different definition in different countries in Europe, but in my country it is this: behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" to various groups. Essentially, I can express an opinion about homosexuality being immoral, or I can say that I don't want any black people in the country, and I can say those things to a homosexual, a black person, or a homosexual black person, and it would all be legal. However, if I harassed that person and intentionally insulted them, then I'd be breaking the law. And in some US states, so would you, because dems be fighin' words.

Damn that oppressive United States!

In Canada and England, people who were on the street saying Homosexuality is immoral were arrested and prosecuted. They didn't direct it at anyone in particular. A Gay person who heard them said he was offended and went to the police....
This actually happened.

In America, we may not like what those people said, but instead of running to the police we may reach out to them to try to educate them, call them names right back, even vilify them, but not send them to jail.

As you so aptly said, I was pointing out the cultural differences about speech. Canadians, Great Britain and other European countries decided they are fine with that approach, in America, most would not be.
But since your Avatar says you're in Ireland, I don't know the laws of that land (even though most of my ancestors came from there).

The higher paid professions, yes. It's not like as if the government said "I don't like lawyers, lets tax them higher". If you earn more you pay a higher percentage, that way poor to middle income people, who are the majority, can pay less tax. It's called progressive taxation, it helps people escape the poverty trap, and it exists in the United States.

Actually part of their tax system is based on profession, not just income. "Professions" like law and software development are taxed at a higher rate than someone doing manual labor.

Is your complaint that those with the most immediate need should be seen to first, or that those that are beyond help are categorised as such?

Anyway, the existence of a state healthcare option does not prevent the existence of the private option. If it did then I'd still have my ingrown toenail.

I've heard many of my Canadian friends complain bitterly about
how the wealthy and those in power in Govt get preferential treatment over everyone else. And there is nothing they can do about it.

Depending upon how you define nanny societies I might agree with you. I'm liberal and oppose certain authoritarian moves, such as CCTV or detention of terror suspects without trial. But if you're referring to mixed economies then I disagree.

Like I said earlier, it's mostly about cultural differences, not right or wrong. What I find oppressive is perfectly normal for others. Many in Europe find the USA irresponsible for allowing too much leeway in certain areas of our society.

Returning back to the original topic....
Who and what will define a superior society by the 23rd Century? Will it be American? European? Chinese?
Besides at current birth rates, most of Europe will be an Islamic state by the 22nd century. So the issue will be moot.

 

[TheGodBen]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

In Canada and England, people who were on the street saying Homosexuality is immoral were arrested and prosecuted. They didn't direct it at anyone in particular. A Gay person who heard them said he was offended and went to the police....
This actually happened.

Do you have links to that? Because I did a little searching on the UK's hate speech laws and what I found was this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7725797/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-gays-were-sinful-has-charges-dropped.html

From reading the story it was obvious what happened; the gay officer took personal offence to what the preacher was saying, crossed the line by arresting him, and when the CPS looked on the case they realised it was wrong and dropped it. In the UK it is not illegal to express the opinion that homosexual acts are immoral, not even to a gay person's face, but if you happen to piss off a cop you might be (wrongly) arrested. Saying that this incident means there's no freedom of speech in Europe is like saying that the US is totalitarian because of what happened to Rodney King.

As you so aptly said, I was pointing out the cultural differences about speech. Canadians, Great Britain and other European countries decided they are fine with that approach, in America, most would not be.

Europe doesn't just roll over on the freedom of speech issue when somebody gets offended, or have you forgotten about the Danish cartoon controversy? When Muslims around the world protested against the cartoons, major publications across Europe printed the images as part of a campaign to defend free speech. When one of the Danish papers officially apologised for printing them, the Danish Prime Minister, the leader of one of those oppressive, socialist, Scandinavian countries, criticised the paper for backing down on the issue of free speech.

Actually part of their tax system is based on profession, not just income. "Professions" like law and software development are taxed at a higher rate than someone doing manual labor.

Whose taxation system? We don't all have one.

I've heard many of my Canadian friends complain bitterly about
how the wealthy and those in power in Govt get preferential treatment over everyone else. And there is nothing they can do about it.

Like I already said, I don't know much about Canada, but more than likely those rich people use private healthcare to avoid the queues in the public system. If you pay for private health insurance you will almost always get a better and faster service, why else would you bother paying? I know that in the UK some people bemoan the existence of private healthcare altogether and think that everyone should be forced to use the public system. Are you sure that's not what your Canadian friends are worrying about?

(In Ireland, we don't have universal healthcare, we have a medical card system where the poor, disabled and elderly get free healthcare, but the system is very slow. My father is disabled and I'm currently in college so I qualify for it. I had an ingrown toenail last year and decided to go the public route for the surgery. I went to the hospital for a consultation, was told I would only have to wait 6-8 weeks, 6 weeks later I was told it could take months, so I decided to go private. I got in contact with a doctor that would do it, paid him €160, and the next day the surgery was done.

I don't see anything wrong with what I did. I had the money and going private meant that I could be removed from the waiting list so that someone that can't afford to go private can get their surgery slightly faster.)

Besides at current birth rates, most of Europe will be an Islamic state by the 22nd century. So the issue will be moot.

And the United States will be a Latin American country.

Europe is unlikely to become dominated by Islamic states unless some sort of major cataclysm occurs. The European Union tries to keep the member states as secular as possible, which is why Italian state schools were banned from having crucifixes in the classroom by the European Court of Human Rights.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Besides at current birth rates, most of Europe will be an Islamic state by the 22nd century. So the issue will be moot.

And the United States will be a Latin American country.

Actually, we're more likely to become an Asian country, as I recently heard somewhere that the Asian American population overtook the Hispanic population for "fastest growing minority group" just recently.

 

[TheGodBen]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Then there's only one way this can end: Civil War 2: Hispanics Vs Asians. Whoever wins, only one thing is certain; white people will become slaves.

 

[Hofner]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

... and then comparing our relatively pampered heroes to the grunts who suffer the most in any war.

Robert Heinlein once said that the difference between the Infantry and the Navy (his own service) was when the Navy went in combat they were wearing clean uniforms, had showered recently and usual died with full stomachs.

Hah, good ol' Robert Heinlein. I hadn't heard that quote, sounds like him. He's my all-time favorite science fiction writer.

Robert

 

[Anwar]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

Except for the Sexism, but that was predictable...

 

[jojolimited]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

"(In Ireland, we don't have universal healthcare, we have a medical card system where the poor, disabled and elderly get free healthcare, but the system is very slow. My father is disabled and I'm currently in college so I qualify for it. I had an ingrown toenail last year and decided to go the public route for the surgery. I went to the hospital for a consultation, was told I would only have to wait 6-8 weeks, 6 weeks later I was told it could take months, so I decided to go private. I got in contact with a doctor that would do it, paid him €160, and the next day the surgery was done.

I don't see anything wrong with what I did. I had the money and going private meant that I could be removed from the waiting list so that someone that can't afford to go private can get their surgery slightly faster.)"



I didn't say going private was wrong. I was talking about the public system giving preferential treatment to wealthy and govt officials. Triage based on position, net medical need.

Thanks for enlightening me on Ireland. Always wanted to go see where many of my ancestors came from (County Mayo I think).
I guess I think of Ireland as "Ireland" not Europe. I'll try to view it differently from now on.

If you check the birth rates of secular whites in any country in Europe, they are very low. The birthrates of Islamic immigrants are set to go exponential the second half of this century. And wherever they control, they implement sharia law. They ignore the "secular" laws of the land. It's becoming a real problem in France and the Netherlands. The French news kept relatively quiet about the July 16 Muslim riots.
I don't think Ireland was included in that future demographic.
It was GB and the continent.

As far as America, we are based on an idea, not an ethnic group. So, it really won't matter what ethnic group is dominant. And Guess what, most Latinos are white even if they don't want to admit it. The Asians like the relative freedoms they have here vs mainland China. I've also heard Vancouver BC is becoming the next Hong Kong. Nothing to fear as long as it's not religious or idealogical extremists (basically people who want to kill anyone not like themselves).

Yes, the incident in England was resolved, my apologies for not checking further.
Here is a link to the incident in the UK.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/uk-christian-preacher-arrested-anti-gay-preaching-mall
Here is another incident in Scotland where the preacher was fined.
http://www.christianpost.com/articl...ed-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin/index.html
I'm not condoning his behavior, but in America, you don't get arrested for saying things like that.
Here is a site that has several articles concerning street preachers in Canada getting arrested.
Note: It is a Christian site, so if easily offended, may not want to follow the link.
http://www.concernedchristians.ca/


On the other hand, Fred Phelps and his Westboro anti-gay church have crossed the line into hate speech and have been disavowed by every Christian group in the country if not the world. They are truly vile. And are thankfully getting their collective pants sued off.

Which begs the question, what will future societies view of a Utopia be? And will they make great scifi about it?

 

[TheGodBen]

Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence

I didn't say going private was wrong. I was talking about the public system giving preferential treatment to wealthy and govt officials. Triage based on position, net medical need.

I'm not aware of that happening in Europe, but I would certainly be interested in finding out if it is the case. From what I understand, in principle everyone is equal, but if you can afford private healthcare then you're more equal than others.

Thanks for enlightening me on Ireland. Always wanted to go see where many of my ancestors came from (County Mayo I think).
I guess I think of Ireland as "Ireland" not Europe. I'll try to view it differently from now on.

Ireland is actually one of the most pro-European countries in the EU, largely because EU membership helped our economy out greatly. Unfortunately, we tend to get lumped in a lot with our bigger cousins in the UK who are fairly Euro-sceptic, and there are some EU pacts that we can't join because the UK wont, such as the common European travel area (if we joined it we'd have to close the border with Northern Ireland). But we do use Euros as our currency, and we've pretty much completed the transition to the metric system, so we try to integrate with the EU as much as we can.

If you check the birth rates of secular whites in any country in Europe, they are very low. The birthrates of Islamic immigrants are set to go exponential the second half of this century. And wherever they control, they implement sharia law. They ignore the "secular" laws of the land. It's becoming a real problem in France and the Netherlands. The French news kept relatively quiet about the July 16 Muslim riots.

France has trouble integrating minority groups into "feeling" French, it's a problem that has been ongoing for many years that I'm unfit to comment on because I don't know enough about it. But not all European countries have as much trouble with integration, just look at Siddig El Fadil, an Englishman born in Sudan with a Muslim heritage. England does have trouble with Islamic extremism, the various bombings and attacks prove that, but that comes from a minority of the Muslim community. I seriously doubt that most Muslims in the UK, or in any EU country, wish to implement Sharia Law here.

On the other hand, Fred Phelps and his Westboro anti-gay church have crossed the line into hate speech and have been disavowed by every Christian group in the country if not the world. They are truly vile. And are thankfully getting their collective pants sued off.

Frankly, they should be sued just for this abomination. Why would anyone want to see a leprechaun's arse?