Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?

[The Old Mixer]

 

[1001001]

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide (Third Revision, April 17, 1967) possibly describes the original motivation for the resistance to the idea of Starfleet being a military:

Is the starship U.S.S. Enterprise a military vessel?

Yes​

This is the part I really take to heart from the Guide. What follows is basically Gene's version of "but it's much more civilized than in the present-day real world."

 

[M3ntos]

All this cryfest over a relevant thread being replied to with a good post . . .

Welcome to the Emo-Trek . . . LOL!

 

[1001001]

Uh...no.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

All this cryfest over a relevant thread being replied to with a good post . . .

Welcome to the Emo-Trek . . . LOL!

 

[Prax]

A thought just came to me

Maybe there are TWO competing philosophies amongst fans, amongst writers, and even fictionish in-universe people.
You have the Starfleet of The Cage, and the Starfleet of TOS.
-The Motion Picture vs Wrath of Khan
-TNG vs DS9
-Roddenberry vs ...not Roddenberry
-Hawks vs Doves, Yin and Yang, Masaka vs Korgano!

M**d B***n!

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I think there's AT LEAST two competing philosophies amongst the fans et al. I think they could broadly described as the "philosophical" approach (which says that Starfleet isn't a military because it's main purpose (exploration and diplomacy) and the "practical" approach (which states that Starfleet cannot be civilian as it's capabilities (photon torpedoes are WMDs and phasers can be used as such) and therefore is "military" in at least the broad sense.

 

[Prax]

Sweet

 

[The Old Mixer]

With the blessings of the OP and my co-mod...