You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?

[DonIago]

If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).

 

[Commishsleer]

If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).

I disagree that my oil analogy is any less genuine than your Cure for AIDS analogy. Not that the oil analogy is all that great. Still I resent your implication that I'm attempting to derail the discussion. I just disagree with the assertion that its OK to take the Baku's planet off them. I don't have some ulterior motive.
The point is the 'magic' cure of the Rings is not really a cure. Its not a 'cure for aids'. At best its a cure for each person who has aids and is given treatment, not a solution for when the 'magic rings' run out.
Its interesting that the 'magic rings' could either slow down or help advances in medicine. I was thinking that either medical researches could learn from the cures or just totally give up and tell their patients to get a piece of those magic rings.

The oil analogy is when someone has something you want and you do anything to justify getting it. Oil is probably more important to life here on Earth much more so than an extended 20, 40 or 100 years of life bought about by the Baku rings would be in the 24th century.

The Federation does not need the rings. Its people will live a normal 24th century life span without it. They don't need the rings for their basic survival.

About 90% of INS was about the Sona violently taking the planet off the Baku.

Beaming people into a cargo deck against their will is still violence. If the Feds come later after the events of INS and kidnap the Baku and Sona (even if its by drugging them or just beaming them away) its still violence IMHO.

 

[DonIago]

I didn't accuse any specific poster of any specific agenda, but if you want to feel resentment, you're welcome to do so. I resent the suggestion that I think the Baku should be killed to mine the rings, because I never said that....but I'm not saying you suggested I did.

IIRC the specific benefits of the rings aren't laid out beyond the effects we see. Boobs firm up, Picard is a bit rejuvenated, Worf gets a zit, Troi and Riker get amorous...and most tellingly, Geordi's eyes regenerate. The last in particular suggests to me that the rings' power, especially if concentrated, could have significant benefits.

People who are suffering from illness or injury that the rings could cure, or even just ameliorate, are -not- living normal life spans, especially when, if McCoy is any indication, the normal lifespan is now over a century.

Since we don't know what the next steps in the operation would have been, we have no idea how long the rings' energies would have lasted or whether anyone would have been able to form a synthetic version in the meantime.

However you define violence, I'm pretty sure saying that 90% of the film is about it is an exaggeration. And again, AFAIA nobody here has suggested that forced relocation was a great thing. It's my estimation that most of the comments have focused on a feeling that the Baku are being immoral by not being willing to share their good fortune with the rest of the galaxy. And as I've said before, good fortune is all it is; they didn't do anything to earn the rings, they merely stumbled upon them.

 

[sonak]

If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).

I think that there are people here who want to turn it from the scenario we are presented with and change it to something more abstract, because as BILLJ, I and others have noted, most people won't come out and admit that they're opposed to moving 600 people to help billions, because it sounds ludicrous. So you're faced with a few options:


1. change it into a much more abstract issue about imperialism, the Prime Directive, etc. Don't debate the specifics of THIS scenario because it's a losing bet. Instead make it less about the situation presented and more of a philosophical question. Who after all is going to agree to the premise of "do the stronger have the right to take what they want?" or some such strawman attack.

2. Deny the premise of the film-the particles don't work, it's not a cure, etc., despite the film itself contradicting this.


3. Defend the film's stance ON ITS MERITS. This is the hardest option, which is why few are attempting it. Because other than an extreme, inflexible defense of "finder's keepers" property rights, what are you going to use? We know that the Baku aren't indigenous, that the Son'a(or the Federation) have a right to the planet, and that the benefits of removal outweigh the cost to the Baku. So other than "it's the Baku's planet, they've got theirs," what are you left with? And really, if that's your argument, and the Baku are that selfish, let them defend themselves. It's STILL not a reason to support Picard defending them from the Son'a.

 

[sonak]

If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).

I disagree that my oil analogy is any less genuine than your Cure for AIDS analogy. Not that the oil analogy is all that great. Still I resent your implication that I'm attempting to derail the discussion. I just disagree with the assertion that its OK to take the Baku's planet off them. I don't have some ulterior motive.
The point is the 'magic' cure of the Rings is not really a cure. Its not a 'cure for aids'. At best its a cure for each person who has aids and is given treatment, not a solution for when the 'magic rings' run out.
Its interesting that the 'magic rings' could either slow down or help advances in medicine. I was thinking that either medical researches could learn from the cures or just totally give up and tell their patients to get a piece of those magic rings.

The oil analogy is when someone has something you want and you do anything to justify getting it. Oil is probably more important to life here on Earth much more so than an extended 20, 40 or 100 years of life bought about by the Baku rings would be in the 24th century.

The Federation does not need the rings. Its people will live a normal 24th century life span without it. They don't need the rings for their basic survival.

About 90% of INS was about the Sona violently taking the planet off the Baku.

Beaming people into a cargo deck against their will is still violence. If the Feds come later after the events of INS and kidnap the Baku and Sona (even if its by drugging them or just beaming them away) its still violence IMHO.

Again, this is just inaccurate. The Son'a didn't turn to violence until late in the film, and then ONLY in response to Picard's insubordination and interference.

If the Federation doesn't "need" the rings, then why do the Baku? This is an especially silly point since the Federation is fighting on behalf of the freedom of the Alpha Quadrant while the Baku contribute NOTHING to the rest of the quadrant. The Federation certainly has a greater need for it than the Baku who have ALREADY had an extended lifespan.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I think that there are people here who want to turn it from the scenario we are presented with

The scenario we are presented with is that the Federation of the TNG era which has been said to be a Utopia free of need or want with a humanity which has improved to the point where prejudice, opportunism, and all the other bad stuff is gone, suddenly needs something so bad they are willing to forcibly move an entire civilization they have no authority over against their will.

And this thing they need pretty much comes out of nowhere and has humans acting out of character (for the TNG era anyway*) to get it.

*TNG once claimed humans no longer feared death, and Geordie never really gave a crap about not having natural eyesight and even turned it down the one time it was offered to him.

 

[Nebusj]

We know that the Baku aren't indigenous,...

Excuse me; I keep seeing this point being brought up and I can't really get a clear idea of how it proves the Baku people haven't got any reasonable expectation to not have their homes stolen from them.

How is it reasonable to deny the Baku people ownership of their land when they discovered the land (at least, I've not heard any evidence that anyone else discovered it), settled the land, and spent centuries improving the land and living on the land? How does it invalidate their claim to it that they chose to live where no one else did, instead of happening to have been born there?

 

[Commishsleer]

If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).

I think that there are people here who want to turn it from the scenario we are presented with and change it to something more abstract, because as BILLJ, I and others have noted, most people won't come out and admit that they're opposed to moving 600 people to help billions, because it sounds ludicrous. So you're faced with a few options:

Commishsleer:I actually think its ludicrous that people thinks its OK to take a planet away from people who lived there for over 300 years just because you want their planet's natural resurces.
I didn't think that was what the Federation was all about.
Kirk didn't force the Halkans to give up their dilithium but Mirror Kirk thought it was OK.
I know the Federation isn't going to kill the Baku outright but they are going to die sooner than they would if left alone.

1. change it into a much more abstract issue about imperialism, the Prime Directive, etc. Don't debate the specifics of THIS scenario because it's a losing bet. Instead make it less about the situation presented and more of a philosophical question. Who after all is going to agree to the premise of "do the stronger have the right to take what they want?" or some such strawman attack.

Commishsleer:Is that a strawman attack? [sarcasm]OK then I agree it right for the Federation to take what they want in this case and they are still heroes. The Romulans/Cardassians/Breen are still the bad guys because they would have just killed the Baku. The Federation is so much better because they let the Baku live. [sarcasm]

2. Deny the premise of the film-the particles don't work, it's not a cure, etc., despite the film itself contradicting this.

Commishsleer:
If its a cure then how come Picard and co look really old in NEM? Even Data? Looks like the benefits are short term if you go by what you see on screen.
Except for Geordi's eyes? And these unusual afflictions could be just dealt with by a clinic on the far side of the planet. Unless the inconvenience of Space Travel is a problem for those who want firm boobs.

3. Defend the film's stance ON ITS MERITS. This is the hardest option, which is why few are attempting it. Because other than an extreme, inflexible defense of "finder's keepers" property rights, what are you going to use? We know that the Baku aren't indigenous, that the Son'a(or the Federation) have a right to the planet, and that the benefits of removal outweigh the cost to the Baku. So other than "it's the Baku's planet, they've got theirs," what are you left with? And really, if that's your argument, and the Baku are that selfish, let them defend themselves. It's STILL not a reason to support Picard defending them from the Son'a.

Commishsleer:
I actually agree that the Baku should defend themselves. Its none of Picard's business. And that was shown in the end when it was revealed that the Sona were indeed Baku.
If they want to live in paradise in their Garden of Eden let them do the hard work of defending it without the taint of the machine.

I don't even understand why Data was involved and what gave Picard the right to interfere in Starfleet's operations. He's not an Admiral. How dare he disobey one?
That doesn't mean I necessarily think it was right for the Federation to take over any planet they want. I just think that Picard has promised to obey the commands of his superiors and you can't pick and choose those commands.

If I've grown quiet, it's because it seems, as noted, that a number of disingenuous counterarguments and analogies are being raised.

Withholding a medical benefit from countless thousands of people (to play it conservatively) is not the same as refusing to share a resource that is less essential to basic survival. I consider a Cure for Cancer, Cure for AIDS, or something else on that scale to be analogous (though even that's smaller in scope than the premise we're given). Comparing the situation to building a railroad or even oil is, to my mind, downplaying the significance of this find.

To claim that the rings' benefits might not work or haven't been tested or aren't necessary is an attack on the premise of the film itself, not the central argument of discussion. I think everyone here agrees that there are weaknesses in the premise of the film.

To claim that anyone here is suggesting taking the planet violently is factually inaccurate; to the best of my knowledge nobody has said that. Believing that people are wrong to do something is, as should be obvious, a far cry from suggesting that violent tactics should be used to right the perceived injustice.

Unfortunately I'm forced to consider whether people are simply not fully considering the applicability of their discussion points...or whether they're deliberately making points that they fully realize at best aren't good analogies and at worst are intended to derail the discussion (attacking the morality of one's fellow posters comes to mind).

I disagree that my oil analogy is any less genuine than your Cure for AIDS analogy. Not that the oil analogy is all that great. Still I resent your implication that I'm attempting to derail the discussion. I just disagree with the assertion that its OK to take the Baku's planet off them. I don't have some ulterior motive.
The point is the 'magic' cure of the Rings is not really a cure. Its not a 'cure for aids'. At best its a cure for each person who has aids and is given treatment, not a solution for when the 'magic rings' run out.
Its interesting that the 'magic rings' could either slow down or help advances in medicine. I was thinking that either medical researches could learn from the cures or just totally give up and tell their patients to get a piece of those magic rings.

The oil analogy is when someone has something you want and you do anything to justify getting it. Oil is probably more important to life here on Earth much more so than an extended 20, 40 or 100 years of life bought about by the Baku rings would be in the 24th century.

The Federation does not need the rings. Its people will live a normal 24th century life span without it. They don't need the rings for their basic survival.

About 90% of INS was about the Sona violently taking the planet off the Baku.

Beaming people into a cargo deck against their will is still violence. If the Feds come later after the events of INS and kidnap the Baku and Sona (even if its by drugging them or just beaming them away) its still violence IMHO.

Again, this is just inaccurate. The Son'a didn't turn to violence until late in the film, and then ONLY in response to Picard's insubordination and interference.

If the Federation doesn't "need" the rings, then why do the Baku? This is an especially silly point since the Federation is fighting on behalf of the freedom of the Alpha Quadrant while the Baku contribute NOTHING to the rest of the quadrant. The Federation certainly has a greater need for it than the Baku who have ALREADY had an extended lifespan.

I think the Federation was fighting for freedom for those planets in the Alpha Quadrant. Not for the right to be able to destroy any planet they wished in the Alpha Quadrant.

 

[HaventGotALife]

So in my experiment, I will give 600 people cancer in an effort to rid the world of cancer. Let's say I am assured to that those 600 people will guarantee a cure. Would you still do it? I wouldn't. That's 600 people who could die (they are assured to die in the movie). That's 600 people with family and friends. Maybe the next great scientist is among them. BTW, that is a personal question for me. I am a smoker and my mother went through cancer several years ago. I have skin in this game. "How can I look at another sunrise knowing what my sight cost these people?"

That person would be jailed for their experiment. We have rules against that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, the Nazis were very good at doing these kinds of rationalizations.

This comes down to a question of "do we value all life or just the majority of life?" And when I say life, I mean human life. Is it acceptable to have 600 homeless people when one billion are lifted out of poverty? Will we stop trying to make those 600 people rise from poverty or are we content to say "it's been minimized?" Do we allow 600 people to be on drugs, and get rid of all drug treatment centers, because we don't want to deal with the tax dollars? There are times when the needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the few.

"It might've rendered your history a little less bloody."

 

[DonIago]

What about the question of whether those 600 people are willing to go through what you suggest knowing it would benefit many more people? As people have said before, did anybody -ask- those 600 people how they felt?

Because again, nobody here is saying that anything should be -forced- upon the Baku. People are saying the Baku should have chosen for themselves what they believe would have been a more moral course of action than sitting on their asses.

 

[BillJ]

What about the question of whether those 600 people are willing to go through what you suggest knowing it would benefit many more people? As people have said before, did anybody -ask- those 600 people how they felt?

Because again, nobody here is saying that anything should be -forced- upon the Baku. People are saying the Baku should have chosen for themselves what they believe would have been a more moral course of action than sitting on their asses.

I don't even have an issue with the Ba'ku fighting to to protect what is theirs. I have a problem with them kicking the S'ona off the planet then a hundred years later saying they won't pick up a weapon to defend themselves and then tricking a Starfleet captain into doing their dirty work by waving a piece of ass in his face.

Essentially, they have set themselves up to be conquered and moved. If not by the Federation then eventually by someone else.

As far as sentencing six-hundred folks to death, it is one hell of a long death sentence as they will live at least another century if the S'ona are any type of example.

 

[sonak]

So in my experiment, I will give 600 people cancer in an effort to rid the world of cancer. Let's say I am assured to that those 600 people will guarantee a cure. Would you still do it? I wouldn't. That's 600 people who could die (they are assured to die in the movie). That's 600 people with family and friends. Maybe the next great scientist is among them. BTW, that is a personal question for me. I am a smoker and my mother went through cancer several years ago. I have skin in this game. "How can I look at another sunrise knowing what my sight cost these people?"

That person would be jailed for their experiment. We have rules against that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, the Nazis were very good at doing these kinds of rationalizations.

This comes down to a question of "do we value all life or just the majority of life?" And when I say life, I mean human life. Is it acceptable to have 600 homeless people when one billion are lifted out of poverty? Will we stop trying to make those 600 people rise from poverty or are we content to say "it's been minimized?" Do we allow 600 people to be on drugs, and get rid of all drug treatment centers, because we don't want to deal with the tax dollars? There are times when the needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the few.

"It might've rendered your history a little less bloody."

this is a post that has nothing to do with the issue presented in the movie. No one's "giving" the Baku any kind of disease, if you think that it's immoral to move the Baku, then you must also think it was when the Baku EXPELLED the Son'a, which had the effect of... KILLING them!



So the UFP is so horrible for doing to the innocent, precious Baku just what the Baku themselves did.


And then, again, as I've continued to point out, you don't think the Federation should have tried to remove the Baku you STILL have to explain why you think the Federation should do the work of DEFENDING the Baku, risking their lives for any who would try to take the planet.



Any takers on that? Please explain why the Federation is obligated to fight on behalf of a small isolationist village of pacifists in order to prevent any other power from accessing the resources of a (to your point of view) non-Federation planet.




(sits back and prepares to enjoy the convoluted rationalizations)



"perhaps..."


"well..."

 

[sonak]

I think that there are people here who want to turn it from the scenario we are presented with

The scenario we are presented with is that the Federation of the TNG era which has been said to be a Utopia free of need or want with a humanity which has improved to the point where prejudice, opportunism, and all the other bad stuff is gone, suddenly needs something so bad they are willing to forcibly move an entire civilization they have no authority over against their will.

And this thing they need pretty much comes out of nowhere and has humans acting out of character (for the TNG era anyway*) to get it.

*TNG once claimed humans no longer feared death, and Geordie never really gave a crap about not having natural eyesight and even turned it down the one time it was offered to him.

yes it's so out of character they did exactly the same thing in "journey's end" for LESS reason and Picard had no problem with it. The Indians should have dangled a hot woman in front of him to change his mind I guess.

 

[HaventGotALife]

So in my experiment, I will give 600 people cancer in an effort to rid the world of cancer. Let's say I am assured to that those 600 people will guarantee a cure. Would you still do it? I wouldn't. That's 600 people who could die (they are assured to die in the movie). That's 600 people with family and friends. Maybe the next great scientist is among them. BTW, that is a personal question for me. I am a smoker and my mother went through cancer several years ago. I have skin in this game. "How can I look at another sunrise knowing what my sight cost these people?"

That person would be jailed for their experiment. We have rules against that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, the Nazis were very good at doing these kinds of rationalizations.

This comes down to a question of "do we value all life or just the majority of life?" And when I say life, I mean human life. Is it acceptable to have 600 homeless people when one billion are lifted out of poverty? Will we stop trying to make those 600 people rise from poverty or are we content to say "it's been minimized?" Do we allow 600 people to be on drugs, and get rid of all drug treatment centers, because we don't want to deal with the tax dollars? There are times when the needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the few.

"It might've rendered your history a little less bloody."

this is a post that has nothing to do with the issue presented in the movie. No one's "giving" the Baku any kind of disease, if you think that it's immoral to move the Baku, then you must also think it was when the Baku EXPELLED the Son'a, which had the effect of... KILLING them!

Well, perhaps...

It is killing them by not making them immortal. They expelled them from the planet because they tried to take over the colony. The Son'a weren't about to sit down and make a colony somewhere else on the planet, they would have no technology to do so. It would look an awful lot like the colony the Bak'u had. So the only option was, in order to survive, kick the Son'a off the planet. They have no weapons to defend themselves. What would you do in that situation? Let your culture and people die in a massive civil war where you are slaughtered (because of needing the resources of the Bak'u in order for the Son'a to survive)???

Meanwhile, you have a problem with that, but kindly overlook a revenge scenario where they want the people who "expelled" them to "DIE SLOWLY!" An actual motivation of harm. But they are just misunderstood bad guys who needed more even-handed treatment in the film.

And then, again, as I've continued to point out, you don't think the Federation should have tried to remove the Baku you STILL have to explain why you think the Federation should do the work of DEFENDING the Baku, risking their lives for any who would try to take the planet.

The planet is in Federation space. With the convoluted scenario where the other powers in the Quadrant commit AN ACT OF WAR BY VIOLATING FEDERATION SOVEREIGNTY, yes, the Federation should protect the planet. Does that mean they have the right to destroy the planet's life? NO>>>OR WOULD YOU SUGGEST WE CAN ELIMINATE VULCAN FOR NO APPARENT REASON??? If that's not what you are referring to, I suggest that Picard is DEFENDING THE FEDERATION FROM DOING UNNECESSARY HARM to the PLANET and the PLANET'S POPULATION! They don't own the planet. They have to protect the borders.

 

[HaventGotALife]

What about the question of whether those 600 people are willing to go through what you suggest knowing it would benefit many more people? As people have said before, did anybody -ask- those 600 people how they felt?

Because again, nobody here is saying that anything should be -forced- upon the Baku. People are saying the Baku should have chosen for themselves what they believe would have been a more moral course of action than sitting on their asses.

"How can we possibly defend ourselves?"
"The moment we pick up a weapon, we become one of them. We lose everything we are."

That pretty much speaks to their state of mind.

 

[DonIago]

That second quote should really be followed by...

"...but you're welcome to pick up weapons and fight for us! We're good with that!"

If they lose everything they are if they pick up weapons themselves, one has to wonder what the repercussions are of letting people fight and potentially die for them while they talk about how pure a people they are.

As for that first quote, it should be followed with...

"...though evidently we were capable of either kicking the Son'a off our planet or convincing them to leave previously."

Their state of mind seems, to me, analogous to world leaders who expect people to fight for them while they would be unwilling to return the favor.

World leaders who are simultaneously sitting on the Cure for Cancer.

 

[T'Girl]

Let them visit the planet.

People with diabetes should have to leave their homes, families and lives in order to move next to the facility that produces insulin?

I strongly suspect diabetes will be cured by the 24th century.

As do I, I was making a modern example of what I saw as a unreasonable suggestion on your part.

People should not have to relocate to the medicine ("... visit the planet) when the medicine can be collected and distributed to people who can be helped by it.

The movie said the some serious medical conditions could take as long as a decade to be resolved by the natural radiation on the planet, assuming that the patient has that long, it's a long time to absent yourself from your own life. Especially if the treatment can be brought to you.

The scenario we are presented with is that the Federation of the TNG era which has been said to be a Utopia ...

That was said of Earth specifically, not the Federation in general.

...suddenly needs something so bad they are willing to forcibly move an entire civilization ...

And by "entire civilization" you mean only 600 people?

... I can't really get a clear idea of how it proves the Baku people haven't got any reasonable expectation to not have their homes stolen from them.

I would have no problem transplanting the Baku's homes along with the Baku.

How is it reasonable to deny the Baku people ownership of their land when they discovered the land (at least, I've not heard any evidence that anyone else discovered it), settled the land, and spent centuries improving the land and living on the land? How does it invalidate their claim to it that they chose to live where no one else did, instead of happening to have been born there?

How does anything you just said give them the rings?

Remember, neither the Federation nor the Sona actually want the planet itself. They want to move the Baku so they won't be harmed when the rings are harvested, otherwise the Baku could stay where they were.

"How can we possibly defend ourselves?"
"The moment we pick up a weapon, we become one of them. We lose everything we are."

Oh, but it perfect fine if others do the "defending" for us.

 

[sonak]

So in my experiment, I will give 600 people cancer in an effort to rid the world of cancer. Let's say I am assured to that those 600 people will guarantee a cure. Would you still do it? I wouldn't. That's 600 people who could die (they are assured to die in the movie). That's 600 people with family and friends. Maybe the next great scientist is among them. BTW, that is a personal question for me. I am a smoker and my mother went through cancer several years ago. I have skin in this game. "How can I look at another sunrise knowing what my sight cost these people?"

That person would be jailed for their experiment. We have rules against that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, the Nazis were very good at doing these kinds of rationalizations.

This comes down to a question of "do we value all life or just the majority of life?" And when I say life, I mean human life. Is it acceptable to have 600 homeless people when one billion are lifted out of poverty? Will we stop trying to make those 600 people rise from poverty or are we content to say "it's been minimized?" Do we allow 600 people to be on drugs, and get rid of all drug treatment centers, because we don't want to deal with the tax dollars? There are times when the needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the few.

"It might've rendered your history a little less bloody."

this is a post that has nothing to do with the issue presented in the movie. No one's "giving" the Baku any kind of disease, if you think that it's immoral to move the Baku, then you must also think it was when the Baku EXPELLED the Son'a, which had the effect of... KILLING them!

Well, perhaps...

It is killing them by not making them immortal. They expelled them from the planet because they tried to take over the colony. The Son'a weren't about to sit down and make a colony somewhere else on the planet, they would have no technology to do so. It would look an awful lot like the colony the Bak'u had. So the only option was, in order to survive, kick the Son'a off the planet. They have no weapons to defend themselves. What would you do in that situation? Let your culture and people die in a massive civil war where you are slaughtered (because of needing the resources of the Bak'u in order for the Son'a to survive)???

Meanwhile, you have a problem with that, but kindly overlook a revenge scenario where they want the people who "expelled" them to "DIE SLOWLY!" An actual motivation of harm. But they are just misunderstood bad guys who needed more even-handed treatment in the film.

And then, again, as I've continued to point out, you don't think the Federation should have tried to remove the Baku you STILL have to explain why you think the Federation should do the work of DEFENDING the Baku, risking their lives for any who would try to take the planet.

The planet is in Federation space. With the convoluted scenario where the other powers in the Quadrant commit AN ACT OF WAR BY VIOLATING FEDERATION SOVEREIGNTY, yes, the Federation should protect the planet. Does that mean they have the right to destroy the planet's life? NO>>>OR WOULD YOU SUGGEST WE CAN ELIMINATE VULCAN FOR NO APPARENT REASON??? If that's not what you are referring to, I suggest that Picard is DEFENDING THE FEDERATION FROM DOING UNNECESSARY HARM to the PLANET and the PLANET'S POPULATION! They don't own the planet. They have to protect the borders.

er, if you don't consider it "killing" the Son'a because it's making them mortal, then it's CERTAINLY not killing the Baku to remove them and make them mortal. And are you forgetting that it's a PLANET? Why was it necessary to exile the Son'a from a planet just for trying to take over a small village? Finally, in removing the Baku, the Son'a were willing to help billions, while the Baku, in removing the Son'a, helped NO ONE but themselves. Another point to the Son'a.


On your final point, I can only reply with


You admit that the Federation has sovereignty over the territory, but not over the planet? And so are therefore obligated to defend the Baku and take casualties to protect a group that's hoarding a medical resource and won't defend themselves?



Why would they do that? Why not just let the Son'a remove the Baku for them and then get the particles from the Son'a?



Do you even understand what position you're arguing? You contradict yourself repeatedly, like when you say that what's being contemplated for the Baku is "killing," but that exiling the Son'a isn't killing them.

Then you say it's not a Federation planet but that the Federation must defend it.

 

[sonak]

What about the question of whether those 600 people are willing to go through what you suggest knowing it would benefit many more people? As people have said before, did anybody -ask- those 600 people how they felt?

Because again, nobody here is saying that anything should be -forced- upon the Baku. People are saying the Baku should have chosen for themselves what they believe would have been a more moral course of action than sitting on their asses.

"How can we possibly defend ourselves?"
"The moment we pick up a weapon, we become one of them. We lose everything we are."

That pretty much speaks to their state of mind.

That second quote should really be followed by...

"...but you're welcome to pick up weapons and fight for us! We're good with that!"

If they lose everything they are if they pick up weapons themselves, one has to wonder what the repercussions are of letting people fight and potentially die for them while they talk about how pure a people they are.

As for that first quote, it should be followed with...

"...though evidently we were capable of either kicking the Son'a off our planet or convincing them to leave previously."

Their state of mind seems, to me, analogous to world leaders who expect people to fight for them while they would be unwilling to return the favor.

World leaders who are simultaneously sitting on the Cure for Cancer.

yeah, you're pretty much not a pacifist if you're fine with others fighting, killing, and dying for you, right in front of your face.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Nothing to add, I just can't believe this thread's still going.