Archer Right or Wrong in Cogenitor

[Theunicornhunter 2]

This topic was suggested by someone else's post and I thought it was interesting so I set up the poll.

[MoulinRouge 0]

I voted wrong not to grant asylum. I'm a chick. However, my opinion is looking at the issue from a purely moral standpoint. Morally, it was pretty sh*tty that Archer didn't mind blowing the up the wisp! ship, or freeing the Suliban from their immoral imprisonment yet suddenly decided to exercise caution when he had a sentient being begging for help. From a standpoint of what is prudent, perhaps Archer was right--to keep from angering the more technologically advanced, albeit seemingly peaceful and reasonable Vissians (though he showed no such worries about angering the militaristic Tandarans). The fact that the Vissians were willing to sit and discuss things spoke well of them as far as that matter is concerned, though. Not a black and white issue at all.

 

It was wrong, but necessary out of a prudent practicality, to give Charles back. However, would Kirk or Picard have granted her asylum? Possibly. The prime directive (and the power of a Federation behind you) seems to offer some leeway in taking a moral stance that might piss off certain parties. Might makes right?

[Klingonmike 0]

I voted that Archer was right in not granting asylum.Trip went about things all wrong and royally screwed up.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I voted wrong not to grant asylum.  I'm a chick.  However, my opinion is looking at the issue from a purely moral standpoint.  Morally, it was pretty sh*tty that Archer didn't mind blowing the up the wisp! ship, or freeing the Suliban from their immoral imprisonment yet suddenly decided to exercise caution when he had a sentient being begging for help.  From a standpoint of what is prudent, perhaps Archer was right--to keep from angering the more technologically advanced, albeit seemingly peaceful and reasonable Vissians (though he showed no such worries about angering the militaristic Tandarans). The fact that the Vissians were willing to sit and discuss things spoke well of them as far as that matter is concerned, though.  Not a black and white issue at all.

 

It was wrong, but necessary out of a prudent practicality, to give Charles back.  However, would Kirk or Picard have granted her asylum?  Possibly.  The prime directive (and the power of a Federation behind you) seems to offer some leeway in taking a moral stance that might piss off certain parties. Might makes right?

I thnk these issues are conflicting with pasr decisions on purpose. There is no standard at present. How "should" someone handle this situation? That's why the prome directive is needed. This will guide us (Us like I'm really there ) into making the right decision. It may not seem morally right but who are we to say what's morally right for beings from another planet?

 

As for my vote I voted he did the right thing. (and I'm a guy)

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

My vote: Archer was wrong not to grant asylum, I am a male

 

I agree, Trip totally messed up, even though his intentions moral. However, I also think Archer totally messed up in not granting it, for lack of a better word, an asylum. Here is a sentient being discoverring a new world, thanks to Trip, and it now requests an asylum. Archer says no? What about all the other times he's helped aliens without regard to their culture like the shapeshifting slug that he fell in love with?

 

I just think he was more concerned for inter-species relations then he was for this innocent being, and that disturbed me. However, I'm not going to hold it against him as everyone at some point in there life will make one wopper of a mistake from time to time. It still botherred me though.

[MoulinRouge 0]

may not seem morally right but who are we to say what's morally right for beings from another planet?

 

Who are we, western society with modern cultural values, to dictate to certain Islamic/African countries that female genital mutilation is morally wrong--yet many missionaries and diplomats continue to try because we happen to find the practice morally repugnant. It's a deeply ingrained cultural practice for them, considered important to preserve female sexual integrity. Who is the Unites States or Europe to dictate the moral values of another society? I read a disturbing article about a young woman begging for asylum in the US because her uncle (her parents had died) insisted she undergo the circumsion. She went to prison here in the States before asylum was finally granted; she was that desperate. It was discussed amongst the judges making the decision that perhaps we didn't have the right to interfere with another society's "cultural standards." Finally, the practice of mutilation was deemed too abhorrent to force her to go back home, but the decision might have gone the other way. It almost did. Very disturbing.

 

I LOVE a good can of worms, freshly opened. :devil:

 

The treatment of the cogenitor was tantamount to slavery. Trip found it repugnant. Is the litmus test of whether it's right to interfere the level of repugnance? What if it were a question of genital mutilation of a cogenitor who was begging to stay on board (not that B&B would be that daring, but.....)? I'm not saying that Trip didn't go about it the wrong way--his intentions were quite admirable but he screwed up. However, would Trip be hailed as a hero if we trying to save the cogenitor from mutilation or an equally abhorrent practice? Would everyone be singing Trip's praises even if he'd gone about things exactly the same way if he were trying to save the cogenitor from a practice that each of us found exceptionally abhorrent?

 

Had the question been one of forced genital mutilation or forced prostitution and Archer had given the cogenitor back to preserve nice nice relations with the Vissians who said "please" and "thank you" and "come sleep with me, Malcolm" would you still say he was right? Prudent, maybe, but right? I just can't get over the fact that Archer is willing to piss off some cultures but not others. He has not set a consistent example. Not in the least.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

The treatment of the cogenitor was tantamount to slavery.

I agree fully!

[Admiral Kirk 1]

I voted that Archer was right not to grant her asylum and I am a man. Yes her situation was a form of slavery and I really abhor it. But remember when Archer told trip that this is not Florida? To expand on that they were not on Earth at all.

It was not Star Fleet's place to judge or disrupt an entirely different species' culture just because we find an element in it we think is wrong. It would be arrogant to for a young, primtive species to tell a race that is hundreds of years more advanced than they are how to run their affairs. As if Earth culture is so perfect and the whole galaxy should imitate us. The bottom line is that Tripp screwed up because he could not tolerate another culture's beliefs and caused a lot of problems. Tolerating and accepting are two different things. You can accept a situation and despise it at the same time.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

So, if some alien or whatever came to you, begging for an asylum, your protection, you would refuse becuase of the way a culture behaves? You would refuse to protect an individual from it's culture?

[Stelfan 0]

I think Archer was right, we can not judge what is right or wrong by our moral standards, we have to look beyond our own little world..

[Admiral Kirk 1]

Like it or not a CO of any vessel can't afford to concentrate soley on the wishes of a single person or persons. Archer had to calculate the risks to his crew his ship and possible future confrontations with a pissed off and more advanced race. Being the captain of the first deep space vessel he has to walk a fine line. I don't think he's been very consistent but some of those past situations envolved the survival of his people. The formula is crew and earth's interest first almost everythimg else is second at this point. He may not like it but that's the way it is. And if their is a lot at risk such as the security of my ship I would give over a refugee. We don't know how those people would have reated if Archer interfered further in their culture.

[Takara_Soong 4]

I'm one of the women who voted that Archer did the right thing. Trip acted impulsively in his actions with the cogenitor and the consequences of his actions were devestating. Trip was thinking about one life - the cogenitors while Archer had to think of the lives of his crew and others. I think it is unfair to compare Archer's dilemma to that of future captains as their situations are so different. First off, the NX-01 is alone out there. If they hadn't turned the cogenitor over would the Vissians have attacked Enterprise, would they have declared war against humans? Archer's 23rd and 24th century counterparts have the luxury of back-up in the size and might of a Federation.

 

I find genital mutilation very repugnant as well but I don't think it is an accurate comparison for this situation. That "ritual" has no basis in religion but is a terrible "tradition" - there is no other purpose to this practice than to "keep a female pure". Forced prostitution is all about greed and power so I also don't think it is an accurate comparison.

 

A cogenitor however is different in that without a cogenitor the Vissians could not procreate. That does not make the Vissians' treatment of the cogenitor right or moral. The only situation I could think of that was remotely close to this situation was the Ilian Gonzalez situation a few years ago (I'm talking only the legal aspects and the moral debate - not any actions taken to remove the boy from the Florida house).

 

As for Archer's decision conflicting with his previous actions, I too believe that Archer has learned from his mistakes and is seeing more of the "big picture" than Tripp was.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

TheUnicornHunter Posted: May 9 2003, 05:09 PM

 

(cptwright @ May 9 2003, 03:47 PM)

(MoulinRouge @ May 8 2003, 05:40 PM)

The Vissians were awful. Just because they have pretty, sparkling technology as opposed to the Tandarans doesn't make what they did any less reprehensible.      That episode still resonates emotionally for me.

 

As for Trip, we shall see what happens, won't we?  I doubt he'll go quite so far as to bomb the Xindi homeworld without Starfleet permission.  That would be a line he couldn't cross back over. He's Trip, not George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld's evil spawn.          Gack.

 

the vissians werent awful people, the third person is how they procreate, not a sex slave or anythnig like that. it was society that made the very, very minority cogenitor the way it was. they werent being cruel or anything like that. its not something we as humans would do, but this was a different species, and different ways. going off into space meeting new aliens, we need to keep an open mind with others traditions, and ways, or at the very least just keep the negatives to ourselves. im sure we do many things that other races would find apalling as well. as for bush and rumsfeld, they arent bad people, and the war with iraq was necessary.

 

I'm afraid this is exactly something humans would do. I've seen two different takes on Cogenitor - some have drawn parrallels to slavery - some to women's rights. Personally I think the analogy to either could be made. The cogenitor may not have suffered brutality but not all practices of slavery in human history involved brutality; nevertheless, a gilded cage is still a cage. As for the women't rights issue - well the cogenitor's status wasn't so different than that of women in much of human history; at times forbidden to own property, obtain an education; seek gainful employment, vote etc. In fact their sole purpose for existence was pretty much to bear children for their husbands; and they didn't always have a choice who they were going to end up procreating with. So I don't see how the Vissians were that different from humans except our social awareness developed along with our technology.

 

In response to the many posts on the cogenitor thread - I have a hard time understanding why it is okay to judge another human culture and even impose our values on them but we shouldn't do that with aliens. Everyone has made a big deal about how beneficial a relationship with the Vissians could be. We could have similar opportunities today if we didn't worry about political prisoners performing slave labor, sweat shops, child labor etc. The way I see it there is either a universal right and wrong or there's not. If there is we should apply the same ethical standards to all beings; if there isn't then give your officers some leeway for not knowing what the moral code of the moment is.

 

edited for grammar

 

This post has been edited by TheUnicornHunter on May 9 2003, 05:18 PM

 

--------------------

TheUnicornHunter

___________________

My grandmother told me never to judge a species by their eating habits -

 

 

I copied the post from another thread that prompted this poll. Another poster actually suggested the poll.

 

I realize after reading some of the posts that people are choosing right or wrong based on security - fear of reprisals to the Enterprise crew and I have to agree Archer's first duty is the safety of his crew - however I'm not sure that would have been an issue here.

[MoulinRouge 0]

Like I said Archer did the prudent thing, but not the morally right thing. Had possible security risks not been an issue at all, I'd say keep the cogenitor. Would that make a difference for anyone else?

 

As for Archer's inconsistency (I like Archer, don't get me wrong) it is still a huge issue for me, especially concerning his handing over of tangible proof of the P'Jem surveillance station when he didn't have all the facts about the Vulcan/Andorian conflict (he did it because he was angry at the Vulcans) and especially the Tandaran/Suliban detention situation. The security of Archer's people, and Archer himself, was not an issue in that situation. They offered to beam Archer out and leave but Archer would have none of that. He could have gone through with his hearing and left the Suliban alone. That's the one decision Archer has made that flabbergasts me with its foolishness and naiveté. He could have--and should have--dangerously exacerbated the conflict on Tandar Prime if any sort of decent writing had been in place. What if the Tandarans had retaliated against the Suliban in the remaining facilities? What if, as Colonel Gratt stated, the escaped Suliban were coerced into a Cabal and further Tandaran citizens had been killed because of Archer's actions? He had no legal authority other than his moral outrage. You don't go freeing prisoners (prisoners whose culpability you cannot confirm or deny) from other hostile societies on a whim without serious consequences. What if someone had freed the prisoners from Camp X-Ray on a whim in the months following 9/11? Think that could have caused a problem?

 

With a commanding officer willing to do such a dangerous thing, is it any wonder than an officer would think it's permissible to interfere because of his own moral outrage? Not to me. Archer had no qualms about ticking off the militaristic Tandarans. What? He has no responsibility to its citizens since they aren't sweet and nice like the Vissians with their sparkling technology and a captain who takes you for rides into stars? Archer could have--and should have--started a war on Tandar but nothing happened except Trip almost dying. Big deal. Magic teflon. I hate magic teflon.

 

I reiterate; I like Archer. It isn't that. I just wish that he had come clean about how irresponsible he's been much more than we saw him do during the dressing down scene. I like it that Trip owned up to his own responsibility; however, I wish we would have seen Archer do the same. He and Trip aren't so different. That's what made the whole situation so bloody ironic. Every serious consequence slid off Archer like magic. Trip did the same thing and POW!! Life long guilt. Ironic indeed.

 

I hope those blankety blanks in charge address this at some point in the future.

[ddillard 2]

What if someone had freed the prisoners from Camp X-Ray on a whim in the months following 9/11? Think that could have caused a problem?

 

What is camp X-ray?

 

I think that Archer made the wrong decision, and I am male. I think that Archer made his decision based more on how Starfleet could benefit from the good relations with the Vissians, and not on what was right. I am not speaking as to his making a decision on the treatment of the cogenitor in his species. First, Trip screwed up, I agree with that statement. Second, The cogenitor Asked for asylum, and it should have been granted. What if she had returned to her home planet and shared the views and teachings of Trip with her fellow cogenitors, it could have lead to a catastrophe, maybe even a civil war. Depending on how many were injured or killed in the war or conflict it could have led to the eventual extinction of the race if the cogenitors were killed off.

 

As for there not being a comparison between this situation and forced prostitution, here is what I see. The Cogenitor is "given" to Vissian families trying to reproduce, not permitted to have an education, only permitted one meal a day, must go where they are told without having any choice, and must perform sexual acts for the purpose of procreation whether they like it or not. Sounds alot like forced prostitution to me.

[Data 0]

Archer's decision was right. I understand how Trip felt but how he handled the situation only caused worse problems. It would have been better for him to wait for Archer. Let Archer confront the other ship's captain about the situation. Maybe the issue could have been settled without a loss of life.

[MoulinRouge 0]

Camp X-Ray is the detention center the United States government set up at Guantanemo Bay in the months following 9/11 to detain individuals suspected of committing terrorist acts. Considering the panic and paranoia rampant at that time, if someone had taken it upon himself to free all the detainees because some of them might have been innocent, I suspect that it might have caused severe problems between that individual's government and the US.

 

Considering the Tandaran government's well documented brutality, I didn't find it at all wise for Archer to take it upon himself to orchestrate a prison break when he could have escaped via the transporter. What was to keep the Tandarans from killing the Suliban in the remaining facilities?

 

Archer and Trip are two halves of the same whole--well meaning, naively arrogant do gooders with hearts of gold who don't think things through.

[CaptQuick 0]

My vote: Archer was wrong not to grant asylum, I am a male

 

I agree, Trip totally messed up, even though his intentions moral.  However, I also think Archer totally messed up in not granting it, for lack of a better word, an asylum.  Here is a sentient being discoverring a new world, thanks to Trip, and it now requests an asylum.  Archer says no?  What about all the other times he's helped aliens without regard to their culture like the shapeshifting slug that he fell in love with?

 

I just think he was more concerned for inter-species relations then he was for this innocent being, and that disturbed me.  However, I'm not going to hold it against him as everyone at some point in there life will make one wopper of a mistake from time to time.  It still botherred me though.

Ahem. This opinion mirrors mine in almost every way. I will add a little bit however.

I believe Archer was wrong because I believe ethics are #1: Absolute, and #2: Universal. As such, it is never right to deliver an innocent person into slavery. The situation of how she came to be in his care is immaterial in this case, because she did not commit any crime to be there.

I was going to say that Trip should have been punished more severely, but when I think of it, he didn't really break any of the ship's laws. That's why Archer only gave him a strict warning (and, I expect, he tightened up the ship's regulations afterwards.).

[SuraksSoul 0]

[..] the cogenitor Asked for asylum, and it should have been granted.  What if she had returned to her home planet and shared the views and teachings of Trip with her fellow cogenitors, it could have lead to a catastrophe, maybe even a civil war.  Depending on how many were injured or killed in the war or conflict it could have led to the eventual extinction of the race if the cogenitors were killed off.

An interesting point, but I think that Archer had to contemplate what would happen if he did not grant asylum. Also a point that has not been brought up. What if the Vissians had used the 'cogenitor' to have the baby and then killed it off afterwards because of its new-found enlightenment? Did Archer take this into account? (probably not b/c the writers don't really go this deep and leave black holes like this to form debates -- woo hoo) Obviously had he granted asylum, it would have strained relations (but hopefully not beyond repair). Even though I can see this view point of granting asylum, I must say that Archer did the right thing regardless. It was appropriate of him not to assert human "morals" or "ethics" as superior to the Vissians....granting asylum would have done just that.

It was Trip's fault for breaking the natural mentality of the cogenitor, not Archers.

Remember....it did not originally ask for help -- only after human interference did it become aware.

[SuraksSoul 0]

Leave it to UnicornHunter to provide a most interesting and thought-provoking thread. I'm glad that there is a place to turn the brain *on* for a few minutes.

 

/ wipes eyes...goes back to staring at the screen

[Theunicornhunter 2]

=SuraksSoul,May 12 2003, 11:01 PM

It was Trip's fault for breaking the natural mentality of the cogenitor, not Archers.

Remember....it did not originally ask for help -- only after human interference did it become aware.

 

According to the neurological scans the cogenitor was of equal intelligence and ability as the other two genders. However, that being said it doesnt' make sense the congenitor could be that intelligent but not be aware of it until Trip came along. I think that was faulty logic in the script.

 

The truth is there were a lot of logic gaps in the whole premise of this episode. IMO the logic gaps make it an imperfect model for what it was trying put across. But I think it probably takes the record for the most thought provoking episode

[A l t e r E g o 9]

Archer was wrong not to grant asylum, I am a male.

 

=SuraksSoul,May 12 2003, 11:01 PM

It was Trip's fault for breaking the natural mentality of the cogenitor, not Archers.

Remember....it did not originally ask for help -- only after human interference did it become aware.

 

it did not originally ask for help -- only after human interference did it become aware.

 

I disagree. Go back and look at It’s eyes, from the beginning they are begging for something, It does not know what it needs but it clearly is not happy (If It were content in the role It plays I would expect it to have an emotionless face, (or even happy) It DID NOT.) and it is this which Trip acts upon.

 

According to the neurological scans the cogenitor was of equal intelligence and ability as the other two genders.  However, that being said it doesnt' make sense the congenitor could be that intelligent but not be aware of it until Trip came along.  I think that was faulty logic in the script.

 

Again I disagree. The neurological scans were, in Trips mind, the metaphorical nails in the coffin that something needed to be done and he, based on what he had seen his captain do in the past took action.

 

The truth is there were a lot of logic gaps in the whole premise of this episode.  IMO the logic gaps make it an imperfect model for what it was trying put across.  But I think it probably takes the record for the most thought provoking episode

 

The only logic gap I perceive is how it does not seem to relate to what we have seen before as far as Archer ready to save the Galaxy himself if necessary. Of Archers statement to Trip; ‘I guess I am not been getting through to you about not interfering with other cultures.’ (Or something along those likes.) I would ask, when the heck did he say anything like that before?

[MoulinRouge 0]

I would ask, when the heck did he say anything like that before?

 

He didn't. He speculated once in "Desert Crossing" that he might have been wrong to free the Suliban, that he and Trip wouldn't be there at Zobral's invitation if he hadn't acquired the reputation of a "great warrior," but there was never any admission that it was a really dangerous move on his part. Of course nothing permanent happened to Trip and we've never seen Archer checking on the ramifications of what happened after he freed those Suliban. I find the whole business very incomplete. I guess we're supposed to assume all this happened off screen. I don't know.

 

I tape ENT for my sister whose work schedule prevents her from watching regularly. She finally watched Cogenitor the other day. She loves Captain Archer to death, major heart throb city and even she thought his speech to Trip came across as hypocritical, not that Trip hadn't earned some disciplinary action, but that there should have been a much greater "mea culpa" from Archer about his example. She remarked that she couldn't believe Scott could deliver such a line with a straight face. She also said that his decision not to grant asylum, while perhaps prudent, reeked of Dred Scott.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

I find the whole business very incomplete.  I guess we're supposed to assume all this happened off screen.  I don't know.

 

I tape ENT for my sister whose work schedule prevents her from watching regularly.  She finally watched Cogenitor the other day.  She loves Captain Archer to death, major heart throb city    and even she thought his speech to Trip came across as hypocritical, not that Trip hadn't earned some disciplinary action, but that there should have been a much greater "mea culpa" from Archer about his example.

 

Yes there is a gap here; I suspect it was done on purpose to create an opportunity for a novelist to pen the first hard cover for the series. If I were the novelist deciding to write the filler story my working title would be "Archer changes his tune."

[cptwright 1]

he did the right thing, and yes im a man that has nothing to do with this. things would always be sooo different between "our" human morality, and ethics, compared to an alien race. no one here has brought up the facts that none of us can fully appreciate the vissian situation from one episode, and the whole forced prostitution thing, or mutilation, come on this is a "show" and its a completely different beast altogether. how do you know that the cogenitor is included in the actual "sex act" we dont, we know they have an enzime needed for the actual conception. that can come after or something. they do have sex without the cogenitor any other time. we all need to look at the big picture, and that is not available to us. also id like to see any of you as CO of a vessel at sea, or in space, especially in his situation, of course hes going to go through changes in attitude and style of command as he goes, learning from mistakes, or any other means, if his views didnt change throughout the show, that would bother me more than them not changing. give the guy a break. not to mention those things you brought up happening here on EARTH, are entirely different than another race of beings in space. what we do to our own humanity is ours, taking that kind of thinking to another race is just absurd. thus why the prime directive will come to say, NO INTERFERENCE. think about it rationally before you get us destroyed by some peved alien race.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

he did the right thing, and yes im a man that has nothing to do with this. things would always be sooo different between "our" human morality, and ethics, compared to an alien race. no one here has brought up the facts that none of us can fully appreciate the vissian situation from one episode, and the whole forced prostitution thing, or mutilation, come on this is a "show" and its a completely different beast altogether. how do you know that the cogenitor is included in the actual "sex act" we dont, we know they have an enzime needed for the actual conception. that can come after or something. they do have sex without the cogenitor any other time. we all need to look at the big picture, and that is not available to us. also id like to see any of you as CO of a vessel at sea, or in space, especially in his situation, of course hes going to go through changes in attitude and style of command as he goes, learning from mistakes, or any other means, if his views didnt change throughout the show, that would bother me more than them not changing. give the guy a break. not to mention those things you brought up happening here on EARTH, are entirely different than another race of beings in space. what we do to our own humanity is ours, taking that kind of thinking to another race is just absurd. thus why the prime directive will come to say, NO INTERFERENCE. think about it rationally before you get us destroyed by some peved alien race.

 

You assert that its okay for humans to impose their values on other humans but not on aliens? Why is it okay to impose on the cultures of other humans? They could retaliate too. The whole point of Star Trek was for us to take an introspective look at ourselves through the medium of the fictional ST universe. So the situations here on Earth are very relevant because that is what we're really supposed to think about.

 

In your last response are you saying Archer did the right thing because Enterprise could have been in danger. Does that mean if Archer was certain there would be no retaliation he would be okay in granting asylum to the cogenitor? That is a distinction the poll did not make.

 

And it's not that Archer has changed his mind that bothers people. It is that he didn't admit that he's been inconsistent to that point and he got mad at Trip for not discerning his "policy" from the nebulous and erratic example he(Archer) had previously set. I can forgive the guy for making a mistake in the past; it's the hypocrisy of the present that bothers me. All he had to do was recognize that maybe he hadn't been clear with his policy in the past.

[cptwright 1]

he did the right thing, and yes im a man that has nothing to do with this. things would always be sooo different between "our" human morality, and ethics, compared to an alien race. no one here has brought up the facts that none of us can fully appreciate the vissian situation from one episode, and the whole forced prostitution thing, or mutilation, come on this is a "show" and its a completely different beast altogether. how do you know that the cogenitor is included in the actual "sex act" we dont, we know they have an enzime needed for the actual conception. that can come after or something. they do have sex without the cogenitor any other time. we all need to look at the big picture, and that is not available to us. also id like to see any of you as CO of a vessel at sea, or in space, especially in his situation, of course hes going to go through changes in attitude and style of command as he goes, learning from mistakes, or any other means, if his views didnt change throughout the show, that would bother me more than them not changing. give the guy a break. not to mention those things you brought up happening here on EARTH, are entirely different than another race of beings in space. what we do to our own humanity is ours, taking that kind of thinking to another race is just absurd. thus why the prime directive will come to say, NO INTERFERENCE. think about it rationally before you get us destroyed by some peved alien race.

 

You assert that its okay for humans to impose their values on other humans but not on aliens? Why is it okay to impose on the cultures of other humans? They could retaliate too. The whole point of Star Trek was for us to take an introspective look at ourselves through the medium of the fictional ST universe. So the situations here on Earth are very relevant because that is what we're really supposed to think about.

 

In your last response are you saying Archer did the right thing because Enterprise could have been in danger. Does that mean if Archer was certain there would be no retaliation he would be okay in granting asylum to the cogenitor? That is a distinction the poll did not make.

 

And it's not that Archer has changed his mind that bothers people. It is that he didn't admit that he's been inconsistent to that point and he got mad at Trip for not discerning his "policy" from the nebulous and erratic example he(Archer) had previously set. I can forgive the guy for making a mistake in the past; it's the hypocrisy of the present that bothers me. All he had to do was recognize that maybe he hadn't been clear with his policy in the past.

i dont look at it as imposing so much as just what is universally considered right, or wrong by OUR, HUMAN STANDARDS. iraq for example we went in after so many years of trying to work it out diplomatically, didnt work so in we went, in turn we are freeing many people from the horrors of sodam insane, in turn we will be turning the country back over to its people, doing the RIGHT thing for all humanity. ridding the region of an evil man, ridding his people of an evil dictator, and preserving ours, and all free countries, safety. what is universally excepted here on earth, doesnt mean out in space, and by alien lifeforms. imposing our views, as humanity on an advanced alien race, is just arogant and stupid. we didnt like how vulcans came in and held us back due to the views they had of us. they still think were not ready to do anything, and probably stupid. but they're not sitting up, and saying NO YOU CANT DO THAT. once we did it on our own, they're out of it.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

cptwright Posted on May 14 2003, 01:02 AM

i dont look at it as imposing so much as just what is universally considered right, or wrong by OUR, HUMAN STANDARDS.

 

My whole point is there is no universal human standard. We have so many conflicting views about right and wrong in this country much less the planet. Call me a cynic but IMO all human interactions boil down to one side imposing on the other