TNG - Homeward

[clearspira]

People are arguing it is arrogant for the Federation to make that decision for them.

It's arrogant for anyone to dictate to the Federation whether they should or should not offer assistance. The Federation has made its decision, and that decision is to stay on the side of non-contact and non-intervention.

What are your views on ''Dear Doctor'' Frustration? Were Archer and Phlox right for killing off the Valekians even though they had the cure or not?

[clearspira]

Even when it's morally abhorrent? Then why are they the protagonists of the story?

I might actually have some sympathy for his position if the Federation didn't so often wank themselves off by calling it a ''most enlightened philosophy''. This line comes from ''Time and Again'', the episode where the people in question have ''super nuclear energy'' being pumped into everyone's homes. Which is interesting because all of the ''primitive tribe'' discussions do not apply to them as they are at a 21st century level of development.

[Durandal_1707]

There's actually an episode that would have been FUCKING AWESOME to deal with the Prime Directive but they chickened out and didn't deal with it well. It's the episode where Archer and company go to the Cold War planet and accidentally get exposed, which results in them thinking the Soviets equivalent have stealth bombers and cloned super soldiers.

I mean...go for broke.

It triggers a nuclear war.

They didn't, though, because they don't want Archer responsible for that.

They've actually done a narrative very similar to this recently on Prodigy, of all series.

[Al-1701]

Yeah. The show meant for kids probably has the most nuanced and well developed take on the Prime Directive and its pros and cons. The Prime Directive both could've saved the Diviner's people as well as doomed them. Not making first contact could have prevented the war (or the war would at least not be over continued contact or isolation), but the Prime Directive prevented the Federation from interceding in the conflict once it broke out.

[pilight]

People are arguing it is arrogant for the Federation to make that decision for them.

It's arrogant for anyone to dictate to the Federation whether they should or should not offer assistance. The Federation has made its decision, and that decision is to stay on the side of non-contact and non-intervention.

Nikolai was willing to accept the consequences of breaking that law and said so in the episode.

[CharlesPhipps]

Technically, I'm not even sure Nikolai broke the law.

Does the Prime Directive apply to non-Starfleet individuals?

I'm sure there's laws that apply to civilians but it'd be a different law.

[clearspira]

Technically, I'm not even sure Nikolai broke the law.

Does the Prime Directive apply to non-Starfleet individuals?

I'm sure there's laws that apply to civilians but it'd be a different law.

The only reference I can think of would be TOS ''Bread and Circuses'' where it is stated that Cpt. Merrik is part of the ''Federation merchant marine.'' In real life, ''the merchant'' refers to tankers, ferries, cruise ships etc. He seems to be a contender for a civilian captain breaking the PD.

But then you have people like the Hansens (Seven of Nine's parents) who were clearly interfering with the Borg. And this was before anyone knew anything about them lets remember.

I think what it comes down to is... what does ''forbidden to interfere in the internal affairs of others'' actually mean in practice? This seems like a legal minefield for civvies who own their own ships as we have also seen some wild interpretations of the PD over the years. ''Prime Factors'' implies the PD means that you cannot trade a library for technology without permission from the government. So taken to its logical extreme, you could be locked up for giving your Kindle to an alien? I guess we saw on ''Gangster World'' what a single book can do but it just seems like a lot of people would make that mistake.

And then what about self-defence? What about ''Code of Honor'' or ''Angel One'' or ''Justice'' where you cannot legally lift a finger to save a member of your crew? Janeway might put her oath over the lives of her crew, but I cannot see the Star Trek equivalent of the Nostromo crew doing the same. They are just running some freight and all of the sudden someone beams on board and steals one of their women? And they are meant to just fly off?
The Fridge Horror of the PD is incredible when you think about it.

[Fianna]

The Prime Directive generally doesn't seem to apply if the other civilization interferes with you first.

Also, what makes you think Starfleet has Kindles? We've seen many times that each book or instructional manual is stored on a separate tablet device. O'Brien would sometimes carry whole stacks of them around.

[Makeitstop]

People are arguing it is arrogant for the Federation to make that decision for them.

It's arrogant for anyone to dictate to the Federation whether they should or should not offer assistance. The Federation has made its decision, and that decision is to stay on the side of non-contact and non-intervention.

Stating disagreement with the way that fictional characters interpret and apply the fictional policy of their fictional organization when dealing with fictional scenarios? Arguing that the utopian sci-fi show probably shouldn't make its supposedly moral and enlightened protagonists uncaring bystanders that refuse to attempt to save innocent lives from a natural disaster, and try to actively prevent others from doing so as well? Clearly that's the height of arrogance. Who do we think we are having opinions about shows?

Is it also too arrogant to oppose giving emergency powers to chancellor Palpatine, and his decision to invoke order 66? The senate and the emperor made their decisions, who are we to question them?

What about telling people that disagree with your position that they just don't understand, and that people like them need to be stopped for the good of the world? Does that sound arrogant at all?

[Frustration]

The show is more utopian than your opinions. That doesn't mean it should be forced to conform with your feelings about how things ought to work. You aren't the standard by which ideal behavior is gauged.

Nor am I impressed by your "you're arrogant to call me on my arrogance" ploy.