ENT - Bound

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I like Age of Ultron because of the character melodrama, though in seeing Winter Soldier for the first time recently I'd imagine that the use of heli carriers during the climax was seen as redundant.

[Thebestoftherest]

I do think that having shield back even in that way was a mistake and that fury Should have stay hidden.

[9ansean]

While there are a lot of thing to be said about this episode the morality and legality arguments you kept harping about chuck are not on that list. Why does it matter if slavery is moral or immoral if it's legal? And yes, I know we'd all like to think the law is there because at least at some point people thought of it as the morally justified, but let's be frank here, the law is what it is because the people in power wanted it that way. Hell, 200 years ago in England there was this thing called the "Bloody Code". It was called that because death was the punishment for most crimes. Turns out people didn't think of the code was that moral and because England had -and still has- a jury trial system jurors usually "found" the defendants not guilty of those crimes that would have gotten them hanged and guilty of the few crimes that wouldn't get them hanged.

Morality is all good and dandy, but in this particular case legality is what really mattered. Even if humans thought slavery was ok, because slavery was illegal in that case those Orian women would have been free women the moment they became Starfleet "property" and touched the deck of the Enterprise.

Again, there's a lot to be said about this episode but Archer not starting the conversation with humanities moral viewpoint on slavery is not one of them. Sure, Archer should have been there when the women arrived on the Enterprise and told them: "Ladies, congratulations, you're now free women." hell, he should have probably done that on the shuttle the moment they left the Orion ship. But no, morality should not have been the starting point of that conversation.

If I told you that in my country we believe all murder is immoral, including in cases of self defense you'd probably ask if that meant murder in self defense was illegal. Why? because, unless I lived in some backwater country were the law is just some informal thing people reference from time to time you wouldn't expect to be "lynched", mobed or "stoned" if you killed someone in self defense because people thought it was immoral, but you would like to know if you being attacked was a loose-loose situation when it came to the law. Similarly, in this case it wouldn't matter if Archer was the greatest anti slavery advocate Earth had ever produced, not if slavery was legal and those women were recognized as Starfleet property the moment they touched the deck of the Enterprise.

Did you miss the part where he used ''killing kittens'' as an example as to why the lawful thing to do is by no means the same as ''the correct thing to do?'' You have just explained exactly what he was talking about just in a more long-winded way.

Yeah I really didn't get what that "killing kittens" thing was all about. Is this some kind of cancer research experimental thing, that been going what out me knowing it?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Archer claimed that he didn't want to take the slaves because Earth outlawed it. The point was that Archer himself should have recognized it as a moral issue and not an issue pertaining to legal protocol.

The issue wasn't a matter of not bringing up moral context, but neglecting it by simply referring to it as a legal contradiction.

[drewder]

Doesn't chuck know that in the minds of the producers the only reason creepy nerds, ie. their idea of their fan base, watch enterprise is to see sexy women?

[drewder]

While there are a lot of thing to be said about this episode the morality and legality arguments you kept harping about chuck are not on that list. Why does it matter if slavery is moral or immoral if it's legal? And yes, I know we'd all like to think the law is there because at least at some point people thought of it as the morally justified, but let's be frank here, the law is what it is because the people in power wanted it that way. Hell, 200 years ago in England there was this thing called the "Bloody Code". It was called that because death was the punishment for most crimes. Turns out people didn't think of the code was that moral and because England had -and still has- a jury trial system jurors usually "found" the defendants not guilty of those crimes that would have gotten them hanged and guilty of the few crimes that wouldn't get them hanged.

Morality is all good and dandy, but in this particular case legality is what really mattered. Even if humans thought slavery was ok, because slavery was illegal in that case those Orian women would have been free women the moment they became Starfleet "property" and touched the deck of the Enterprise.

Again, there's a lot to be said about this episode but Archer not starting the conversation with humanities moral viewpoint on slavery is not one of them. Sure, Archer should have been there when the women arrived on the Enterprise and told them: "Ladies, congratulations, you're now free women." hell, he should have probably done that on the shuttle the moment they left the Orion ship. But no, morality should not have been the starting point of that conversation.

If I told you that in my country we believe all murder is immoral, including in cases of self defense you'd probably ask if that meant murder in self defense was illegal. Why? because, unless I lived in some backwater country were the law is just some informal thing people reference from time to time you wouldn't expect to be "lynched", mobed or "stoned" if you killed someone in self defense because people thought it was immoral, but you would like to know if you being attacked was a loose-loose situation when it came to the law. Similarly, in this case it wouldn't matter if Archer was the greatest anti slavery advocate Earth had ever produced, not if slavery was legal and those women were recognized as Starfleet property the moment they touched the deck of the Enterprise.

Except even if slavery were legal it would still be immoral for archer to keep them. The point he's making is it makes it sound like if it were up to archer he'd keep the slaves if it weren't for Starfleet's stupid rules against slavery. That is a immoral way of thinking. Sort of like someone who is really into having sex with children but those stupid laws against it.

[Deledrius]

I like Age of Ultron because of the character melodrama, though in seeing Winter Soldier for the first time recently I'd imagine that the use of heli carriers during the climax was seen as redundant.

The entire film Age of Ultron felt redundant. It was edited into nonsense, as far as I can tell. Not sure if there was a better movie in there before that, but what we got was pretty much a waste of time (and characters).

I do think that having shield back even in that way was a mistake and that fury Should have stay hidden.

Another waste. Bringing them back after everything they went through on the show to get to that moment with that equipment, and then not even acknowledge it on-screen in any way? It was the ultimate anti-climax for the show's second season AND that act of the film.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I like Age of Ultron because of the character melodrama, though in seeing Winter Soldier for the first time recently I'd imagine that the use of heli carriers during the climax was seen as redundant.

The entire film Age of Ultron felt redundant. It was edited into nonsense, as far as I can tell. Not sure if there was a better movie in there before that, but what we got was pretty much a waste of time (and characters).

Yeah I don't really know about all that. Everybody gets mentally infected and Stark's ego that we're familiar with creates Ultron out of Jarvis and the infinity plot comes together a little bit with them stopping Ultron. I guess maybe some of that is shoe stringed together but I don't see anything wrong with that as a plot. On top of that yeah there was a lot of focus on character that I liked.

[excalibur]

I wonder if a small amount of people that became Star Trek fans because of Enterprise would attribute the lame attempts at erotica as the reason for them watching the show.

[AlucardNoir]

Did you miss the part where he used ''killing kittens'' as an example as to why the lawful thing to do is by no means the same as ''the correct thing to do?'' You have just explained exactly what he was talking about just in a more long-winded way.

No, I explained why his argument that Archer should have started with the moral viewpoint on slavery was immaterial.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-in-the-21st-Century-715992

Slavery is alive in the 21st century despite the fact that it's been illegal for around a century pretty much everywhere. Even places that still had in on the books as it were haven't been practicing it officially, which is why it was still on the books, nobody was a slave so nobody cared to have the law changed. And the people that are slaves, well, they're being kept that way illegally.

Slavery has been driven underground, and yet, despite that the estimated number of slaves alive today is larger then the total number of slaves estimated to have left Africa, and not just for the colonial US or even the Americas but throughout the continent's entire history.

Making something legal or illegal doesn't stop something from happening if the people don't want to fallow or respect the law. If people didn't want to "kill kittens" then they wouldn't, except, you know, if you had somebody with a gun at the back of your head with the options of getting shot or killing the kittens - in that case most people would kill the kittens, law or no law. The thing about morality though is that if you have an immoral law that is being enforced, it doesn't matter what the moral position is, similarly, if you have a moral law that is not being enforced that law might as well not be there - as is the case for the anti fox hunting law in the UK. It's been illegal to organize and partake in a fox hunt for over a decade, that hasn't stopped them from happening. Why? because most people don't really care about fox hunts.

The morality of the issue only matters if Archer is pro slavery and the law forbids it or if the law permits it but he's against it. Since the episode wasn't discussing Archer's viewpoint on slavery the legality of the matter is, well, all that matters. Those women were free the moment they stepped on a Starfleet ship... or is it Terran in that era.

The first thing should have been informing them that they were now free, the second why - Starfleet/Earth doesn't recognize the institution of slavery, and then third, if you must, the moral question behind why Earth no longer recognizes slavery as a valid legal institution. But again, the morality of the issue doesn't really factor in, not like Chuck wants it to factor in. Basically, there are two ways to view this: slavery is illegal because it's immoral, and slavery is immoral so it's illegal. It's all a matter of what you think should be more important, and on a military ship I'm afraid the first view should be more important - desertion, gun behind the back of the head and whatnot.