ENT - Bound

[Deledrius]

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.

Hey, if you liked it, no problem! It just felt like a whole lot of noise and not a lot of substance, which was disappointing given the build-up and set-up done to that point. It felt very muddy. Maybe it goes somewhere (I hope so), but that was the last tentpole I saw. I think I've only seen Ant-Man after it. I have the entire Phase 3 to catch up on I think, at this point.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

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.

Hey, if you liked it, no problem! It just felt like a whole lot of noise and not a lot of substance, which was disappointing given the build-up and set-up done to that point. It felt very muddy. Maybe it goes somewhere (I hope so), but that was the last tentpole I saw. I think I've only seen Ant-Man after it. I have the entire Phase 3 to catch up on I think, at this point.

Ah, I see. So what was more along the lines of what you were expecting in terms of build-up and set-up?

[King Green]

Fudge, sorry I'm late for the talk but considering on Archer's idiocy of "slavery is an immoral concept" is stupid due to how you can treat what a concept is, now the actions on how you do that concept is different. Being enslaved and subjugated is an ancient practice turned into instinct from the dawn of man, we literally cannot destroy that idea due to our drive to belittle the opposition of your own value, sure you can respect the limited information you can digest by that action but overall your instinct tells you that this person has the opportunity to gain the advantage of said thing: i.e. a lion allowing teenage giraffe to know its there to kill it.

The Orion aliens however would probably be better rewritten as tulpa incarnate lust-folk, lesser than Betazoid females during EVERY f#cking month they go into heat, and every day they aren't satisfied their sex-drive will demand more! To. The. Point. Of. Death.

And that goddamn reason more understandable for Tpol having an immunity for those pheromones would simply be that she is a though-form. Of different type however.

[AllanO]

There are correlations between legality and morality, but that doesn't go so far as to equivocate them to the point of just differences in nomenclature.

I never said they mean the same thing, nor did I say either or both was so vague they could mean the same thing (not sure what you mean by equivocate here).

If I say "This review was good." or "This review was not bad." I am literally saying two different things. But what they suggest could be pretty much the same: I liked this review.

If I said "Well I guess the review was not... bad." then literally I am saying almost the same thing as "That review was not bad." but instead of suggesting I liked the review I am suggesting I neither liked nor disliked it, it was meh. This is the power of context.

So I can imply the same thing by words and phrases whose literal definition is completely different. I can imply different things by words and phrases whose literal definition are the same.

So I was not saying legality and morality are synonyms, equivalent but for spelling. I was saying in the context given two phrases have the same implication to me, not because of what the individual words mean or even what the phrases mean, but because of the situation around them and what you can safely conclude when someone says them in that situation.

[Fianna]

Basically, Archer is saying what Earth society as a whole thinks of slavery (that it needs to be abolished), without voicing a personal moral objection. The likely intent behind the scene is that, since Archer is acting as a representative of Earth, voicing a personal opinion (even if it's to agree with the broader sentiment of Earth) wouldn't be appropriate. However, it IS easy to interpret it as Archer going, "Oh man, I'd TOTALLY love to keep you as my slave, but I don't wanna get in trouble with the law."

[AlucardNoir]

I don't know what the deal is with you giving page responses at a time, but you seem to misunderstand my position. it seems you're claiming this this to be a morally relativistic circumstance as opposed to universal. I'm certainly fine with the review operating under the stance that we can judge Archer for not calling it morally wrong.

Your position? you mean this:

Archer claimed that he didn't want to take the slaves because Earth outlawed it.

Yeah, that's literally contradicted by the episode. The first time Archer mentions the slaves he says the Orion captain insisted he take a gift and that given the circumstances and what the Orion captain was promising he couldn't refuse it. That's in the scene were he's asking T'Pol for advice.

Your position is flimsy at best. That's what you get when you think you're still on Twitter as try to limit your replies to a few dozen words.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't know what the deal is with you giving page responses at a time, but you seem to misunderstand my position. it seems you're claiming this this to be a morally relativistic circumstance as opposed to universal. I'm certainly fine with the review operating under the stance that we can judge Archer for not calling it morally wrong.

Your position? you mean this:

Archer claimed that he didn't want to take the slaves because Earth outlawed it.

Yeah, that's literally contradicted by the episode. The first time Archer mentions the slaves he says the Orion captain insisted he take a gift and that given the circumstances and what the Orion captain was promising he couldn't refuse it. That's in the scene were he's asking T'Pol for advice.

Your position is flimsy at best. That's what you get when you think you're still on Twitter as try to limit your replies to a few dozen words.

When Archer was confronted by the slave who put herself upon him, he simply said that "it's illegal." That's the scene that clearspira was referring to, but I believe that he was misunderstanding your point. So no I don't think my position is very much like SJWs on Twitter, that is a gross mischaracterization, but it's understandable where you may have been led on that path.

Anyways regarding his conversation with T'Pol, if I'm understanding your position correctly, you think that he should have honored the women's personal positions as slaves? In what world would a Starfleet captain be obliged to accept the moral relativist circumstance of that?

So I was not saying legality and morality are synonyms, equivalent but for spelling. I was saying in the context given two phrases have the same implication to me, not because of what the individual words mean or even what the phrases mean, but because of the situation around them and what you can safely conclude when someone says them in that situation.

I don't think the synonomity is lost on Chuck. The scene and the comments in the review are part of another point that is being made, that Archer is inept at the situation surrounding these women as slaves.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Anyways, Allucard, I am sorry for the miscommunication on my part.

[AlucardNoir]

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.

That's your position not clearspira's. You're the one that spouted that nonsense. A position that clearly goes against what Archer actually did in the episode.

As for the the moment you mention, about when the slave "put herself upon" Archer, his first words were: "Navar, you and your sisters don't belong to me, or anyone else." and when she says she doesn't understand he then tells her slavery has been outlawed on earth for hundreds of years. And here is where you, clearspira and Chuck seems to think the appropriate answer should have been that slavery has been considered immoral on earth for hundreds of years as opposed to illegal. And as I've already stated, the moral argument is mute here, she wouldn't have been free if morality was all that was involved, she was free because the institution of slavery itself was illegal and she had technically became a free woman the moment she set foot on an earth ship.

And finally, regarding your idiocy in regards to the T'Pol discussion. I brought that up to prove that your point - namely: "Archer claimed that he didn't want to take the slaves because Earth outlawed it." - was wrong, Archer suffered no hesitation in taking the slaves in, he was there to ask for T'Pol's advice on how to handle the slaves - presumably because they were no longer going to be slaves once on board the Enterprise.

If you have no slaves in your country abolishing slavery is just moralistic paperwork, but if you do have slaves it's not enough to abolish slavery, you have to decide what happens to the slaves afterwords. You don't just get to say "you're free now, have a nice life" and send them on their merry way. You have to integrate said former slaves into society.

My point was that Archer was there talking to T'Pol because he knew those women were going to be free and he needed help handling them. Which is probably why he didn't just tell them they were free the moment they came on board. Why he waited two days as the scene with the "legal" argument indicates. For the entire length of that scene Archer is stone faced and stoic. You want to interpret that stoicism as him wanting to make her his sex toy and being angry because it's not legal and he can't, go right ahead, but the other interpretation is that he just upended her entire life and he knows that. And considering her next question is "I've been a slave my entire life. On different worlds, for different owners... What's going to happen to me?" that seems to indicate my interpenetration is what the writers were going for.

Archer wasn't stoic because he couldn't bang her, he was stoic because he knew what effects his words could have on her worldview. He doesn't stop her from kissing him, but he also doesn't take any joy in her displays of rehearsed affection. He's trying to tell her she's free and he is probably afraid she's going to have trouble adjusting.

[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.

That's your position not clearspira's. You're the one that spouted that nonsense. A position that clearly goes against what Archer actually did in the episode.

If it's miscommunication then it's not an appropriate assessment of someone's position. Like lol are you srs.