4 ms·

> So could the Federation That would be counter to the Federation's principles. And that's the point. The ways-of-life on the table in the negotiation are "You

> So could the Federation That would be counter to the Federation's principles. And that's the point. The ways-of-life on the table in the negotiation are "You do what you have to do" vs. "You do what you should." Taking a step back from the immediate conversation: We've gone several posts deep in point-counterpoint on the decision made in this episode, and I think you are making excellent points. I'm pleased this decision can be looked at from multiple valid points-of-view supported with conviction. That's what the best Star Trek writing is made of.

pessimizer 4y ago
If the point is that the Federation gradually degenerated into a militaristic death cult. They neither did what they had to do, or what they should have done. They chose the pleasure of her submission to their authority over an honest peace. edit: this sort of thinking really gets on my nerves because it happens in the real world. Any number of innocent corpses are justified if some particular enemy individual can be punished. It really makes it clear that for some people life is a game between elites to dominate each other, and most people aren't players, they're the board.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Sorry; I still can't see it that way. I'm seeing the Federation adhering to their principles and being unwilling to compromise with a pirate queen because there's no lasting peace to be built on that foundation. Osyraa can believe there is enough to pass the magic-lie-bot test and still just be wrong because she doesn't understand that peace through dictatorial strength will not hold. It's not about her submission; it's about justice. If she's not accountable, then why would her lieutenants be? Or their lieutenants? Or anyone, for the openly-practiced slavery and exploitation in the Chain? There's no peace without justice to be had, not really. Vance was being asked to declare "In the interest of peace, all this slavery was nobody's fault," and that's a non-starter.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Gandhi reminded us that's a recipe for apocalypse. > Vance was being asked to declare "In the interest of peace, all this slavery was nobody's fault," and that's a non-starter. If your choice is to free the slaves, or punish the slaver, which do you pick? If you choose to punish the slaver over freeing the slaves, are you putting your own ego above the suffering of people who you clearly don't particularly value? edit: did anyone at the Federation know any slaves? Did they ask them if they would rather be free than hold out as slaves for a trial in an indeterminate future? If the Federation managed to capture her and free the slaves, would the trial be nutritious for the slaves? Would it clothe or house them? Would it deter anyone else from becoming a warlord?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      > If your choice is to free the slaves, or punish the slaver, which do you pick? False dichotomy. As an American, it sometimes rubs the wrong way when that's presented as either-or because the US chose not to punish many of the slavers and we continue to live with the consequences of that decision: they regained power and built the Jim Crow South. Justice is required for lasting peace. It perhaps need not be fatal, but it must be real.

pessimizer 4y ago

If the point is that the Federation gradually degenerated into a militaristic death cult. They neither did what they had to do, or what they should have done. They chose the pleasure of her submission to their authority over an honest peace. edit: this sort of thinking really gets on my nerves because it happens in the real world. Any number of innocent corpses are justified if some particular enemy individual can be punished. It really makes it clear that for some people life is a game between elites to dominate each other, and most people aren't players, they're the board.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Sorry; I still can't see it that way. I'm seeing the Federation adhering to their principles and being unwilling to compromise with a pirate queen because there's no lasting peace to be built on that foundation. Osyraa can believe there is enough to pass the magic-lie-bot test and still just be wrong because she doesn't understand that peace through dictatorial strength will not hold. It's not about her submission; it's about justice. If she's not accountable, then why would her lieutenants be? Or their lieutenants? Or anyone, for the openly-practiced slavery and exploitation in the Chain? There's no peace without justice to be had, not really. Vance was being asked to declare "In the interest of peace, all this slavery was nobody's fault," and that's a non-starter.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Gandhi reminded us that's a recipe for apocalypse. > Vance was being asked to declare "In the interest of peace, all this slavery was nobody's fault," and that's a non-starter. If your choice is to free the slaves, or punish the slaver, which do you pick? If you choose to punish the slaver over freeing the slaves, are you putting your own ego above the suffering of people who you clearly don't particularly value? edit: did anyone at the Federation know any slaves? Did they ask them if they would rather be free than hold out as slaves for a trial in an indeterminate future? If the Federation managed to capture her and free the slaves, would the trial be nutritious for the slaves? Would it clothe or house them? Would it deter anyone else from becoming a warlord?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > If your choice is to free the slaves, or punish the slaver, which do you pick? False dichotomy. As an American, it sometimes rubs the wrong way when that's presented as either-or because the US chose not to punish many of the slavers and we continue to live with the consequences of that decision: they regained power and built the Jim Crow South. Justice is required for lasting peace. It perhaps need not be fatal, but it must be real.