test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

[STAR TREK DiSCOVERY] | SEASON TWO |

145791071

Comments

  • aspartan1aspartan1 Member Posts: 1,054 Arc User
    Kobayashi Maru
    I been saying that since the start.
    No doubt...
    As much as I dislike what I saw last night, I would never support Axanar after everything that happened.
    Sure.... I know a few people with that thinking...

    If you are looking for an excellent PvE fleet consider: Omega Combat Division today.
    Former member of the Cryptic Family & Friends Testing Team. Sadly, one day, it simply vanished - without a word or trace...
    Obscurea Chaotica Fleet (KDF), Commander
    ingame: @.Spartan
    Romulan_Republic_logo.png
    Former Alpha & Beta Tester
    Original Cryptic Forum Name: Spartan (member #124)
    The Glorious, Kirk’s Protegè
  • silverlobes#2676 silverlobes Member Posts: 1,953 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    As much as I did actually enjoy the first two episodes, I've always voiced my concern about the over emphasis on one particular character. A great deal of the controversy and controversial opinion surrounding the first two episodes are focused on the Burnham character and I, for one, hope that the emphasis does shift from the over-emphasis on said character.

    I don’t care how pretty or talented Sonequa Martin-Green is –I am hopeful that we’ll see more of the other characters; Saru was particularly interesting and Doug Jones played him well.

    If the Burnham is shoehorned into every plot and scene I’ll lose interest in the show quite quickly.
    Well, everything said thus far, has been that she is the lead character :no_mouth:

    In which case I can only hope that they don't continue to over-emphasise her. There would seem to be some real potential in some of the other characters, but that will never be realised if they keep shoving Martin-Green down our throats.
    From what I've seen of their statements about her being the lead character, I can only say 'don't get your hopes up...' :no_mouth:
    "I fight for the Users!" - Tron

    "I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
  • trygvar13trygvar13 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    Kobayashi Maru
    My hypothesis on why the Klingons look different.

    Strap yourselves in, because it also involves T'Kuvma's entire "'We come in peace' is a lie" spiel.

    The humans, specifically Archer, had a habit of meddling in Klingon affairs, ostensibly for the greater good at the time, but still... they're meddlesome.

    One of the outgrowths of Starfleet meddling was Arik Soong's reactivation of the Augment program, which led the Klingons to experiment with it themselves, leading to the Augment virus that threatened the entire Klingon race, but was halted by Phlox at the expense of the Klingon head ridges. This could have been extrapolated out as the humans trying to destroy the Klingon way of life by removing that which readily identified them as Klingon, instead making them look more human. To a warrior race steeped in tradition and honor, this would be a major blow at the very heart of the Klingon Empire. This explains the "Remain Klingon" statement used by T'Kuvma to rally the Great Houses together.

    Now, this part is pure speculation, but I'm willing to bet that in the intervening century between Enterprise and Discovery, the Klingons fractured because of disagreements on what to do, and while they were debating, they engaged on a eugenics program of their own to try and separate the Augment DNA from their own DNA by hyperstimulating traditional Klingon DNA, which would explain why they all look more like genetic throwbacks than the Klingons we all know.

    I really like your explanation and I was something along those lines would be mentioned. Because if they have always been bald then there is a serious continuity error that will be hard to explain: the first batlh'eH was crafted from lock of Kahless' hair. No one really believes it to be true but it is part of canon and was mentioned in several episodes... and STO. If Kahless was bald then something is wrong. And how do you explain Worf, B'elanna Torres, etc... You just forget that they ever existed?
    Dahar Master Qor'aS
  • trygvar13trygvar13 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    Kobayashi Maru
    valoreah wrote: »
    Why do you need me to clarify something you already know and agree with?

    Because you make sweeping generalizations.

    I'm asking for clarification on who you are including when you make a statement like "viewer reviews are negative."

    Which viewer(s)? A select few people here on the forums and on YouTube? Or are you making the sweeping generalization that all viewer reviews were negative?

    Actually if you take a few minutes of your time and search on YouTube you will find that the vast majority of YouTubers had negative things to say about it and are really hoping that the show will get better from Episode 3 onwards. I only found 2 that really liked: WhatCulture and EC Henry. And what WhatCulture said sounded really weird... especially when you could clearly see the CBS logo showing on the bottom left corner :) I just couldn't figure out if they were being serious or pulling our legs.
    Dahar Master Qor'aS
  • trygvar13trygvar13 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    Kobayashi Maru
    I have a problem with the uniforms. I have a hard time seeing who is bronze and who is gold and under certain lighting even the silver was hard to make out. But worst part is that it's impossible to know a person's rank until you're right in front of them. The rank pips on the insignia? Did they really think this through?
    Dahar Master Qor'aS
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    szim wrote: »

    Who says it's a reboot? Outside of fan whinging, I've never seen any evidence of the show being a reboot at all.

    Please, show me some official documentation from CBS that says it's a reboot.


    I'll wait.

    These days, calling a new series "reboot" has a negative connotation to it. So you won't find an official CBS statement calling it that. But you can be certain, papers like the Independent wouldn't call Discovery an all-new reboot several times in their articles (Link) if that term didn't come from one of the people who were interviewed.

    So you can't find an official statement that calls it a reboot. Got it.

    Let me break it down for you:


    A reboot of a show involves using the same base characters and starting over from scratch.

    The recent Battlestar Galactica is a reboot of the original show.

    The Kelvin Timeline is a reboot of the Prime Universe.

    This is not a reboot.

    Calling DSC a reboot of Star Trek would be like saying Rogue One is a reboot of A New Hope.

    It isn't.

    The media idiots calling it a reboot are simply demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the word means. Don't fall into that trap. You're better than that.

    Almost correct, the KT is NOT a reboot. It happens in the same continuity as the rest of the franchise. It just happens to take place partially in a different timeline within the franchise. A reboot is an external (out-of-universe) concept, not an in-universe one. the KT is not different whatsoever to AGT or Endgame or Parallels or Yesterdays Enterprise.


    Reboot doesn't mean 'not set in the prim universe' it means a new strt unrelated to the past sharing only character names or location. As the KT (and DSC) are explicitly linked to the other shows and films they cannot be reboots.


    Anybody who thinks DSC is a reboot is soft in the head. It is quite clearly set in the same universe with the same characters (Sarak and Mudd are explicitly the TOS characters in the past) they are just too lazy to go Google a word to describe what they mean so just settle for 'reboot' thinking it means 'new' or 'shiny'.

    If your ego is so large and you believe CVS is personally lying to you and you want to pretend its a reboot? Fine, go ahead, whatever it takes for you to chant to yourself as you sob yourselves to sleep whilst the rest of us have fun in the franchise we love.

    Pisssing about continuity is Star Trek is beyond pathetic and indicated the pisseé hasn't seen a single episode of TOS and then followed it up with the next one and been baffled by the lack of continuity.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    I think, aside from some people perhaps predisposed to dislike the new show and its characters, is that Burnham failed and didn't get away with it.

    Typically, the Star Trek character can say. "Yeah, I did break the rules, but look, we've succeeded, lives were saved, all is well that ends well." But she can only look back and see that despite all her efforts, a lot of Starfleet officers died, among them her best friend. And she didn't even get to say good bye to her.

    Which is also why I sympathize with her. I know why she did, her plans might have worked, but she failed in the end, and was punished for it. And now she has plenty of time to think about it.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    Murderers? yes. mindless? No.

    the part you seem to be either missing or ignoring is that Klingons LOVE slave labor. Dead people don't make good slaves. And yes, it is seen several times in the TV serieses that Klingons have entire civilizations they have subjugated to be slave labor.
    This is entirely meaningless.

    "Klingons don't take prisoners" -Captain James T. Kirk

    All Discovery has shown us is that Klingons murder unarmed civilians, look for a reason to murder whomever they are talking to, and want to unite their fractured empire to maximize their murder spree.
    It seems rather simple to me.

    The Klingons treat other species as inferior until they prove otherwise. Inferiors are not worth talking to.
    This is not merely snubbing someone at a fancy party. They MURDER whatever sentient beings don't murder them first. That is STUPID.
    By shooting them first, they can establish their superiority. When enemies shoot them first, the Klingons realize that they might face an equal*. The next time a Klingon (maybe not this particular one) encounters some representative of that species, he might decide that it's worth talking and try to establish contact without violence - which is quite possible with FTL communications available in Star Trek. They don't have to wait until they are in weapons range.
    You have to MURDER one of them to get the others to take you seriously? What is the difference between saying "Howdy neighbor!" and "This is War!"? Aren't both started with shooting someone in the face? Why isn't the default response "Die, Alien Scum!" when you shoot a Klingon? How many Klingons do you have to kill before they take you seriously? Who makes that call? Do they have a meeting to determine if you have met the established murder-quota? Do you see how stupid this is for a spacefaring species?
    *) it actually might not even be about equality. It might just be about: "Here is someone that is willing to fight for himself. He's not a mere slave." Which seems to draw strongly from John M. Ford's depiction of Klingons. They had the concept of komerex and khesterex zha, an empire is either growing and expanding or decaying and shrinking. There isn't really a conceptual place for them for a peaceful expansion in that concept. ANd they also knew two types of species - those that were willing to fight, and those that are basically cattle or slaves. Your technological abilities weren't representative of either - the way you used it mattered.
    Again, how many Klingons do you have to murder for them to take you seriously? Why wouldn't they just hold a grudge and come after you with everything they had? Is there a line between "respect" and "insult" when it comes to murdering Klingons? The Klingons seem totally ok with murdering civilians, so is murdering their children off-limits? If they never talk to you, how do you know if you have murdered too few/too many/the wrong or right ones?

    All of this is the result of short-sighted hack writing. Not the first time it has happened in Star Trek.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    something to keep in mind guys?

    Yes, I didn't like it, and YES, I've been verbose about not liking it, why I didnt like it, where I feel it falls down and what should have been done better.

    That's my opinion, that I happen to feel it useful to explain that opinion does NOT mean you're stupid, or a loser, if you disagree with me and think it's the best thing since Star Trek VI.
    Well, if it needs to be said.

    I don't think posters are stupid. I don't think Star Trek: Discovery is stupid. I think these plot points, as presented are stupid.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    Red Alert
    valoreah wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    reboot-not-reboot, it didn't and doesn't matter. all the changes could have been forgiven...

    if they bothered to tell a good story.

    With Alex Kurtzman and Bryan Fuller on the writing team (though not at the same time, ah well) this was the promise that made me tune in to the first half, and if it had been delivered on, I would be one of that crowd that rushed to buy into CBS's little streaming service to see more.

    They Failed Utterly to do this one little thing. Instead of a compelling main character, we got a whiney marysue, instead of logical story progression with consequences, we got a whiny marysue, instead of compelling villains that make you feel like the hero(ine)'s actions matter and are justified, we got...boring and generic, not-really-threatening, depthless, soulless, cardboard stand ins.

    All they had to do, was deliver a good story....and they failed. Utterly, to deliver a good story with a compelling main character and challenging (or at least, interesting and alive) antagonists.

    as I said before, they made Klingons, speaking Klingon, in what should be emotional and driven scenes, boring.

    but the worst is, their heroine, played by an actress with the looks, talent, and skill to deliver the recipe from a pizza box and make it interesting, manages to be uninteresting, as well as unbelievable in the role she's supposed to fill. the suspenders of disbelief snapped before she even Ran into and ONE-SHOTTED a Klingon who was clearly waiting in ambush. once the suspension of disbelief is broken, no amount of superbly wonderful special effects, no beautiful scenery, no amazing effort from a professional supporting cast, is going to save it.

    It goes from being "Wow I want to see what's next" to being "Jesus is this turkey ever going to end?"

    They failed the single test. You could put your whole "Klingon" cast into purple jumpsuits with gray-alien faces and if the story is good enough, nobody will care. You can replace the entire set with a soundstage full of reused props from other shows, and if the story is good, the story will be good. YOu can make your whole space sequence models in a black-painted box with pinholes for stars, shot on 8mm and if the story is good, people will watch.

    The writing, the story...was not done well, it was done very poorly. Poorly enough to make "Spock's Brain" look well-thought-out.

    I disagree entirely. Personally, I'm welcoming a flawed character who can (and will) make mistakes. It's a welcome respite from the perfect people of TNG and beyond. I am glad to see a story with consequences that are not reset the following week.

    I like flawed characters too, and prefer serial TV shows, but there's no way I can suspend my disbelief enough to accept her being put anywhere near a Starfleet vessel again, let alone be allowed to carry a phaser. What she did is something no one can ever come back from, and yet from previews we already know she will.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    Red Alert
    valoreah wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    There is 'bending the rules' and then there's 'being a **** moron'.

    you're not quite understanding the difference here.

    Actually, I do understand the difference. I understand this is fiction and I still question whether or not you've actually watched much Star Trek over the years. Burnham did not take any greater risks than anyone before or since her has in Trek lore.

    There's bending the rules, and then there's treason. If those same events happened today in a confrontation between the US and say ... Russia, Burnham would likely be executed. And she would deserve it.

    I love the actress, but the character simply has no redeeming qualities. I think I'd cheer if she took a batleth to the chest in a future episode.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • silverlobes#2676 silverlobes Member Posts: 1,953 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    Tu quoque.

    If you would like to continue to post these kinds of things to pretend to sound intelligent, feel free. However, it's preferable that you actually take a moment to read and understand what is being discussed.

    How many times throughout the past 50+ years of Star Trek have we seen a main character push the envelope, bend (or even break) the rules, take unnecessary risks and the like to ultimately have us commend them for it? I'm happy to cite examples/dialogue from everywhere from TOS to Enterprise and everything in between where this scenario is the case.

    Now, because it's Discovery we have to hold Burnham to a different standard? That's hypocritical.
    If you don't want to be called out for using logical fallacies, stop employing them.

    'How many times' is irrelevant, and to use that as a defence, shows flawed logic and a lack of critical thinking.
    "I fight for the Users!" - Tron

    "I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    redvenge wrote: »
    Murderers? yes. mindless? No.

    the part you seem to be either missing or ignoring is that Klingons LOVE slave labor. Dead people don't make good slaves. And yes, it is seen several times in the TV serieses that Klingons have entire civilizations they have subjugated to be slave labor.
    This is entirely meaningless.

    "Klingons don't take prisoners" -Captain James T. Kirk

    Sure, sure, did he say that in the episode where Kor captures Organia and effectively takes the entire planet prisoner?
    I agree, but this is JJ-Trek now.

    Oh really? I don't remeber seeing JJ Arbram's name in the credits, do you mind pointing it out perhaps?
    This is what happens when people with no real-life military experience try to write stories about real-life military situations. The people writing this drivel have never been in the military and never seen combat, so when people like me--who have served--watch this **** we instantly cry BS and avoid this swill like the proverbial plague.

    Hold on... I got this one... wait... Oh, that's it, it's because Starfleet isn't a military and Star Trek is not military fiction. You want space ninjas? Go watch Star Wars. Want explorers untrained for combat forced into defence? Watch Star Trek, just stop pretending it needs to be a ninja documentary.

    Burnham is not a solider, none of them are, they are not going to asses the situation in a military fashion. What you're doing is asking why the genera of the show dosn't shift for you and when it dosn't you stamp your feet and act as though it's the shows fault and not yours for misunderstanding what you're watching. It's like asking why Frodo didn't just take his F-16 to Mordor and nuke Sauron whilst he's at it.

    Whenever there's conflict in Star Trek it's about a bunch of civilians of various states of experience thrust into acting as a militia and trying to do the best they can despite being trained primarily to scan interesting comets. The space ninja programme in your head? Gods know, that could be anything.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,844 Arc User
    szim wrote: »
    Discovery is a reboot. Established lore does not apply. They could give these Klingons a tail and two heads if they wanted to.

    I'm sorry but a part of me has to laugh at this statement, on the contrary i'm not being rude but rather an objective point of view on that comment which presents a great deal of irony.

    It wasn't too long ago when everyone enjoyed JJTrek coming to the screens with those supporters defending it and they welcomed it with open arms even though it had nothing to do with any of the series except the fact it was created in the prime universe with the red matter catalyst on the Romulan star, where it promptly collapsed into a black hole and allowed the Nerada to travel through. I hated it from the start.

    Now Discovery is out there and i don't hate it or jjtrek any more. Now all of a sudden everyone else is making the same excuse i made that JJTrek is this and that and everyone else hate Discovery. This is no reboot despite your objection, it's a continuation of the established prime universe even if some things don't make a lot of sense just yet.
    T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
    Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    The whole style this TRIBBLE is JJ-Trek. From the ship designs to the lens flares to the lack of any credible storyline.

    Incorrect. As JJ Abrams has nothing to do with the show it's Fullers style, Eves style, etc. And you've watched all the plot lines? Go on then, what's episode three?
    As for your assertion that Starfleet isn't a military force, care to address why they uses cruisers, destroyers, dreadnoughts, are armed, and follow a code of military justice?

    Cruiser is not uniquely a military designation, it doe snot use destroyers or dreadnoughts (except for the Vengeance, a Section 31 ship), they're armed because they're not fecking idiots unlike you. How long do you think they'll last in the frontier unarmed moron? Are wildlife photographers a military because they go into the bust with knives? As for the military court, that goes with the paramilitary organisational structure, duh. How else do you propose they do it?
    Starfleet IS a military force and that was established in the TOS, and in many of the movies (Star Trek II through VI made it very clear).

    Well it wasn't established in TOS in the slightest and was outright un-established in TNG. They are explorers constantly out of their depth in conflicts they are not intended for. As for Star Trek II-VI?

    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home

    Or, you know, the entire point of VI. The Admiral who suggests that Starfleet would be mothballed if they're not needed to fight the Klingons? She's in the wrong.

    Also, it's immaterial in the end. Even if Starfleet was a merry band of space ninjas Star Trek is not military fiction. If somebody watched 'Allo 'Allo to b|tch about the accuracy of the German uniforms they're missing the point of the show, if you're b|tching about the minutia of space ninja protocol then you're missing the point of the story.
    I understand this drivel just fine.

    You're drivel in reply is making it hard for me to accept that.
    What I'm doing is not tolerating this SJW nonsense masquerading as space fantasy by not buying it or supporting it.

    Oh muh Gud, black on the bridge!!! Red alert. Git.
    So you are wrong and just trying to defend this steaming pile of garbage because it suits you for whatever reason.
    I am not so easily sold on swill and Fast-Food style junk.
    If you are, then eat up, CBS will be happy to take money from you I am sure.
    omhCWPW.gif

    We really care about your opinion on this, really, truly. You seem like a lovely level headed guy who's so at home watching a show about an ongoing mission to seek out new life and new civilisations and going boldly.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    There is 'bending the rules' and then there's 'being a **** moron'.

    you're not quite understanding the difference here.
    Actually, I do understand the difference. I understand this is fiction and I still question whether or not you've actually watched much Star Trek over the years. Burnham did not take any greater risks than anyone before or since her has in Trek lore.
    There's bending the rules, and then there's treason. If those same events happened today in a confrontation between the US and say ... Russia, Burnham would likely be executed. And she would deserve it.

    I love the actress, but the character simply has no redeeming qualities. I think I'd cheer if she took a batleth to the chest in a future episode.
    I doubt it. You're overlooking what may be the most important aspect of this. Who shot first?

    The Klingons. They attacked a Federation system, and Burnham reciprocated. If a Russian navy ship was to fire on a town in Alaska they'd probably get blown out of the sea before they got back to Russian waters. Why? Because the terms of the peace treaty do not allow the Russians to attack US soil.
    valoreah wrote: »
    Tu quoque.
    If you would like to continue to post these kinds of things to pretend to sound intelligent, feel free. However, it's preferable that you actually take a moment to read and understand what is being discussed.

    How many times throughout the past 50+ years of Star Trek have we seen a main character push the envelope, bend (or even break) the rules, take unnecessary risks and the like to ultimately have us commend them for it? I'm happy to cite examples/dialogue from everywhere from TOS to Enterprise and everything in between where this scenario is the case.

    Now, because it's Discovery we have to hold Burnham to a different standard? That's hypocritical.
    Yeah, in one episode of TOS Kirk literally declared war on the aliens of the week. Why not diplomacy? Well... they kinda STARTED there. Kirk was escorting a Federation diplomat, and the aliens tried to blow up his ship. So Kirk told the aliens that they had two choices: negotiate, or the Enterprise would reduce their cities to rubble.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • silverlobes#2676 silverlobes Member Posts: 1,953 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    If you don't want to be called out for using logical fallacies, stop employing them.

    'How many times' is irrelevant, and to use that as a defence, shows flawed logic and a lack of critical thinking.

    I'm not using any fallacies. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the double standard some are using with regard to Burnham. I cannot help it if they are wrong and facts show otherwise.



    Yes you are.

    Tu quoque
    Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

    It doesn't matter if it is a double-standard or hypocritical. You're not making a point or dismissing someone else's opinion, because you're employing a fallacy.
    "I fight for the Users!" - Tron

    "I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
  • silverlobes#2676 silverlobes Member Posts: 1,953 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    valoreah wrote: »
    It doesn't matter if it is a double-standard or hypocritical. You're not making a point or dismissing someone else's opinion, because you're employing a fallacy.

    What's sad is that you honestly seem to believe Googling this stuff and posting it to these forums means you actually understand and comprehend not only the words, but the meaning when you clearly don't.


    :D:D
    Deflect, deflect, deflect... Not that I expect anything better from a troll of your calibre.

    You've had the fallacy explained to you, so either have the good grace to accept the lesson and stop doing it, or keep doubling-down and using said fallacy, and be called out for it when you do. It's your choice.



    "I fight for the Users!" - Tron

    "I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    Red Alert
    valoreah wrote: »
    There's bending the rules, and then there's treason. If those same events happened today in a confrontation between the US and say ... Russia, Burnham would likely be executed. And she would deserve it.

    I love the actress, but the character simply has no redeeming qualities. I think I'd cheer if she took a batleth to the chest in a future episode.

    Didn't Spock commit mutiny and treason in "The Menagerie"? Didn't Picard do the same in "Insurrection"? Why do they get a pass and Burnham doesn't?

    Very strange set of double standards you have there.

    Never saw the Menagerie (only watched 3 or 4 episodes of TOS), but my impression of Insurrection was that Picard was doing what all military members have been instructed to do since the fall of TRIBBLE Germany, and that is to disobey all unlawful orders.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    Red Alert
    valoreah wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    There is 'bending the rules' and then there's 'being a **** moron'.

    you're not quite understanding the difference here.
    Actually, I do understand the difference. I understand this is fiction and I still question whether or not you've actually watched much Star Trek over the years. Burnham did not take any greater risks than anyone before or since her has in Trek lore.
    There's bending the rules, and then there's treason. If those same events happened today in a confrontation between the US and say ... Russia, Burnham would likely be executed. And she would deserve it.

    I love the actress, but the character simply has no redeeming qualities. I think I'd cheer if she took a batleth to the chest in a future episode.
    I doubt it. You're overlooking what may be the most important aspect of this. Who shot first?

    The Klingons. They attacked a Federation system, and Burnham reciprocated. If a Russian navy ship was to fire on a town in Alaska they'd probably get blown out of the sea before they got back to Russian waters. Why? Because the terms of the peace treaty do not allow the Russians to attack US soil.

    They had no difinitive proof that the Klingons had destroyed the relay, all they knew was that the Klingons had a formidable vessel within Federation territory. They had no way of knowing, as we the viewers did, that the Klingons were there with the intent to start a war. For all they knew, a diplomatic solution was still possible, but if Burnham's mutiny had been successful she would most certainly have ignited a war regardless of the Klingons intentions.

    And attacking a town is completely different, that would be a clear act of war. A better analogy would be the Russians damaging a buoy or something, would you want an officer in our Navy to start a war over something as relatively trivial as that?
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
This discussion has been closed.