[STAR TREK DiSCOVERY] | SEASON TWO |

artan42

I'd say Burnham is the weak link of the main cast but considering that she, Ensign ADHD, Doctor Shroom, and Saru (Saru's cool, he doesn't get a nickname) are the only main cast so far that's not exactly a large sample size.

Seriously Discovery, learn from DS9 not TOS.​​

markhawkman

shadowfang240 wrote: »

it's not the thought of burnhan being psionic in itself that makes me roll my eyes...it's that ON TOP of everything else she can already do, apparently better than people who have devoted their entire lives or career to it

So how old is Burnham and what has she done academically?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

legendarylycan

not like telepathy has any limits on range, given it's still a fringe scientific concept, so...one can make up whatever rules they want for it as long as it's still recognizable as telepathy at its core​​

artan42

Telepathy is not fringe science it's science fiction.

legendarylycan

okay, so it was pseudoscience and not fringe science...the rest still applies​​

starkaos

As far as Voq's son is concerned, the Boreth Monastery is where the Kahless clone is created in TNG by the Followers of Kahless and there is a terrorist called The Albino in DS9 where he infected the first born sons of Kor, Koloth, and Kang and is later killed with the help of Dax. There is no evidence that the Albino was ever on Boreth and only mentioned due to Voq's son being an albino.

markhawkman

Heh, there's no evidence whatsoever who the Albino was or where he came from

starkaos

markhawkman wrote: »

Heh, there's no evidence whatsoever who the Albino was or where he came from

True enough. The only other Albino Klingons we know of is Voq and Voq's son. So it is possible that Voq's son is the Albino, but that is just speculation.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

artan42

markhawkman wrote: »

Heh, there's no evidence whatsoever who the Albino was or where he came from

Not in DS9 no. But DSC offers evidence the Albino can be used to conclude.​​

markhawkman

patrickngo wrote: »

markhawkman wrote: »

shadowfang240 wrote: »

it's not the thought of burnhan being psionic in itself that makes me roll my eyes...it's that ON TOP of everything else she can already do, apparently better than people who have devoted their entire lives or career to it

So how old is Burnham and what has she done academically?

didn't you watch the first season? she's the smartest Evar.

To summarize: you didn't pay attention and made a derisive tirade because you don't really know.

artan42

I think there was a character who made a mistake that cost the lives of thousands, was stripped of their rank and position as punishment for it and learnt from their mistakes by preventing the same mistake from being recommited by the end of the series.

If only I could remember their name...​​

szim

artan42 wrote: »

I think there was a character who made a mistake that cost the lives of thousands..​​

Only, it did not. Her mutiny did not cost a single life. T'kuvma wanted a war against the Federation to unite the Klingon houses. And he used Georgiou's "we come in peace" as proof that the Federation was diametrically opposed to the Klingon way of life and Klingon identiy.

Unless you can think of a scenario in which Burnham remained loyal and the war would not have started.. I can't think of any.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

starkaos

szim wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

I think there was a character who made a mistake that cost the lives of thousands..​​

Only, it did not. Her mutiny did not cost a single life. T'kuvma wanted a war against the Federation to unite the Klingon houses. And he used Georgiou's "we come in peace" as proof that the Federation was diametrically opposed to the Klingon way of life and Klingon identiy.

Unless you can think of a scenario in which Burnham remained loyal and the war would not have started.. I can't think of any.

Personally, I believe it to be the hesitation that caused the war rather than the actions of Burnham. Destroy T'Kuvma's ship and he is killed before he becomes a martyr. Sacrifice the Shenzhou by not firing a single shot and T'Kuvma has to rely on some other method to get his war. So sacrificing the Shenzhou and everyone on board would have Burnham stay loyal and the war would not have started on that day. Of course, Burnham and the Shenzhou would have been destroyed, but that is a small sacrifice for peace.

The Vulcan Hello only worked because there was no hesitation. It was sacrifice the first ship and destroy any Klingons that they encountered after the first sacrificed ship until the Klingons finally learned how to communicate.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

starkaos

patrickngo wrote: »

In a civilian context, someone acting like Burnham did, would have been fired, and held liable for anything stemming from their actions (Sued by their former employer most likely, and if people died? such a person would find themselves on a collection of wrongful death lawsuits as well.)

In a military context, her actions, which are in direct violation not only of mere regulations, but also law, make her responsible for the outcome.

She violated both law and regulation, she violated orders, spacers lost their lives, it's her fault both legally, and morally, regardless of the intent of T'kuvma.

And this is why she was in prison garb and only became a free woman when she stopped the Federation-Klingon War. If Starfleet won the war on their own, then Burnham would have been back in chains. Only the power of a Mary Sue could have saved her from years in prison.

angrytarg

Didn't realGeorgieu say Michael has been her 'number one' for years?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

szim

@patrickngo
Her mutiny did not happen during wartime though. So most militaries would have dishonourably discharged her and given her a prison sentence (which is exactly what happened). Her actions did not have any repercussions either. There was no indication that any one of bridge crew, including Captain Georgiou, would have acted differently, if her mutiny had not happened.

I never said Burnham was in her right to attempt mutiny though, she clearly wasn't. What she tried to do violated both Starfleet rules and philosophy. But she's not responsible for any deaths that occurred afterwards due to Georgiou's actions. Burnham's conduct did not lead, neither directly nor indirectly, to an armed conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire.

In retrospect, there's definitively a chance that a preemptive strike could have prevented a full scale war against a united Klingon Empire. If Burnham had succeeded, millions of lives, hundreds of ships could have been saved. However, from a moral and legal standpoint, she could have not been more wrong. Many historical figures found themselves in a similar situation. And whether they are loved or hated today really only depends on the outcome.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

szim

patrickngo wrote: »

szim wrote: »

@patrickngo
Her mutiny did not happen during wartime though. So most militaries would have dishonourably discharged her and given her a prison sentence (which is exactly what happened). Her actions did not have any repercussions either. There was no indication that any one of bridge crew, including Captain Georgiou, would have acted differently, if her mutiny had not happened.

I never said Burnham was in her right to attempt mutiny though, she clearly wasn't. What she tried to do violated both Starfleet rules and philosophy. But she's not responsible for any deaths that occurred afterwards due to Georgiou's actions. Burnham's conduct did not lead, neither directly nor indirectly, to an armed conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire.

In retrospect, there's definitively a chance that a preemptive strike could have prevented a full scale war against a united Klingon Empire. If Burnham had succeeded, millions of lives, hundreds of ships could have been saved. However, from a moral and legal standpoint, she could have not been more wrong. Many historical figures found themselves in a similar situation. And whether they are loved or hated today really only depends on the outcome.

Burnham crippled her crew and captain's ability to rationally observe and assess their conditions. Legally, and morally, she is absolutely responsible for the loss of the ship and crewmen, because she chose an action that degrades performance of duty, function, and discipline in a situation where gathering information and processing it is vital to survival.

That's an assertion without substance. You're saying that the war, and the destruction of the entire Federation fleet in the battle at the binary stars could have somehow been prevented, at least partially, if only Burnham hadn't mutinied. There's no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. You would have to condemn Saru too, because his cowardice made everybody on the bridge more nervous.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

artan42

szim wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

I think there was a character who made a mistake that cost the lives of thousands..

Only, it did not. Her mutiny did not cost a single life. T'kuvma wanted a war against the Federation to unite the Klingon houses. And he used Georgiou's "we come in peace" as proof that the Federation was diametrically opposed to the Klingon way of life and Klingon identiy.

Unless you can think of a scenario in which Burnham remained loyal and the war would not have started.. I can't think of any.

I am aware the war was on T'Kuvma not Burnham. But Burnham thinks it was on her. It's her growth and overcoming what is, to her, a mistake.

Characters can believe things that aren't necessarily true. It's clear from the start of the series Detmer holds Burnham responsible for having lost half her skull despite T'Kuvma opeing fire on the ship.

If the writers were indeed creating a 'Mary Sue' (a term that people far too often misuse) then Burnham's 'Vulcan Hello' would have worked or if it did not she would have been given her own ship as a 'well done for initiative' gift. Instead she is tried and holds herself responsible for the war until the end when she turns the mutiny around onto Cornwall to uphold Starfleet principles.

She would have been patted on the back in the same way Archer was when he allowed a species to die. Or Picard when he refused Q-Riker's help to a child, or Janeway when she gave the Borg anti-8472 weapons.

Instead nobody treats her actions as justified not least herself. Especially as she also had to live with the fact she killed T'Kuvma on top of all that.

Edit: Also Burnham's a civilian on top of that. Captains might have training on opening of warfare but Burnham's a cartographer in NASA who's just been threatened by a military force. She clearly had no training so all her emphasis is going to be on the decision she did make whether it's justified or not.​​

artan42

No idea what happened here...​​

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tigeraries

nice reading how the show writers are developing Spock. finally we can now understand Spock (and perhaps all Vulcans), since he suffers from Extreme empathy deficit. I hope Spock gets proper treatment and becomes a much better person so he can help guide Kirk when he becomes 1st officer later.

tigeraries

patrickngo wrote: »

changing the subject...a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GkP33rRvhE[url="http://"][/url] makes me look like a 'fan' of Discovery. I think he's dead wrong, CBS execs love money and if Discovery was losing it, they would certainly have announced cancellation, but his delivery's hilarious.

it is still in the black since all of S1 was paid for by NF. but expectations on numbers is not where it is at. ST is what it is due to fans...

Unknown

This content has been removed.