Until Mulgrew comments directly, there's a tiny chance that the article is accurate, but even if it is accurate, it's dishonest bull**** hit journalism at its absolute worst. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that Mulgrew is in any way involved in this project.
The evidence supporting the claim in the OP, so far as I'm aware:
Mulgrew says one sentence ("Everything we know about the universe is wrong"), which is probably quotemined from somewhere else like half the quotes in the trailer. Hell, maybe it's even from Star Trek.
IMDB, which anybody with internet access can edit has an anonymous entry that claims that Mulgrew is the narrator for this film.
I ****ing hate "journalists" who don't bother to check their sources. They're the worst kind of liar and they don't even have the tiny shred of honesty to know whether they're lying or not.
I don't like Voyager. I don't even like Kate Mulgrew. But the fact that so many people are willing to throw her reputation under the bus because of unsupported hearsay is disgusting.
Kate Mulgrew is narrating and promoting a so called "documentary movie" that makes the claim that the Earth is the center of the universe. This "documentary" engages in shameless quote mining of prominent scientists to make them look like they're saying things they aren't, among many other things. The person funding the "documentary" is a prominent holocaust denier named "Sungenis".
Here is the official trailer for the "documentary", called "The Principle".
If the Earth were the center of the universe, then all the other stars are going around the Earth at speeds vastly in excess of the speed of light. I ran the math as best as I could, but the math I ran was simplified by assuming all stars are orbiting the equator.
Take Proxima Centauri it's at a distance of 4.22 lightyears. If it's orbiting the Earth, that's the radius of it's orbital circle. So that makes about a 26.5 lightyear orbit accomplished in a 24 hour time span. This comes out to roughly 9679 times the speed of light for just the closest star.
Andromeda Galaxy's orbit would be about 2.571 million lightyears in radius. That works out to an orbit of about 16.16 million lightyears. This is 5.902
Just to be clear, Kate Mulgrew isn't ACTUALLY a Starfleet science officer.
So what if she takes a gig working for some crackpots. Their money is good as anyone's; and so long as they're not breaking anyone's arm or picking anyone's pocket- there's no moral problem working for them.
Kate Mulgrew is narrating and promoting a so called "documentary movie" that makes the claim that the Earth is the center of the universe. This "documentary" engages in shameless quote mining of prominent scientists to make them look like they're saying things they aren't, among many other things. The person funding the "documentary" is a prominent holocaust denier named "Sungenis".
...
I do not think Kate Mulgrew will ever be able to show her face at a Star Trek convention again.
So...Lawrence Krauss, and others, are being quote-mined. How do we know that this Sungenis dude isn't just ripping off old Voyager audio?
Kate Mulgrew is narrating and promoting a so called "documentary movie" that makes the claim that the Earth is the center of the universe. This "documentary" engages in shameless quote mining of prominent scientists to make them look like they're saying things they aren't, among many other things. The person funding the "documentary" is a prominent holocaust denier named "Sungenis".
Here is the official trailer for the "documentary", called "The Principle".
Also, I don't think this is true. Most of the quotes in that trailer are from other documentaries. I remember the first quote from a documentary about the Big Bang that was on BBC a few years ago. That entire trailer has been quotemined.
Until Mulgrew comments directly, there's a tiny chance that the article is accurate, but even if it is accurate, it's dishonest bull**** hit journalism at its absolute worst. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that Mulgrew is in any way involved in this project.
The evidence supporting the claim in the OP, so far as I'm aware:
Mulgrew says one sentence ("Everything we know about the universe is wrong"), which is probably quotemined from somewhere else like half the quotes in the trailer. Hell, maybe it's even from Star Trek.
IMDB, which anybody with internet access can edit has an anonymous entry that claims that Mulgrew is the narrator for this film.
I ****ing hate "journalists" who don't bother to check their sources. They're the worst kind of liar and they don't even have the tiny shred of honesty to know whether they're lying or not.
I don't like Voyager. I don't even like Kate Mulgrew. But the fact that so many people are willing to throw her reputation under the bus because of unsupported hearsay is disgusting.
I'm not.
I don't like Voyager, and I don't really have an opinion of Kate Mulgrew, but I'm not going to trash her for one line of narration in a trailer for a movie that was pretty clearly cut-and-pasted and quote-mined from other videos.
Also, the Raw Story article is, as usual, high on outrage and low on details.
Ten bucks says that Mr. Sungenis is getting the force-10 glare and a hefty lawsuit in a month or less.
"I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew"
"I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew"
Oh, nice.
They did to her what the "Innocence of Muslims" hacks did to the random actors they hired.
If she was short on cash I'd rather her do a voice act for series 9.
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
They did to her what the "Innocence of Muslims" hacks did to the random actors they hired.
And what the Expelled morons did to P.Z. Myers.
Hilarious.
I wonder if she can sue...
Like Krauss mentioned in his article on slate: probably not. In his case, the quotes either came from the public domain, were licensed from another interview (in which case he isn't the owner), or he was interviewed under false pretenses and still signed a release.
In her case it's probably a lot simpler. She signed a contract, read a script (since it's narration and was probably recorded in a sound studio, they could record stuff out of order so she had a hard time figuring out what she was actually reading), and now Sungenis owns that recording and her name is forever attached to it.
Why shouldn't they? If everyone aboard the bus is going to the same destination (or along the same route) what's the problem with it? Oh, that's right, lack of personal status symbol... I have to make an hour's bus ride to my studio, then an hour's bus ride home again. I'd much rather sit on a bus reading or listening to music or closing my eyes for a bit, than having to concentrate on driving...
Maybe some people like having a little more control over their transportation. Maybe some people like to travel alone. What right do you have to tell them no?
Oh, and without private property, you have no studio. The government does.
Sounds ideal :cool: Definitely an ideal situation for people in receipt of housing benefits... Why should Joe Schmoe work his TRIBBLE off to get a nice two up two down with a white picket fence, when Johnny Welfare gets given the place next door for sitting on his TRIBBLE all day? Hell no... Put them in a funded block filled with individual capsules (like capsule hotels) Afterall, they're not paying for it, why should they have more than their basic requirements of somewhere to sleep, before being sent out to a job somewhere? They've got a family? Not anymore... Single occupancy only, and those kids're getting adopted out... Prospective adoptive parents who're on welfare would be declined as not suitable, so that should apply to biological parents as well... People on welfare can't even organise their own lives, they have no business being parents and forcing their poverty-manifesting lifestyle on another generation...
We can stack our 7 billion humans MUCH more efficiently. As it is, we're starting to edge out nature in most areas, which is not good at ALL.
That's absolutely disgusting and morally repugnant. Everyone should have the opportunity to have that nice, big house with the white picket fence. It's certainly something I want to have some day. I couldn't handle living in a tiny, single-occupancy closet of a "home," all the stuff I want would never fit in it and where would I keep my library of books? The apartment I currently live in I feel is already cramped enough.
And your ideas of what to do with the poor, treating them like things without feelings or attachments only proves how little socialists actually care about the poor they claim to stand for: not one iota.
The other poster correct, it's a new feudal society under the Lords (the bureaucrats and party leaders) you propose.
As a side note, communism is actually a much more productive ideal than anarchy... Communists work together to create (at least in theory) Anarchists just want to smash the state, but have no concept of what to do afterwards, and as mentioned up thread, leads to 'might makes right' mentality, where people wind up getting looted etc, just because some thug's strong enough to do so...
Actually you have no clear idea what anarchy is. Communism is not productive it all. Every experiment with it has failed. People are poorer and more destitute (not to mention frequently murdered by the State) under communism than a society where the market is more open and free, allowing anyone... ANYONE the opportunity to market their skills and succeed.
Anarchists actually have a number of ideas what to do when the State is gone. If you actually had bothered reading about anarchist philosophy, perhaps you'd actually know about things like DROs and open funded charities and the non-aggression principle rather than rattling off a government stereotype of disorganized bomb-throwing anarchists. Under anarchy, no one has the right to tell you what to do with your life, so long you're not actually infringing on another's freedom.
There is no "might makes right," because that's a creature of the State.
I think almost everyone who's watched the Jetsons or Back to the Future Part II has wanted them. But you don't want me to live my dream because of so-called "safety" concerns? **** safety. I want freedom.
That's why socialism is the enemy of human development and innovation, because you're so concerned with "safety" over the freedom to invent and try new things. Creativity is stifled and ruined by socialism.
That wasn't what worffan said... Private ownership of things which negatively impact on society, and used the example of members of a financial elite having private jets, which are superfluous possessions.
It's not private ownership in general, it's private ownership of something large, ostentatious, and obnoxiously loud and polluting.
Actually, it was what he said and has everything to do with private ownership. Who decides what things are "negative" to society or "ostentatious" or "superfluous" or "loud?" You? What if I see there's nothing wrong with them? Is your opinion somehow more valid than mine?
All I see is "waaah! Trump has something I don't have, take it away from him and everyone!"
No, they're real...it's the measures that the idiotic government takes against them that suck.
No they're not. They're bogeymen created and prodded by the State. Whenever the State needs a convenient crisis to distract and evade scrutiny, they pull the terrorist card out of their hat. Maintain the ****ty imperialist foreign policy it has and the State has no shortage of true believers to flock to its international theater.
Maybe some people like having a little more control over their transportation. Maybe some people like to travel alone. What right do you have to tell them no?
Oh, and without private property, you have no studio. The government does.
Studio?
And it is simply better for society and the environment for those people who prefer to travel alone to use public transportation. Needs of the many.
That's absolutely disgusting and morally repugnant. Everyone should have the opportunity to have that nice, big house with the white picket fence. It's certainly something I want to have some day. I couldn't handle living in a tiny, single-occupancy closet of a "home," all the stuff I want would never fit in it and where would I keep my library of books? The apartment I currently live in I feel is already cramped enough.
Nobody has a right to a "nice, big house with the white picket fence".
And that library of books? On your Kindle or computer. Easy.
And your ideas of what to do with the poor, treating them like things without feelings or attachments only proves how little socialists actually care about the poor they claim to stand for: not one iota.
The other poster correct, it's a new feudal society under the Lords (the bureaucrats and party leaders) you propose.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's not a feudal society if EVERYONE IS EQUAL.
The bureaucrats and party leaders? Get the EXACT SAME ACCOMMODATIONS under this system.
Actually you have no clear idea what anarchy is. Communism is not productive it all. Every experiment with it has failed. People are poorer and more destitute (not to mention frequently murdered by the State) under communism than a society where the market is more open and free, allowing anyone... ANYONE the opportunity to market their skills and succeed.
Anarchists actually have a number of ideas what to do when the State is gone. If you actually had bothered reading about anarchist philosophy, perhaps you'd actually know about things like DROs and open funded charities and the non-aggression principle rather than rattling off a government stereotype of disorganized bomb-throwing anarchists. Under anarchy, no one has the right to tell you what to do with your life, so long you're not actually infringing on another's freedom.
There is no "might makes right," because that's a creature of the State.
Anarchist rhetoric.
In an anarchist society, if I have an army and a bunch of guns, what exactly is preventing me from killing half the country and enslaving the rest?
I think almost everyone who's watched the Jetsons or Back to the Future Part II has wanted them. But you don't want me to live my dream because of so-called "safety" concerns? **** safety. I want freedom.
Fine. Drive your flying car into an orphanage while blaring your anarchist rock music at 360 decibels, and see how many people cry at your funeral.
That's why socialism is the enemy of human development and innovation, because you're so concerned with "safety" over the freedom to invent and try new things. Creativity is stifled and ruined by socialism.
This is so hilariously wrong that I can't even formulate a response to it without laughing my TRIBBLE off.
Actually, it was what he said and has everything to do with private ownership. Who decides what things are "negative" to society or "ostentatious" or "superfluous" or "loud?" You? What if I see there's nothing wrong with them? Is your opinion somehow more valid than mine?
All I see is "waaah! Trump has something I don't have, take it away from him and everyone!"
Even though Trump's a giant jerk, TRIBBLE that.
There needs to be a metric for these decisions, yes, but I think that we can ALL agree that a private 737 is ostentatious, superfluous, loud, and has a negative impact on society.
No they're not. They're bogeymen created and prodded by the State. Whenever the State needs a convenient crisis to distract and evade scrutiny, they pull the terrorist card out of their hat. Maintain the ****ty imperialist foreign policy it has and the State has no shortage of true believers to flock to its international theater.
I was going to respond to this, but then I reread it and thought about the Taliban, and Christian terrorists, and al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, and I realized that you're barking up the wrong tree.
This thread has nothing to do with Kate Mulgrew, it's about peoples political, and socio-economic viewpoints.
HOW DARE YOU...try to put this thread back on topic!:D
Honestly, it's sad what's happening here. Mulgrew is being used to communicate this stupidity, and it's probably gonna hurt her career, even though she didn't know. It sucks because she's actually not a bad actor (she was a theatre actress before ST:VOY).
Honestly, it's sad what's happening here. Mulgrew is being used to communicate this stupidity, and it's probably gonna hurt her career, even though she didn't know. It sucks because she's actually not a bad actor (she was a theatre actress before ST:VOY).
It's just like that "Innocence of Muslims" brouhaha, only nobody's actually going to riot over this.
Oh, and without private property, you have no studio. The government does.
I never said anything about people not being able to earn and own property... And my studio is privately rented property. If it wasn't rented from a person, it would be leased from the government like many other businesses have on the properties they operate from...
That's absolutely disgusting and morally repugnant. Everyone should have the opportunity to have that nice, big house with the white picket fence. It's certainly something I want to have some day. I couldn't handle living in a tiny, single-occupancy closet of a "home," all the stuff I want would never fit in it and where would I keep my library of books? The apartment I currently live in I feel is already cramped enough.
And your ideas of what to do with the poor, treating them like things without feelings or attachments only proves how little socialists actually care about the poor they claim to stand for: not one iota.
Boo hoo... I'm not talking about 'poor people', I'm talking about benefit claimants who have no intention of bettering themselves through work, but instead milk the system which everyone's taxes provides for. I've no issue with people who fall on hard times and need a safety net and a hand back on their feet, but not instances of generations of families living on benefits and passing that apathetic attitude on to the offspring which they do not even pay to support.
If someone's prepared to work and earn, then of course they should be able to have the home they want...
All I'm hearing from you, is a lot of whining about what you want...
Anarchists actually have a number of ideas what to do when the State is gone. If you actually had bothered reading about anarchist philosophy, perhaps you'd actually know about things like DROs and open funded charities and the non-aggression principle rather than rattling off a government stereotype of disorganized bomb-throwing anarchists. Under anarchy, no one has the right to tell you what to do with your life, so long you're not actually infringing on another's freedom.
There is no "might makes right," because that's a creature of the State.
From the people I know who claim to be anarchists, I find that a very naive and optimistic view on how things would be once they have 'smashed the state'... That's not to say that I'm not prepared to look into the theology further...
I think almost everyone who's watched the Jetsons or Back to the Future Part II has wanted them. But you don't want me to live my dream because of so-called "safety" concerns? **** safety. I want freedom.
I want to bang Scarlett Johansson like a drum, but that's likely not going to be happening either... Sometimes life just doesn't give us 'what we want'...
As for f**k safety, I'd bet s**t to gold(pressed latinum) that you would change your tune when some drunk crashes their air speeder into one of your family member's homes... Your right to freedom gets overridden by the right of others to be safe...
They're bogeymen created and prodded by the State. Whenever the State needs a convenient crisis to distract and evade scrutiny, they pull the terrorist card out of their hat.
Sadly, no argument from me on that point... I almost wish there really was a terrorist threat, because that would at least be more tolerable than the idea of our governments being complicity and responsible for their actions...
As to global warming, can it really be called warming since the global temp has only gone up 1.53 degrees F since 1880 to 2012?
Oh, it's on.
That's 1.53 degrees averaged across the entire planet. The scale means humans have trouble comprehending it, just like JJ's scriptwriter has no idea that supernovae cannot travel faster than light. Here's what it means:
It means sea ice melts a little bit sooner at the poles and the ocean doesn't freeze as far south/north. That affects marine life and does things to currents that even land-based ecosystems depend on (not much so far, but it's early days yet).
It means water evaporates a little bit easier, putting more water vapor in the air which makes weather patterns more extreme (oddly enough, causing more snowfall rather than less).
It means plants go into spring and summer mode a little bit earlier, something people are already seeing the effects of here in the American South where I live.
It means the permafrost in the far north recedes just a little bit north, affecting various other ecologies.
That's just the effects I can think of off the top of my head. And this is happening now. It's not theory anymore.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I think almost everyone who's watched the Jetsons or Back to the Future Part II has wanted them. But you don't want me to live my dream because of so-called "safety" concerns? **** safety. I want freedom.
The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.
In 2012 34,080 people in the United States were killed in traffic accidents. That's with cars that are supposed to be four wheels on the ground at all times. How high do you think they'll climb once cars leave the ground and they start getting additional kinetic energy from gravity and the higher velocities required to sustain flight? And that's before we get to part where a lot of these midair collisions will take place over populated areas and consequently spread flaming debris across multiple city blocks.
It's not your safety they're worried about. It's everyone else's. You want to fly? Take a course and get a pilot's license.
Just because it happened in the show does not make it possible or even remotely sensible. The Romulans should have had decades, minimum, to evacuate. Props to Cryptic for actually being aware that the damn thing makes no sense at all and giving it a handwave.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
That's why we needed an entire storyline in STO to investigate that, shadowfang. Even the movie got it wrong - they shouldn't have expected months to prepare, they should have expected years. Possibly decades. And supernovae don't carve a trail of destruction through a galaxy - they affect things for maybe a dozen lightyears or so in all directions from the point of origin, more if it's a particularly big star. But as an example, Betelgeuse has had an Internet tale circulating about it - the legend goes that it's going to explode any minute, and this will destroy all life on Earth. In point of fact, it's 642 lightyears away, more or less. Yes, it's a red supergiant star - and when it finally supernovas, which is expected to happen any time within the next ten million years, it will become exceptionally bright in our sky, It might even be visible in daytime, assuming it's in the correct part of the sky for that as seen from Earth. But that's the only effect it's going to have on us here. So the odds are fair that left to itself, the Hobus supernova might well have been nothing more than a light show in ch'Rihan's night.
Then there's the idea of stopping a supernova wavefront with a black hole - I don't even know where to begin describing how stupid that is. Fortunately, it looks like Orci and Kurtzman will be busy working on Spider-Man movies for a while - maybe the next Trek can be written by someone halfway competent.
As for the global warming thing, that temperature shift might not sound like a lot - but consider that data from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show that similar shifts in Earth's past have taken place over tens of thousands of years. The majority of this shift, however, has occurred in less than a century. And the rate of change is accelerating. That doesn't bother you at all, bite?
Just because it happened in the show does not make it possible or even remotely sensible. The Romulans should have had decades, minimum, to evacuate. Props to Cryptic for actually being aware that the damn thing makes no sense at all and giving it a handwave.
you realize that was a joke? spock used similar words in response to someone claiming that a klingon bird of prey can't fire while cloaked
i know very well how stupid such a thing is, even moreso that a supernova already in progress and several hundred lightyears in diameter was able to be absorbed by one tiny little black hole
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
you realize that was a joke? spock used similar words in response to someone claiming that a klingon bird of prey can't fire while cloaked
Nope, 'fraid I missed the reference completely. Mea culpa.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
That's 1.53 degrees averaged across the entire planet. The scale means humans have trouble comprehending it, just like JJ's scriptwriter has no idea that supernovae cannot travel faster than light. Here's what it means:
It means sea ice melts a little bit sooner at the poles and the ocean doesn't freeze as far south/north. That affects marine life and does things to currents that even land-based ecosystems depend on (not much so far, but it's early days yet).
It means water evaporates a little bit easier, putting more water vapor in the air which makes weather patterns more extreme (oddly enough, causing more snowfall rather than less).
It means plants go into spring and summer mode a little bit earlier, something people are already seeing the effects of here in the American South where I live.
It means the permafrost in the far north recedes just a little bit north, affecting various other ecologies.
That's just the effects I can think of off the top of my head. And this is happening now. It's not theory anymore.
Epic, starswordc. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Don't forget the methane hydrates issue and the compounding effect of increased CO2 levels, though. Those might be even worse than the direct warming.
Epic, starswordc. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Don't forget the methane hydrates issue and the compounding effect of increased CO2 levels, though. Those might be even worse than the direct warming.
Well then the oceans absorb a majority of the Co2. Then it will make the oceans more acidic and start to kill off lots of fish and coral life. And guess what, the more acidic ocean will kill of many of the fish that people depend on for money and food so it will also affect businesses. It's just these small little cause and affect things.....
Maybe some people need to get over what they want and deal with the options...
You're not offering options, that's the problem with socialism: There are no options. You either use the public transportation or stay home. Walking will only suffice if the place you want to go to is close.
I never said anything about people not being able to earn and own property... And my studio is privately rented property. If it wasn't rented from a person, it would be leased from the government like many other businesses have on the properties they operate from...
Then it's not "your studio," it's his/her studio.
Oh, and not owning property is the only logical conclusion we have to take if we start banning things based on other people having them when you don't.
And it is simply better for society and the environment for those people who prefer to travel alone to use public transportation. Needs of the many.
Oh, so you're using a mantra Spock used to make the INDIVIDUAL decision to sacrifice himself to save the Enterprise as a means to bully everyone into doing things your way?
Well, I reject that twisting of words and your collectivist agenda. Power to the individual!
Nobody has a right to a "nice, big house with the white picket fence".
And that library of books? On your Kindle or computer. Easy.
I didn't mention any "rights." I said "OPPORTUNITY," y'know, the thing socialism lacks because you're forced to be like everyone else.
Oh, and I prefer real books. Not a digital file that could be lost if there's a tech issue. My books will last as long as the paper lasts. And I'm not giving them up.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's not a feudal society if EVERYONE IS EQUAL.
The bureaucrats and party leaders? Get the EXACT SAME ACCOMMODATIONS under this system.
Socialist rhetoric. I'm soooo sure Stalin lived just as crappy as the common Soviet, and I'm soooo sure that Castro lives just as destitute a life as the average Cuban.
Boo hoo... I'm not talking about 'poor people', I'm talking about benefit claimants who have no intention of bettering themselves through work, but instead milk the system which everyone's taxes provides for. I've no issue with people who fall on hard times and need a safety net and a hand back on their feet, but not instances of generations of families living on benefits and passing that apathetic attitude on to the offspring which they do not even pay to support.
And how do you know which is which? Both are technically poor, it's just that one is using it as an excuse. Are you going to monitor all of your serfs to ensure they do what you want?
From the people I know who claim to be anarchists, I find that a very naive and optimistic view on how things would be once they have 'smashed the state'... That's not to say that I'm not prepared to look into the theology further...
What? Are the anarchists you know always talking about the Anarchist Cookbook and how much the authority "sux?" I've met those kinds of "anarchists." They're not anarchists. They know nothing about the actual philosophy and thought behind anarchy.
Furthermore, what's stopping you from taking over with your guns and army? Everyone else who's armed to the teeth. Violate the non-aggression principle and everyone else will smack you down.
During standard working hours, not at all times of the day/night...
So pretty much your answer is "yes, only the government is allowed to make noise." Also, not everyone sleeps at the same hours and during the dead of night, I occasionally do get quite a few military vehicles flying over my home very noisily, so it's not just during "standard hours." Such is the problem being several miles from an air force base.
I want to bang Scarlett Johansson like a drum, but that's likely not going to be happening either... Sometimes life just doesn't give us 'what we want'...
Again, who mentioned "rights?" I'm just stating there's no legitimate reason to prevent someone from acquiring something they want just because you don't like it. "Because it's noisy/obnoxious/'negative'" is not a reason.
And as long as you don't try to go after her with chloraform, what's stopping you from attempting to ask Johansson out?
As for f**k safety, I'd bet s**t to gold(pressed latinum) that you would change your tune when some drunk crashes their air speeder into one of your family member's homes... Your right to freedom gets overridden by the right of others to be safe...
Two hilarious anecdotes. For the first one, that's a terrible character assassination combined with a strawman and also frankly such an act would be grounds for a lawsuit for the offender. And on the second, latinum doesn't exist and if such a thing did happen, I would be hoping my relative was smart enough to get insurance.
This is so hilariously wrong that I can't even formulate a response to it without laughing my TRIBBLE off.
Actually it's pretty accurate. In a society where freedom to innovate and express oneself is forbidden, you're not going to see a lot of progress in a lot of things. This is why monopolies with their patent TRIBBLE and trademark trolling have successfully kept technological progress at a crawl.
There needs to be a metric for these decisions, yes, but I think that we can ALL agree that a private 737 is ostentatious, superfluous, loud, and has a negative impact on society.
I was going to respond to this, but then I reread it and thought about the Taliban, and Christian terrorists, and al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, and I realized that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Those are the cretinous "true believers" I mentioned earlier. I'd bet my life on it that they're all infiltrated by intelligence organisations. The timing of their "attacks" is amazing.
Comments
The evidence supporting the claim in the OP, so far as I'm aware:
Mulgrew says one sentence ("Everything we know about the universe is wrong"), which is probably quotemined from somewhere else like half the quotes in the trailer. Hell, maybe it's even from Star Trek.
IMDB, which anybody with internet access can edit has an anonymous entry that claims that Mulgrew is the narrator for this film.
I ****ing hate "journalists" who don't bother to check their sources. They're the worst kind of liar and they don't even have the tiny shred of honesty to know whether they're lying or not.
I don't like Voyager. I don't even like Kate Mulgrew. But the fact that so many people are willing to throw her reputation under the bus because of unsupported hearsay is disgusting.
Here is the official trailer for the "documentary", called "The Principle".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTg
To quote one of the comments on the video...
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → Ⓑ Ⓐ
So what if she takes a gig working for some crackpots. Their money is good as anyone's; and so long as they're not breaking anyone's arm or picking anyone's pocket- there's no moral problem working for them.
So...Lawrence Krauss, and others, are being quote-mined. How do we know that this Sungenis dude isn't just ripping off old Voyager audio?
This was already posted yesterday...http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1076531&page=13
Also, I don't think this is true. Most of the quotes in that trailer are from other documentaries. I remember the first quote from a documentary about the Big Bang that was on BBC a few years ago. That entire trailer has been quotemined.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I'm not.
I don't like Voyager, and I don't really have an opinion of Kate Mulgrew, but I'm not going to trash her for one line of narration in a trailer for a movie that was pretty clearly cut-and-pasted and quote-mined from other videos.
Also, the Raw Story article is, as usual, high on outrage and low on details.
Ten bucks says that Mr. Sungenis is getting the force-10 glare and a hefty lawsuit in a month or less.
Troi,"Captain, I sense a thread merge ."
"I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew"
Oh, nice.
They did to her what the "Innocence of Muslims" hacks did to the random actors they hired.
And what the Expelled morons did to P.Z. Myers.
Hilarious.
I wonder if she can sue...
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!
Like Krauss mentioned in his article on slate: probably not. In his case, the quotes either came from the public domain, were licensed from another interview (in which case he isn't the owner), or he was interviewed under false pretenses and still signed a release.
In her case it's probably a lot simpler. She signed a contract, read a script (since it's narration and was probably recorded in a sound studio, they could record stuff out of order so she had a hard time figuring out what she was actually reading), and now Sungenis owns that recording and her name is forever attached to it.
It's the only thing you've said right.
Maybe some people like having a little more control over their transportation. Maybe some people like to travel alone. What right do you have to tell them no?
Oh, and without private property, you have no studio. The government does.
That's absolutely disgusting and morally repugnant. Everyone should have the opportunity to have that nice, big house with the white picket fence. It's certainly something I want to have some day. I couldn't handle living in a tiny, single-occupancy closet of a "home," all the stuff I want would never fit in it and where would I keep my library of books? The apartment I currently live in I feel is already cramped enough.
And your ideas of what to do with the poor, treating them like things without feelings or attachments only proves how little socialists actually care about the poor they claim to stand for: not one iota.
The other poster correct, it's a new feudal society under the Lords (the bureaucrats and party leaders) you propose.
Actually you have no clear idea what anarchy is. Communism is not productive it all. Every experiment with it has failed. People are poorer and more destitute (not to mention frequently murdered by the State) under communism than a society where the market is more open and free, allowing anyone... ANYONE the opportunity to market their skills and succeed.
Anarchists actually have a number of ideas what to do when the State is gone. If you actually had bothered reading about anarchist philosophy, perhaps you'd actually know about things like DROs and open funded charities and the non-aggression principle rather than rattling off a government stereotype of disorganized bomb-throwing anarchists. Under anarchy, no one has the right to tell you what to do with your life, so long you're not actually infringing on another's freedom.
There is no "might makes right," because that's a creature of the State.
So what? City services make loads of noise all the time with their contracted construction companies and sirens and so forth.
Or is only the government allowed to be noisy?
But I want a flying car.
I think almost everyone who's watched the Jetsons or Back to the Future Part II has wanted them. But you don't want me to live my dream because of so-called "safety" concerns? **** safety. I want freedom.
That's why socialism is the enemy of human development and innovation, because you're so concerned with "safety" over the freedom to invent and try new things. Creativity is stifled and ruined by socialism.
Actually, it was what he said and has everything to do with private ownership. Who decides what things are "negative" to society or "ostentatious" or "superfluous" or "loud?" You? What if I see there's nothing wrong with them? Is your opinion somehow more valid than mine?
All I see is "waaah! Trump has something I don't have, take it away from him and everyone!"
Even though Trump's a giant jerk, TRIBBLE that.
No they're not. They're bogeymen created and prodded by the State. Whenever the State needs a convenient crisis to distract and evade scrutiny, they pull the terrorist card out of their hat. Maintain the ****ty imperialist foreign policy it has and the State has no shortage of true believers to flock to its international theater.
And it is simply better for society and the environment for those people who prefer to travel alone to use public transportation. Needs of the many. Nobody has a right to a "nice, big house with the white picket fence".
And that library of books? On your Kindle or computer. Easy. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's not a feudal society if EVERYONE IS EQUAL.
The bureaucrats and party leaders? Get the EXACT SAME ACCOMMODATIONS under this system. Anarchist rhetoric.
In an anarchist society, if I have an army and a bunch of guns, what exactly is preventing me from killing half the country and enslaving the rest? Those city services, construction companies, and sirens serve useful societal purposes. Private jets do not. So? You don't have the right to everything you want. Fine. Drive your flying car into an orphanage while blaring your anarchist rock music at 360 decibels, and see how many people cry at your funeral. This is so hilariously wrong that I can't even formulate a response to it without laughing my TRIBBLE off. There needs to be a metric for these decisions, yes, but I think that we can ALL agree that a private 737 is ostentatious, superfluous, loud, and has a negative impact on society.
I was going to respond to this, but then I reread it and thought about the Taliban, and Christian terrorists, and al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, and I realized that you're barking up the wrong tree.
How is that different under any system?
Anarchy is a fine concept, but until everyone agrees not to actually use their guns in aggression, it's just not possible.
Signed, a Minarchist.
Like she said, She needs to pay the bills people
This thread has nothing to do with Kate Mulgrew, it's about peoples political, and socio-economic viewpoints.
HOW DARE YOU...try to put this thread back on topic!:D
Honestly, it's sad what's happening here. Mulgrew is being used to communicate this stupidity, and it's probably gonna hurt her career, even though she didn't know. It sucks because she's actually not a bad actor (she was a theatre actress before ST:VOY).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
It's just like that "Innocence of Muslims" brouhaha, only nobody's actually going to riot over this.
Fricking fundamentalists.
As to global warming, can it really be called warming since the global temp has only gone up 1.53 degrees F since 1880 to 2012?
R.I.P
I never said anything about people not being able to earn and own property... And my studio is privately rented property. If it wasn't rented from a person, it would be leased from the government like many other businesses have on the properties they operate from...
Boo hoo... I'm not talking about 'poor people', I'm talking about benefit claimants who have no intention of bettering themselves through work, but instead milk the system which everyone's taxes provides for. I've no issue with people who fall on hard times and need a safety net and a hand back on their feet, but not instances of generations of families living on benefits and passing that apathetic attitude on to the offspring which they do not even pay to support.
If someone's prepared to work and earn, then of course they should be able to have the home they want...
All I'm hearing from you, is a lot of whining about what you want...
I quite agree, communism doesn't work in practice. That's not to say that some of the principles could not be productively used...
From the people I know who claim to be anarchists, I find that a very naive and optimistic view on how things would be once they have 'smashed the state'... That's not to say that I'm not prepared to look into the theology further...
During standard working hours, not at all times of the day/night...
I want to bang Scarlett Johansson like a drum, but that's likely not going to be happening either... Sometimes life just doesn't give us 'what we want'...
As for f**k safety, I'd bet s**t to gold(pressed latinum) that you would change your tune when some drunk crashes their air speeder into one of your family member's homes... Your right to freedom gets overridden by the right of others to be safe...
Pollution is fairly universally accepted as a negative concept...
Sadly, no argument from me on that point... I almost wish there really was a terrorist threat, because that would at least be more tolerable than the idea of our governments being complicity and responsible for their actions...
It still got warmer did it not?
Oh, it's on.
That's 1.53 degrees averaged across the entire planet. The scale means humans have trouble comprehending it, just like JJ's scriptwriter has no idea that supernovae cannot travel faster than light. Here's what it means:
It means sea ice melts a little bit sooner at the poles and the ocean doesn't freeze as far south/north. That affects marine life and does things to currents that even land-based ecosystems depend on (not much so far, but it's early days yet).
It means water evaporates a little bit easier, putting more water vapor in the air which makes weather patterns more extreme (oddly enough, causing more snowfall rather than less).
It means plants go into spring and summer mode a little bit earlier, something people are already seeing the effects of here in the American South where I live.
It means the permafrost in the far north recedes just a little bit north, affecting various other ecologies.
That's just the effects I can think of off the top of my head. And this is happening now. It's not theory anymore.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
however, all things are not equal - that one did
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
I answer this quote with another quote: In 2012 34,080 people in the United States were killed in traffic accidents. That's with cars that are supposed to be four wheels on the ground at all times. How high do you think they'll climb once cars leave the ground and they start getting additional kinetic energy from gravity and the higher velocities required to sustain flight? And that's before we get to part where a lot of these midair collisions will take place over populated areas and consequently spread flaming debris across multiple city blocks.
It's not your safety they're worried about. It's everyone else's. You want to fly? Take a course and get a pilot's license.
Just because it happened in the show does not make it possible or even remotely sensible. The Romulans should have had decades, minimum, to evacuate. Props to Cryptic for actually being aware that the damn thing makes no sense at all and giving it a handwave.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Then there's the idea of stopping a supernova wavefront with a black hole - I don't even know where to begin describing how stupid that is. Fortunately, it looks like Orci and Kurtzman will be busy working on Spider-Man movies for a while - maybe the next Trek can be written by someone halfway competent.
As for the global warming thing, that temperature shift might not sound like a lot - but consider that data from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show that similar shifts in Earth's past have taken place over tens of thousands of years. The majority of this shift, however, has occurred in less than a century. And the rate of change is accelerating. That doesn't bother you at all, bite?
i know very well how stupid such a thing is, even moreso that a supernova already in progress and several hundred lightyears in diameter was able to be absorbed by one tiny little black hole
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Nope, 'fraid I missed the reference completely. Mea culpa.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Epic, starswordc. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Don't forget the methane hydrates issue and the compounding effect of increased CO2 levels, though. Those might be even worse than the direct warming.
Well then the oceans absorb a majority of the Co2. Then it will make the oceans more acidic and start to kill off lots of fish and coral life. And guess what, the more acidic ocean will kill of many of the fish that people depend on for money and food so it will also affect businesses. It's just these small little cause and affect things.....
No it's not.
You're not offering options, that's the problem with socialism: There are no options. You either use the public transportation or stay home. Walking will only suffice if the place you want to go to is close.
Other guy.
Then it's not "your studio," it's his/her studio.
Oh, and not owning property is the only logical conclusion we have to take if we start banning things based on other people having them when you don't.
Oh, so you're using a mantra Spock used to make the INDIVIDUAL decision to sacrifice himself to save the Enterprise as a means to bully everyone into doing things your way?
Well, I reject that twisting of words and your collectivist agenda. Power to the individual!
I didn't mention any "rights." I said "OPPORTUNITY," y'know, the thing socialism lacks because you're forced to be like everyone else.
Oh, and I prefer real books. Not a digital file that could be lost if there's a tech issue. My books will last as long as the paper lasts. And I'm not giving them up.
Socialist rhetoric. I'm soooo sure Stalin lived just as crappy as the common Soviet, and I'm soooo sure that Castro lives just as destitute a life as the average Cuban.
Please, it's feudalism and you know it.
And how do you know which is which? Both are technically poor, it's just that one is using it as an excuse. Are you going to monitor all of your serfs to ensure they do what you want?
Glory to Big Brother!
Unless their home offends you in some way, like in its size or energy output?
And damn straight I want what I want. That's the whole point of being a free individual, you get to aspire to get things. I don't want to be a serf.
And then you get the creeping kudzu syndrome....
What? Are the anarchists you know always talking about the Anarchist Cookbook and how much the authority "sux?" I've met those kinds of "anarchists." They're not anarchists. They know nothing about the actual philosophy and thought behind anarchy.
Furthermore, what's stopping you from taking over with your guns and army? Everyone else who's armed to the teeth. Violate the non-aggression principle and everyone else will smack you down.
So pretty much your answer is "yes, only the government is allowed to make noise." Also, not everyone sleeps at the same hours and during the dead of night, I occasionally do get quite a few military vehicles flying over my home very noisily, so it's not just during "standard hours." Such is the problem being several miles from an air force base.
Again, who mentioned "rights?" I'm just stating there's no legitimate reason to prevent someone from acquiring something they want just because you don't like it. "Because it's noisy/obnoxious/'negative'" is not a reason.
And as long as you don't try to go after her with chloraform, what's stopping you from attempting to ask Johansson out?
Two hilarious anecdotes. For the first one, that's a terrible character assassination combined with a strawman and also frankly such an act would be grounds for a lawsuit for the offender. And on the second, latinum doesn't exist and if such a thing did happen, I would be hoping my relative was smart enough to get insurance.
Also, safety isn't a "right."
Actually it's pretty accurate. In a society where freedom to innovate and express oneself is forbidden, you're not going to see a lot of progress in a lot of things. This is why monopolies with their patent TRIBBLE and trademark trolling have successfully kept technological progress at a crawl.
No we can't agree that a jet is such things, because otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument!
And who decides what is "pollution?"
Those are the cretinous "true believers" I mentioned earlier. I'd bet my life on it that they're all infiltrated by intelligence organisations. The timing of their "attacks" is amazing.