If it's so easily done, how come all the liberated Borg are one-off special cases? How come nobody is weaponizing it and turning it into a standard anti-Borg tactic?
Because plot. The same plot that turned to Borg from a collective into a bunch of ants. I never disputed Voyager's writing was bad.
This rather suggests that mass liberation is beyond practicality, and therefore not a viable tactic for dealing with large-scale incursions or for use in an offensive war against Collective home space. In contrast, the Undine approach is undeniably effective -- the Borg were within months of being rendered extinct -- and conserves their own resources.
My point is that it's possible. Icheb and Co. set the precedent that un-matured drones can be liberated.
And you have not contested my point that those drones do represent non-combatants.
The point is, she shouldn't have been there in the first place. The actions that got her into that position were illegal -- never mind immoral or unethical -- on at least six different levels.
I've mentioned my piece on this several times, and I'm not going to get into another argument about the morality of Janeway's actions. Let's agree to disagree.
But let's go that route. Lion pride attacks a cape buffalo. Does that make the lions evil and the buffalo good? Considering that (as far as we know) neither party has the mental capacity to even comprehend either concept, I'd say no. But the buffalo is going to fight back or run, actions taken in service to its own survival.
Did it occur to you that assimilation is the Borgs' only method of procreation? It's like the Kobali; if they didn't do it, they'd go extinct.
Now let's bring morality back into it, for the sake of argument. As Zechariah Chafee famously put it, " Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." I have no problem with (for example) a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds and dying. The only people he's TRIBBLE because of his religious rule is himself and any immediate family members depending on him, and typically they're in agreement with Bonehead #1 so TRIBBLE 'em anyway.
I have a huge problem with something like what happened during the 2013 measles outbreak in Brooklyn. An ultra-orthodox Jew got infected with measles during an overseas trip and brought it home. Within weeks you've got 3,000 some-odd cases, a miscarriage, and several deaths. The thing is, his particular sect thinks vaccinations are immoral. But the outbreak wasn't limited to people who subscribe to his religious rule, it also hit people who couldn't be vaccinated for (for example) medical reasons. Ergo, he screwed everybody, and that's unacceptable.
This is... oh boy...
Okay, speaking as a religious man, I'd like to point out that to many how they'll be judged in the afterlife is more important than their own life. You may think it's wrong, but to them, it's their deity's will. This is one of the most important reasons for tolerance; everyone has a different view on what is and isn't good/evil, therefore we come back to my statement that those concepts do not exist. Scientific method; if it cannot be defined, it cannot exist.
Now back to the Borg. By not fighting the Borg with everything you've got (because that's what it takes to fight effectively), you TRIBBLE the whole galaxy. Ergo, you fight back with everything you've got.
It doesn't matter which angle you look at it from. The Undine have the right idea, both morally and practically.
Aside from not even trying to save the Borg that could have been saved. They may not have known, but if we're using our standard western approach to morality, then they still killed innocent, defenceless people.
Since Israel is a state that was drawn up by bored MPs desperate to get Britain out of the Middle East, I'd say that the Israelis never had any right to that land in the first place.
Just like Syria and Iraq should have been split up instead of drawn the way they are.
In general, the current Middle East situation is entirely the fault of British and other colonial powers trying to put nice straight lines on a patchwork of vaguely standoffish ethnicities. And then putting minority groups in positions of absolute power.
Just being the devil's advocate here, but as I recall, France was also involved in the decolonisation of the Middle East and the UN wanted a country where the Jews could govern themselves without persecution. Also, Britain was on the verge of economic collapse at the time; we had to decolonise.
It was handled terribly and I think it's inexcusable that the West can stand by and let what's happening in Israel happen and, in the case of the US, basically support it!
And, again, it wasn't completely our fault; the UN wanted Israel created, Britain and France just chose to give away Jordanian territory to do it. I don't agree with it, because it's basically ending one minority's suffering at the expense of another, but the alternative was a massive inflation of immigrants in countries which couldn't afford to improve the lives of their own people, let alone anybody else.
Since Israel is a state that was drawn up by bored MPs desperate to get Britain out of the Middle East, I'd say that the Israelis never had any right to that land in the first place.
Getting the Romulans into the war broke a military stalemate that in the long run favored an enemy known for certain to be genocidal. Jem'Hadar can be replaced much faster than Starfleet personnel and Klingon warriors. Therefore, I fully agree with Garak's assessment that the lives lost were miniscule compared to the lives that were saved.
Try again, this time without parroting the same exact evidence that several of us have already refuted.
It seems the common element here is that you refuse to accept on-screen statements made. The Dominion said they didn't want to kill the Romulans, you don't believe them.
The Undine said they wanted to kill everyone, and you don't believe them.
I personally thing it's much more likely the first was a lie (coming from an expanding Empire that demands control of all solids so they can't hurt the Founders), then the second (coming from a foe that blows up planets.)
Also, like Janeway, you neglect the third option of simply invoking the Prime Directive and just hiding until the fight ran its course.
I doubt the Voyager could outrun the Borg or the Undine. She could have selected suicide, yes. With a strong risk that her action wouldn't help anyone.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
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
My point is that it's possible. Icheb and Co. set the precedent that un-matured drones can be liberated.
And you have not contested my point that those drones do represent non-combatants.
I'm afraid you've got it backwards, my man... Icheb and co showed that drones in maturation chambers, become activated in a condition of emergency, so while they may not be as dangerous as a fully-matured drone, and while they may not always be 'up and about' on a cube, they are very much still -- or at least have the capacity to be -- active combatants.
Any connected drone anywhere is an active combatant, and must be treated as such.
However.
Any drone can become separated from the collective, and once separated, even if merely by lack of proximity, say in a crash, the native personality resurfaces within hours.
Separation is possible, but not a viable technique for open warfare (although arguably, if Starfleet or the Romulans were to find a way to disrupt entire areas of the collective network, say the radius of an entire star system, then separation would become not only viable, but ethically required, as it would mean that any and all drones go from being active combatants, to 'Human shields' who can be rescued...)
I'm afraid you've got it backwards, my man... Icheb and co showed that drones in maturation chambers, become activated in a condition of emergency, so while they may not be as dangerous as a fully-matured drone, and while they may not always be 'up and about' on a cube, they are very much still -- or at least have the capacity to be -- active combatants.
Any connected drone anywhere is an active combatant, and must be treated as such.
However.
Any drone can become separated from the collective, and once separated, even if merely by lack of proximity, say in a crash, the native personality resurfaces within hours.
Separation is possible, but not a viable technique for open warfare (although arguably, if Starfleet or the Romulans were to find a way to disrupt entire areas of the collective network, say the radius of an entire star system, then separation would become not only viable, but ethically required, as it would mean that any and all drones go from being active combatants, to 'Human shields' who can be rescued...)
:cool:
If I remember correctly, that was only after every other drone on the ship had been killed, and even then the immature drones could not function very well without the support of the adult drones. If Starfleet had the capability to safely kill a cube's full complement, I'm pretty sure rescuing the immature drones would become a priority.
aww, you mad 'cause your intrepids fairytale got dented?
even in the st universe, its rediculous to think an intrepid could cruise upto a borg cube, attack, then escape said transwarp capable cube in a 'merely' warp capable intrepid.
cirtainly, the depiction of Q in voyager was assinine too. reduced from being that from human perspective are super-dimensional, to a bunch qurreling aristocrats with blue-balls.
and unlike your pained hyperbole, my headconon actually fixes continuity in the st universe. AND explains stories of a silly intrepid and its capricious captain destroying cubes with a single shot, all while on its way to steamroll a transwarp hub, while simultaneously destroying the borg by poisoning its evil disney villain queen.
thats more like the tall tales of sea monsters told by sailors exploring south america than anything an intrepid could ever do in the st universe.
Never said it wasn't ridiculous , but your "fixing" the world is just painful, and nothing more than a Fanfic
These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
Really, of course, Janeway was written into a corner by lousy scriptwriters who wanted a dramatic situation - "what if Starfleet had to make common cause with the Borg?" - and didn't care to think through the implications. Failing to think through the implications is the besetting sin of all bad science fiction (and Voyager was, without a shadow of a doubt, bad science fiction.)
However... looking at it from an in-world perspective.... The Borg are a known, and very serious, threat. (Although it is possible to reach a peaceful accommodation with them... and the Kazon, of all people, have managed it. What's their secret? Big hair? Not bathing?... But I digress.)
At the time Janeway first encountered them, the Undine were clearly powerful and dangerous - but she knew virtually nothing about them beyond that, and, well, "powerful, dangerous and unknown" was pretty much what the ship was running into, most of the time.
In the circumstances, some very careful diplomatic overtures would have been the sensible thing to do. You only get one chance to make a first impression, after all. Something along the lines of "Hello, Species 8472. We understand you have a Borg problem. We have a Borg problem, too. Can we talk it over?" would have been good. Janeway's "Hi there! We are Starfleet, and we WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO DESTROY YOU!" was... not an optimal solution.
(Heck, it pretty much set the tone for all future relations with the Undine, didn't it? We're paying for her mistake now.)
If I remember correctly, that was only after every other drone on the ship had been killed, and even then the immature drones could not function very well without the support of the adult drones. If Starfleet had the capability to safely kill a cube's full complement, I'm pretty sure rescuing the immature drones would become a priority.
Absolutely so, they were absolutely the last option, but they were still an option, making them combatants rather than say hostages. But as before, any drone can be separated frommthe collective, and once separated, regains their native personality and sense of self :cool:
This just wouldn't be a Janeway hater thread without you. Welcome.
And no, Picard pussed out and didn't take the opportunity to destroy the Collective when he had a chance.
Whether due to TRIBBLE poor writing or altering of ships logs or whatever other tinfoil hat theory there is, bottom line is Janeway wasn't prosecuted for anything she did. It's canon that the Federation Council and the top brass at Starfleet disagree she did anything wrong. Canon wins.
Scientific method; if it cannot be defined, it cannot exist.
Basic logic, and also scientific method: If a hypothesis cannot be tested, then it must be rejected out of hand in favor of the null hypothesis.
Since the hypothesis of the existence of a deity or deities is fundamentally untestable from our human perspective, it MUST be rejected out of hand in favor of the null hypothesis (that a deity or deities must exist in some potential universe but most likely NOT this one).
Religion is NOT an excuse for not getting vaccinated.
It seems the common element here is that you refuse to accept on-screen statements made. The Dominion said they didn't want to kill the Romulans, you don't believe them.
The Undine said they wanted to kill everyone, and you don't believe them.
I personally thing it's much more likely the first was a lie (coming from an expanding Empire that demands control of all solids so they can't hurt the Founders), then the second (coming from a foe that blows up planets.)
Minor correction: The Undine were spamming "The weak shall perish!" across subspace.
That's not an explicit declaration of intent to commit genocide, that's a battle cry.
I agree that the Founders were full of BS, but I honestly think that if the Undine had been hit in the face with the fact that not all vaguely humanoid species are like the Borg, they would have been amenable to negotiation.
Hell, the Terradome episode proved that unequivocally.
I doubt the Voyager could outrun the Borg or the Undine. She could have selected suicide, yes. With a strong risk that her action wouldn't help anyone.
Which is why Janeway should've turned her butt around, sailed back into relatively friendly space, and started the "UFP in the Delta Quadrant" or something like that.
Alternatively, she should've added a few months to her trip and just gone the f*ck around.
how long it take to get from Earth to DS9? and yall talk about going around thousands of solar systems..........
and in this game we are worse than janeway ever was dont see yall call for every players head yall need to get over you janeway hater TRIBBLE and move on your not going to accomplish anything here accept like a dog chasing its tail going around and around in a circle
i love to throw yall janeway hater and your families in the middle of nowhere see what you do to make it back home
but this will be the last reply i ever make to a janeway hater thread
1 Starfleet had no problem with what she did
2 its canon move on or buy the IP and rewrite trek history
Basic logic, and also scientific method: If a hypothesis cannot be tested, then it must be rejected out of hand in favor of the null hypothesis.
Since the hypothesis of the existence of a deity or deities is fundamentally untestable from our human perspective, it MUST be rejected out of hand in favor of the null hypothesis (that a deity or deities must exist in some potential universe but most likely NOT this one).
Religion is NOT an excuse for not getting vaccinated.
Therefore, the theory of the Big Bang must be rejected out of hand, as it cannot be tested. So too must the theory of relativity and the darwinian theory. Of course, these are all cornerstones of modern science, so it is obviously more complex than that.
Then there's no excuse for someone not giving their blood for transfusion; except it is their body and they have a right to control what happens to it. If someone doesn't want to be vaccinated, then any attempt to do so is assault and a violation of their personal rights. Furthermore, any doctor who would do so is violating their hippocratic oath to respect a patient's wishes.
And this is besides the point, anyway. The original point was that there is no singular definition of good or evil, therefore calling the Borg evil is not an argument; it's an opinion.
Therefore, the theory of the Big Bang must be rejected out of hand, as it cannot be tested. So too must the theory of relativity and the darwinian theory. Of course, these are all cornerstones of modern science, so it is obviously more complex than that.
Then there's no excuse for someone not giving their blood for transfusion; except it is their body and they have a right to control what happens to it. If someone doesn't want to be vaccinated, then any attempt to do so is assault and a violation of their personal rights. Furthermore, any doctor who would do so is violating their hippocratic oath to respect a patient's wishes.
And this is besides the point, anyway. The original point was that there is no singular definition of good or evil, therefore calling the Borg evil is not an argument; it's an opinion.
Incorrect. We have direct, testable, unequivocal evidence in favor of the scientific theories you've mentioned.
That's why they're theories. They've been tested and tested and TESTED by a metric buttload of bickering nerds who would love nothing more than to poke each others' ideas full of holes, and they've been repeatedly shown to hold true.
Vaccination is a social and civic responsibility. If you don't get yourself and your children vaccinated, you are increasing not only your own infection risk, but the infection risk of those who genuinely could not get vaccinated for actual medical reasons. Furthermore, you're putting any newborn babies you come into contact with at extreme risk, since they have pants immune systems and generally aren't vaccinated for a few days to weeks.
Also, the idea that there is not a singular definition of evil is bullpucky. Why?
Example #1: ISIS. A genocidal organization that is almost universally hated even by the people they claim to be fighting for.
Muslims HATE jihadists, both for giving Islam a bad name and for being the more openly violent Muslim equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church. There are man cultural differences between American Christians and Arab Muslims, and both groups consider different things to be acceptable and different things to be unacceptable, but BOTH agree that ISIS is evil.
Incorrect. We have direct, testable, unequivocal evidence in favor of the scientific theories you've mentioned.
That's why they're theories. They've been tested and tested and TESTED by a metric buttload of bickering nerds who would love nothing more than to poke each others' ideas full of holes, and they've been repeatedly shown to hold true.
Vaccination is a social and civic responsibility. If you don't get yourself and your children vaccinated, you are increasing not only your own infection risk, but the infection risk of those who genuinely could not get vaccinated for actual medical reasons. Furthermore, you're putting any newborn babies you come into contact with at extreme risk, since they have pants immune systems and generally aren't vaccinated for a few days to weeks.
Also, the idea that there is not a singular definition of evil is bullpucky. Why?
Example #1: ISIS. A genocidal organization that is almost universally hated even by the people they claim to be fighting for.
Muslims HATE jihadists, both for giving Islam a bad name and for being the more openly violent Muslim equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church. There are man cultural differences between American Christians and Arab Muslims, and both groups consider different things to be acceptable and different things to be unacceptable, but BOTH agree that ISIS is evil.
There IS such a thing as objective evil.
Except evil is an idea in the minds of every person, and there is no person who is entirely, utterly, completely objective, so there is no such thing as an objective evil. This is the key difference between science and philosophy; science is objective and can be defined irrefutably, while philosophy is subjective and anyone can disagree with it without being wrong, because in philosophy there is no right or wrong. Good and evil fall under philosophy.
For example, I consider a person's fundamental rights to control their own being more important than ensuring the 'greater good', because if everyone was required to act in the name of the 'greater good', it would have to be enforced by revoking their fundamental rights. It's chaos in opposition to order, because chaos gives us control over our own destiny. If we were ruled by the Dominion, you could be guaranteed an orderly society, serving the Dominion's idea of the 'greater good', but at the expense of all personal freedom. Same goes for the Borg and every single society in Star Trek which has been shown to put their idea of the 'greater good' above the freedom of their people.
As another example, TNG: The Enemy. Worf refuses to allow Doctor Crusher to use his blood to save a Romulan, even though it may cause a war. Crusher does not force him to give a transfusion. Why? Because it is within Worf's rights to refuse to give the Romulan a transfusion, regardless of if there's a greater good to be served. So now, you'd have to not only call Worf 'evil' for the act of not giving the transfusion, but also Crusher for not forcing him to. Now, look at your own moral code and tell me; is it right that Crusher be condemned for not forcing Worf to give a transfusion against his will in those circumstances?
EDIT: Also, the differences between Muslims and Christians is a bad example; Muhammad exists in both the Quran and the Bible - they share the same fundamental moral code; the 10 commandments (Islam just runs a slight variation of them). Ethically, Christianity and Islam have the same origins. Of course they consider murder and genocide evil!
However, if you took an alien species, completely separated from our cultural history, you would find that several things we consider evil are considered acceptable to them and vice versa (e.g. the Dominion, the Klingon Empire, etc.).
Except evil is an idea in the minds of every person, and there is no person who is entirely, utterly, completely objective, so there is no such thing as an objective evil. This is the key difference between science and philosophy; science is objective and can be defined irrefutably, while philosophy is subjective and anyone can disagree with it without being wrong, because in philosophy there is no right or wrong. Good and evil fall under philosophy.
For example, I consider a person's fundamental rights to control their own being more important than ensuring the 'greater good', because if everyone was required to act in the name of the 'greater good', it would have to be enforced by revoking their fundamental rights. It's chaos in opposition to order, because chaos gives us control over our own destiny. If we were ruled by the Dominion, you could be guaranteed an orderly society, serving the Dominion's idea of the 'greater good', but at the expense of all personal freedom. Same goes for the Borg and every single society in Star Trek which has been shown to put their idea of the 'greater good' above the freedom of their people.
As another example, TNG: The Enemy. Worf refuses to allow Doctor Crusher to use his blood to save a Romulan, even though it may cause a war. Crusher does not force him to give a transfusion. Why? Because it is within Worf's rights to refuse to give the Romulan a transfusion, regardless of if there's a greater good to be served. So now, you'd have to not only call Worf 'evil' for the act of not giving the transfusion, but also Crusher for not forcing him to. Now, look at your own moral code and tell me; is it right that Crusher be condemned for not forcing Worf to give a transfusion against his will in those circumstances?
There's a difference between transfusions and vaccination.
Barring special medical conditions, vaccination has been repeatedly shown to be nothing but a positive for the person vaccinated and everyone around that person. Transfusion, however, causes direct, if relatively mild, physical harm to the person donating the blood.
Also, I do think that Worf was being an assh*le and letting his prejudices get the better of him. Don't forget that the Romulan refused the transfusion as well, though.
I think that when both patients refuse the life-saving procedure, no matter how stupid their reasons, it probably falls under right-to-die. When someone refuses to take reasonable precautions against communicable diseases (such as vaccination and washing one's hands), that is NOT protected by basic human rights.
You do NOT have a right to put others at risk. You DO have a right to refuse a potentially life-saving procedure, even for really dumb reasons, but you do NOT have a right to put others at risk by not getting vaccinated.
EDIT: Also, the differences between Muslims and Christians is a bad example; Muhammad exists in both the Quran and the Bible - they share the same fundamental moral code; the 10 commandments (Islam just runs a slight variation of them). Ethically, Christianity and Islam have the same origins. Of course they consider murder and genocide evil!
However, if you took an alien species, completely separated from our cultural history, you would find that several things we consider evil are considered acceptable to them and vice versa (e.g. the Dominion, the Klingon Empire, etc.).
Look, the fundamental point is that genocide is NOT OK. The Borg commit genocide and show no remorse nor any sign of willingness to stop. Therefore, the Borg are EVIL.
There is NO justification for what the Borg do. NONE.
Show me a group, religion, or fictional species that considers genocide and murder to be universally permissible. Go on. Throw any example you can at me.
There's a difference between transfusions and vaccination.
Barring special medical conditions, vaccination has been repeatedly shown to be nothing but a positive for the person vaccinated and everyone around that person. Transfusion, however, causes direct, if relatively mild, physical harm to the person donating the blood.
Also, I do think that Worf was being an assh*le and letting his prejudices get the better of him. Don't forget that the Romulan refused the transfusion as well, though.
I think that when both patients refuse the life-saving procedure, no matter how stupid their reasons, it probably falls under right-to-die. When someone refuses to take reasonable precautions against communicable diseases (such as vaccination and washing one's hands), that is NOT protected by basic human rights.
You do NOT have a right to put others at risk. You DO have a right to refuse a potentially life-saving procedure, even for really dumb reasons, but you do NOT have a right to put others at risk by not getting vaccinated.
You missed half my point; there would have been a war if Worf did not give the transfusion; he was putting others at risk - countless more than if he'd refused a vaccination. By your logic, he and the Romulan should have been forced to undergo the transfusion by Doctor Crusher. And you didn't answer my question as to whether she should be condemned for not doing so in these circumstances, where her inaction could have resulted in countless thousands of deaths.
Look, the fundamental point is that genocide is NOT OK. The Borg commit genocide and show no remorse nor any sign of willingness to stop. Therefore, the Borg are EVIL.
There is NO justification for what the Borg do. NONE.
Show me a group, religion, or fictional species that considers genocide and murder to be universally permissible. Go on. Throw any example you can at me.
Oh, that's right. There ARE NONE.
Again, you're using the word evil when I've already given evidence that evil is a philosophical matter and thus not universally definitive. Whether we consider something evil does not mean everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Also, the Borg don't kill, and as proven multiple times, a drone can be liberated. What the Borg do is more akin to hypnosis and enslavement, not genocide. Unimatrix Zero, the Cooperative and Hugh all prove this point.
Any drone can become separated from the collective, and once separated, even if merely by lack of proximity, say in a crash, the native personality resurfaces within hours.
As pointed out above, the personality of the individual reasserts itself after being disconnected from the hive mind. This means the Borg do not commit murder in any sense when they assimilate, as the individual is still there in a physical and psychological sense. Therefore, it is not genocide.
You missed half my point; there would have been a war if Worf did not give the transfusion; he was putting others at risk - countless more than if he'd refused a vaccination. By your logic, he and the Romulan should have been forced to undergo the transfusion by Doctor Crusher. And you didn't answer my question as to whether she should be condemned for not doing so in these circumstances, where her inaction could have resulted in countless thousands of deaths.
But the Romulan refused.
He would rather die than accept a transfusion from a Klingon. And it was his fundamental right to do so.
Also, the likelihood of a war in that situation was greatly overblown; the Romulan leadership was repeatedly shown to be uninterested in war with the Federation, despite Tomalak's antics in the Admiral Jarok incident and the high tensions between the Rihan state and the UFP. Did "Ambassador T'Pel", AKA Subcommander Selok, from "Data's Day" start a Fed-Romulan war? No, although she was in the perfect position to do so. Did the Romulan commander in that episode use the excuse of the Enterprise crossing the Neutral Zone to kill them? No.
Sure, the Rommies d*cked around a little, but they never went to open war. And given the Romulan's refusal and the difficulty of altering sickbay security footage in the time available, simply turning full logs over to the Rommies could avert conflict easily.
Again, you're using the word evil when I've already given evidence that evil is a philosophical matter and thus not universally definitive. Whether we consider something evil does not mean everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Also, the Borg don't kill, and as proven multiple times, a drone can be liberated. What the Borg do is more akin to hypnosis and enslavement, not genocide. Unimatrix Zero, the Cooperative and Hugh all prove this point.
Also,
As pointed out above, the personality of the individual reasserts itself after being disconnected from the hive mind. This means the Borg do not commit murder in any sense when they assimilate, as the individual is still there in a physical and psychological sense. Therefore, it is not genocide.
Assimilation is considered a fate worse than death by all non-Borg sentient species, therefore it is murder.
Ergo, mass assimilation of other species is genocide.
Also, quit with the amateur moral relativism. It's pretentious and logically unsound.
Minor correction: The Undine were spamming "The weak shall perish!" across subspace.
That's not an explicit declaration of intent to commit genocide, that's a battle cry.
.
It could be argued, so I will, it isn't even a battle cry, just a statement of truth - "The weak shall perish"
In a fair fight what happens? The weak perish.
The Undine are alien amongst aliens - they come from a region of space where humanoids don't exist. The Borg show up and promptly get ROFL-stomped as the Undine decide to rid themselves of these annoyances.
The Undine only know the two legged two armed Borg - no other humanoids. Thus, when Voyager happens to encounter the result of one of these ROFL-stomp sessions, and boards an Undine vessel, the Undine state a typical truth, and Voyager's resident trainee telepath misunderstands it.
Janeway? Decides to ignore the fact that Undine are in a combat (or more accurately, pest control) situation and sends in an away team - so to the Undine, a potentially hostile boarding party - onto the Undine ship.
The Undine decide to defend themselves at first, only to figure out Voyager isn't Borg and leave.
Janeway then railroads the Undine as hostile, and ignores Chakotay's attempt to point this all out. At this point, she decides the best plan is to support the Borg, who are being ROFL-stomped like its ISE 3 decades early.
3 decades on, because of Janeway's stupidity and inability to follow first contact procedure, the Undine are now our enemies (if misguided by Iconian decoys) and the Borg are now being ROFL-stomped by Feds/Roms/KDF instead of being wiped out.
The bottom line is Scorpion is pretty much the worst Voyager episode, and should be dropped from canon. (along with Threshold)
It could be argued, so I will, it isn't even a battle cry, just a statement of truth - "The weak shall perish"
In a fair fight what happens? The weak perish.
The Undine are alien amongst aliens - they come from a region of space where humanoids don't exist. The Borg show up and promptly get ROFL-stomped as the Undine decide to rid themselves of these annoyances.
The Undine only know the two legged two armed Borg - no other humanoids. Thus, when Voyager happens to encounter the result of one of these ROFL-stomp sessions, and boards an Undine vessel, the Undine state a typical truth, and Voyager's resident trainee telepath misunderstands it.
Janeway? Decides to ignore the fact that Undine are in a combat (or more accurately, pest control) situation and sends in an away team - so to the Undine, a potentially hostile boarding party - onto the Undine ship.
The Undine decide to defend themselves at first, only to figure out Voyager isn't Borg and leave.
Janeway then railroads the Undine as hostile, and ignores Chakotay's attempt to point this all out. At this point, she decides the best plan is to support the Borg, who are being ROFL-stomped like its ISE 3 decades early.
3 decades on, because of Janeway's stupidity and inability to follow first contact procedure, the Undine are now our enemies (if misguided by Iconian decoys) and the Borg are now being ROFL-stomped by Feds/Roms/KDF instead of being wiped out.
The bottom line is Scorpion is pretty much the worst Voyager episode, and should be dropped from canon. (along with Threshold)
He would rather die than accept a transfusion from a Klingon. And it was his fundamental right to do so.
Also, the likelihood of a war in that situation was greatly overblown; the Romulan leadership was repeatedly shown to be uninterested in war with the Federation, despite Tomalak's antics in the Admiral Jarok incident and the high tensions between the Rihan state and the UFP. Did "Ambassador T'Pel", AKA Subcommander Selok, from "Data's Day" start a Fed-Romulan war? No, although she was in the perfect position to do so. Did the Romulan commander in that episode use the excuse of the Enterprise crossing the Neutral Zone to kill them? No.
Sure, the Rommies d*cked around a little, but they never went to open war. And given the Romulan's refusal and the difficulty of altering sickbay security footage in the time available, simply turning full logs over to the Rommies could avert conflict easily.
The Enterprise crew did not know that at the time though. As far as Picard knew, Tomalak could have been fully prepared to use the death of his crewman as an excuse to escalate the situation to war. Picard mentions this to Worf in the same episode that by not saving the Romulan, Worf is risking a war. That was my point, he was risking it. Just as anyone who refuses vaccination risks infecting others. Same goes for the Romulan; he was risking a war by not accepting the transfusion. Therefore, just as someone should be forced to undergo vaccination, so too should those two have been forced upon the transfusion, according to your own logic. If there is no excuse for not getting vaccinated, then there is even less of an excuse for risking an interstellar war!
Assimilation is considered a fate worse than death by all non-Borg sentient species, therefore it is murder.
Ergo, mass assimilation of other species is genocide.
Also, quit with the amateur moral relativism. It's pretentious and logically unsound.
According to the UCMJ, certain kinds of assault are considered murder, so fall under that punishment, so in a legal sense, yes.
However, any individual who is assimilated, has the capacity to be disconnected from the collective (I won't say de-assimilated, as some individuals are too drastically altered) meaning that even entire races which are assimilated (and there's been no canon evidence I'm aware of Entire Species being assimilated, only individuals of said species...) so in a literal sense, no it's not, because the person can be saved.
The Enterprise crew did not know that at the time though. As far as Picard knew, Tomalak could have been fully prepared to use the death of his crewman as an excuse to escalate the situation to war. Picard mentions this to Worf in the same episode that by not saving the Romulan, Worf is risking a war. That was my point, he was risking it. Just as anyone who refuses vaccination risks infecting others. Same goes for the Romulan; he was risking a war by not accepting the transfusion. Therefore, just as someone should be forced to undergo vaccination, so too should those two have been forced upon the transfusion, according to your own logic. If there is no excuse for not getting vaccinated, then there is even less of an excuse for risking an interstellar war!
That's BS. Unless the Enterprise crew were completely blind, they would have noticed that all of the near-wars with the Romulans, no matter how bad, had NOT flared into open conflict. That really raises big doubts about the willingness of the Rihan people to go to war.
The risk was minimal to nonexistant, unlike going around unvaccinated where the risk has been repeatedly shown to be significant.
There is always a trivial amount of risk. Simply by existing the USA is risking a war with every other country on Earth. Sure, that risk is almost zero, but it exists.
I'm risking death simply by being alive. That risk is almost zero, but it exists.
If I were to refuse my vaccinations, I would have a significant risk of catching communicable diseases. I know this from some experience, as I (deathly afraid of needles) refused to get vaccinated for the swine flu.
Then I went to a rock concert, and spent the next 3 weeks puking my guts out with--guess what?--the swine flu.
When I was 4, my family was unable to get regular flu shots at our normal early date due to a schedule SNAFU. Me, my two-year-old brother, and my mom spent a month wheezing and puking.
Short version is, vaccination is important. Without it, there is a distinct and non-trivial risk of both becoming infected and infecting others.
Assimilation is considered a fate worse than death by all non-Borg sentient species, therefore it is murder.
Ergo, mass assimilation of other species is genocide.
Also, quit with the amateur moral relativism. It's pretentious and logically unsound.
It isn't because morality is subjective. Did the TRIBBLE think they were evil? No. Therefore morality is subjective. If it is subjective, then it is relative, because everyone has a different idea of what is right. I don't agree that bombing Dresden was right; many do.
It's like George Santayana saying 'Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it' and someone else disagreeing with him; it's a philosophy, therefore subjective!
And again, since the person is not dead in ANY sense; since they can be restored both physically and mentally to how they were, it is not genocide; it is mass slavery with the individual's personality suppressed. Suppressed, not destroyed. Is it wrong? In my opinion, yes, greatly so. Give me liberty or give me death. But it is NOT death and I would resolve to risk my own life saving such an individual as opposed to killing them, Borg or not!
As pointed out after the Holodeck scene in First Contact, after Picard kills an assimilated member of his crew, when the human girl from the past berates him for it he says, 'I couldn't save him'. The girl then replies, 'you didn't even try!' showing the point that wiping out the Borg is just as bad as what the Borg do.
The answer is not to destroy the Borg, but to liberate them! We know we can liberate them because the individual consciousness is still there in every drone; they still have their souls! Therefore, they aren't dead and can be saved. This is the key difference between Assimilation and Genocide; when a populous is exterminated, there is no way to get them back - they're gone forever. Assimilation, however only suppresses the individuals' personalities. They can be restored. They're not gone.
The Undine reserved to exterminate the Borg, killing every single drone, ending all possibility that they could be restored - they're gone forever. What the Undine were doing is closer to genocide than what the Borg do.
Comments
The Undine proved that they could annihilate a cube's worth of Drones with only a handful of themselves.
Because plot. The same plot that turned to Borg from a collective into a bunch of ants. I never disputed Voyager's writing was bad.
My point is that it's possible. Icheb and Co. set the precedent that un-matured drones can be liberated.
And you have not contested my point that those drones do represent non-combatants.
I've mentioned my piece on this several times, and I'm not going to get into another argument about the morality of Janeway's actions. Let's agree to disagree.
Everything is relative. If it weren't, then everyone would have exactly the same brains.
Which, by the way, is why you called the Borg evil. Relativity is what makes us individuals. So yes, morality is relative.
Did it occur to you that assimilation is the Borgs' only method of procreation? It's like the Kobali; if they didn't do it, they'd go extinct.
This is... oh boy...
Okay, speaking as a religious man, I'd like to point out that to many how they'll be judged in the afterlife is more important than their own life. You may think it's wrong, but to them, it's their deity's will. This is one of the most important reasons for tolerance; everyone has a different view on what is and isn't good/evil, therefore we come back to my statement that those concepts do not exist. Scientific method; if it cannot be defined, it cannot exist.
Aside from not even trying to save the Borg that could have been saved. They may not have known, but if we're using our standard western approach to morality, then they still killed innocent, defenceless people.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Just being the devil's advocate here, but as I recall, France was also involved in the decolonisation of the Middle East and the UN wanted a country where the Jews could govern themselves without persecution. Also, Britain was on the verge of economic collapse at the time; we had to decolonise.
It was handled terribly and I think it's inexcusable that the West can stand by and let what's happening in Israel happen and, in the case of the US, basically support it!
And, again, it wasn't completely our fault; the UN wanted Israel created, Britain and France just chose to give away Jordanian territory to do it. I don't agree with it, because it's basically ending one minority's suffering at the expense of another, but the alternative was a massive inflation of immigrants in countries which couldn't afford to improve the lives of their own people, let alone anybody else.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
It seems the common element here is that you refuse to accept on-screen statements made. The Dominion said they didn't want to kill the Romulans, you don't believe them.
The Undine said they wanted to kill everyone, and you don't believe them.
I personally thing it's much more likely the first was a lie (coming from an expanding Empire that demands control of all solids so they can't hurt the Founders), then the second (coming from a foe that blows up planets.)
I doubt the Voyager could outrun the Borg or the Undine. She could have selected suicide, yes. With a strong risk that her action wouldn't help anyone.
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!
Any connected drone anywhere is an active combatant, and must be treated as such.
However.
Any drone can become separated from the collective, and once separated, even if merely by lack of proximity, say in a crash, the native personality resurfaces within hours.
Separation is possible, but not a viable technique for open warfare (although arguably, if Starfleet or the Romulans were to find a way to disrupt entire areas of the collective network, say the radius of an entire star system, then separation would become not only viable, but ethically required, as it would mean that any and all drones go from being active combatants, to 'Human shields' who can be rescued...)
:cool:
If I remember correctly, that was only after every other drone on the ship had been killed, and even then the immature drones could not function very well without the support of the adult drones. If Starfleet had the capability to safely kill a cube's full complement, I'm pretty sure rescuing the immature drones would become a priority.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Exposing fakes since 2374
Never said it wasn't ridiculous , but your "fixing" the world is just painful, and nothing more than a Fanfic
However... looking at it from an in-world perspective.... The Borg are a known, and very serious, threat. (Although it is possible to reach a peaceful accommodation with them... and the Kazon, of all people, have managed it. What's their secret? Big hair? Not bathing?... But I digress.)
At the time Janeway first encountered them, the Undine were clearly powerful and dangerous - but she knew virtually nothing about them beyond that, and, well, "powerful, dangerous and unknown" was pretty much what the ship was running into, most of the time.
In the circumstances, some very careful diplomatic overtures would have been the sensible thing to do. You only get one chance to make a first impression, after all. Something along the lines of "Hello, Species 8472. We understand you have a Borg problem. We have a Borg problem, too. Can we talk it over?" would have been good. Janeway's "Hi there! We are Starfleet, and we WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO DESTROY YOU!" was... not an optimal solution.
(Heck, it pretty much set the tone for all future relations with the Undine, didn't it? We're paying for her mistake now.)
this post get me all warm and tingly inside
system Lord Baal is dead
Basic logic, and also scientific method: If a hypothesis cannot be tested, then it must be rejected out of hand in favor of the null hypothesis.
Since the hypothesis of the existence of a deity or deities is fundamentally untestable from our human perspective, it MUST be rejected out of hand in favor of the null hypothesis (that a deity or deities must exist in some potential universe but most likely NOT this one).
Religion is NOT an excuse for not getting vaccinated.
That's not an explicit declaration of intent to commit genocide, that's a battle cry.
I agree that the Founders were full of BS, but I honestly think that if the Undine had been hit in the face with the fact that not all vaguely humanoid species are like the Borg, they would have been amenable to negotiation.
Hell, the Terradome episode proved that unequivocally.
Which is why Janeway should've turned her butt around, sailed back into relatively friendly space, and started the "UFP in the Delta Quadrant" or something like that.
Alternatively, she should've added a few months to her trip and just gone the f*ck around.
and in this game we are worse than janeway ever was dont see yall call for every players head yall need to get over you janeway hater TRIBBLE and move on your not going to accomplish anything here accept like a dog chasing its tail going around and around in a circle
i love to throw yall janeway hater and your families in the middle of nowhere see what you do to make it back home
but this will be the last reply i ever make to a janeway hater thread
1 Starfleet had no problem with what she did
2 its canon move on or buy the IP and rewrite trek history
3 nothing you can say will ever change 1
4 move on
5 ty and have a nice janeway hater day
system Lord Baal is dead
Therefore, the theory of the Big Bang must be rejected out of hand, as it cannot be tested. So too must the theory of relativity and the darwinian theory. Of course, these are all cornerstones of modern science, so it is obviously more complex than that.
Then there's no excuse for someone not giving their blood for transfusion; except it is their body and they have a right to control what happens to it. If someone doesn't want to be vaccinated, then any attempt to do so is assault and a violation of their personal rights. Furthermore, any doctor who would do so is violating their hippocratic oath to respect a patient's wishes.
And this is besides the point, anyway. The original point was that there is no singular definition of good or evil, therefore calling the Borg evil is not an argument; it's an opinion.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Incorrect. We have direct, testable, unequivocal evidence in favor of the scientific theories you've mentioned.
That's why they're theories. They've been tested and tested and TESTED by a metric buttload of bickering nerds who would love nothing more than to poke each others' ideas full of holes, and they've been repeatedly shown to hold true.
Vaccination is a social and civic responsibility. If you don't get yourself and your children vaccinated, you are increasing not only your own infection risk, but the infection risk of those who genuinely could not get vaccinated for actual medical reasons. Furthermore, you're putting any newborn babies you come into contact with at extreme risk, since they have pants immune systems and generally aren't vaccinated for a few days to weeks.
Also, the idea that there is not a singular definition of evil is bullpucky. Why?
Example #1: ISIS. A genocidal organization that is almost universally hated even by the people they claim to be fighting for.
Muslims HATE jihadists, both for giving Islam a bad name and for being the more openly violent Muslim equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church. There are man cultural differences between American Christians and Arab Muslims, and both groups consider different things to be acceptable and different things to be unacceptable, but BOTH agree that ISIS is evil.
There IS such a thing as objective evil.
Except evil is an idea in the minds of every person, and there is no person who is entirely, utterly, completely objective, so there is no such thing as an objective evil. This is the key difference between science and philosophy; science is objective and can be defined irrefutably, while philosophy is subjective and anyone can disagree with it without being wrong, because in philosophy there is no right or wrong. Good and evil fall under philosophy.
For example, I consider a person's fundamental rights to control their own being more important than ensuring the 'greater good', because if everyone was required to act in the name of the 'greater good', it would have to be enforced by revoking their fundamental rights. It's chaos in opposition to order, because chaos gives us control over our own destiny. If we were ruled by the Dominion, you could be guaranteed an orderly society, serving the Dominion's idea of the 'greater good', but at the expense of all personal freedom. Same goes for the Borg and every single society in Star Trek which has been shown to put their idea of the 'greater good' above the freedom of their people.
As another example, TNG: The Enemy. Worf refuses to allow Doctor Crusher to use his blood to save a Romulan, even though it may cause a war. Crusher does not force him to give a transfusion. Why? Because it is within Worf's rights to refuse to give the Romulan a transfusion, regardless of if there's a greater good to be served. So now, you'd have to not only call Worf 'evil' for the act of not giving the transfusion, but also Crusher for not forcing him to. Now, look at your own moral code and tell me; is it right that Crusher be condemned for not forcing Worf to give a transfusion against his will in those circumstances?
EDIT: Also, the differences between Muslims and Christians is a bad example; Muhammad exists in both the Quran and the Bible - they share the same fundamental moral code; the 10 commandments (Islam just runs a slight variation of them). Ethically, Christianity and Islam have the same origins. Of course they consider murder and genocide evil!
However, if you took an alien species, completely separated from our cultural history, you would find that several things we consider evil are considered acceptable to them and vice versa (e.g. the Dominion, the Klingon Empire, etc.).
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
There's a difference between transfusions and vaccination.
Barring special medical conditions, vaccination has been repeatedly shown to be nothing but a positive for the person vaccinated and everyone around that person. Transfusion, however, causes direct, if relatively mild, physical harm to the person donating the blood.
Also, I do think that Worf was being an assh*le and letting his prejudices get the better of him. Don't forget that the Romulan refused the transfusion as well, though.
I think that when both patients refuse the life-saving procedure, no matter how stupid their reasons, it probably falls under right-to-die. When someone refuses to take reasonable precautions against communicable diseases (such as vaccination and washing one's hands), that is NOT protected by basic human rights.
You do NOT have a right to put others at risk. You DO have a right to refuse a potentially life-saving procedure, even for really dumb reasons, but you do NOT have a right to put others at risk by not getting vaccinated.
Look, the fundamental point is that genocide is NOT OK. The Borg commit genocide and show no remorse nor any sign of willingness to stop. Therefore, the Borg are EVIL.
There is NO justification for what the Borg do. NONE.
Show me a group, religion, or fictional species that considers genocide and murder to be universally permissible. Go on. Throw any example you can at me.
Oh, that's right. There ARE NONE.
You missed half my point; there would have been a war if Worf did not give the transfusion; he was putting others at risk - countless more than if he'd refused a vaccination. By your logic, he and the Romulan should have been forced to undergo the transfusion by Doctor Crusher. And you didn't answer my question as to whether she should be condemned for not doing so in these circumstances, where her inaction could have resulted in countless thousands of deaths.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Again, you're using the word evil when I've already given evidence that evil is a philosophical matter and thus not universally definitive. Whether we consider something evil does not mean everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Also, the Borg don't kill, and as proven multiple times, a drone can be liberated. What the Borg do is more akin to hypnosis and enslavement, not genocide. Unimatrix Zero, the Cooperative and Hugh all prove this point.
Also,
As pointed out above, the personality of the individual reasserts itself after being disconnected from the hive mind. This means the Borg do not commit murder in any sense when they assimilate, as the individual is still there in a physical and psychological sense. Therefore, it is not genocide.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
But the Romulan refused.
He would rather die than accept a transfusion from a Klingon. And it was his fundamental right to do so.
Also, the likelihood of a war in that situation was greatly overblown; the Romulan leadership was repeatedly shown to be uninterested in war with the Federation, despite Tomalak's antics in the Admiral Jarok incident and the high tensions between the Rihan state and the UFP. Did "Ambassador T'Pel", AKA Subcommander Selok, from "Data's Day" start a Fed-Romulan war? No, although she was in the perfect position to do so. Did the Romulan commander in that episode use the excuse of the Enterprise crossing the Neutral Zone to kill them? No.
Sure, the Rommies d*cked around a little, but they never went to open war. And given the Romulan's refusal and the difficulty of altering sickbay security footage in the time available, simply turning full logs over to the Rommies could avert conflict easily.
Assimilation is considered a fate worse than death by all non-Borg sentient species, therefore it is murder.
Ergo, mass assimilation of other species is genocide.
Also, quit with the amateur moral relativism. It's pretentious and logically unsound.
It could be argued, so I will, it isn't even a battle cry, just a statement of truth - "The weak shall perish"
In a fair fight what happens? The weak perish.
The Undine are alien amongst aliens - they come from a region of space where humanoids don't exist. The Borg show up and promptly get ROFL-stomped as the Undine decide to rid themselves of these annoyances.
The Undine only know the two legged two armed Borg - no other humanoids. Thus, when Voyager happens to encounter the result of one of these ROFL-stomp sessions, and boards an Undine vessel, the Undine state a typical truth, and Voyager's resident trainee telepath misunderstands it.
Janeway? Decides to ignore the fact that Undine are in a combat (or more accurately, pest control) situation and sends in an away team - so to the Undine, a potentially hostile boarding party - onto the Undine ship.
The Undine decide to defend themselves at first, only to figure out Voyager isn't Borg and leave.
Janeway then railroads the Undine as hostile, and ignores Chakotay's attempt to point this all out. At this point, she decides the best plan is to support the Borg, who are being ROFL-stomped like its ISE 3 decades early.
3 decades on, because of Janeway's stupidity and inability to follow first contact procedure, the Undine are now our enemies (if misguided by Iconian decoys) and the Borg are now being ROFL-stomped by Feds/Roms/KDF instead of being wiped out.
The bottom line is Scorpion is pretty much the worst Voyager episode, and should be dropped from canon. (along with Threshold)
All of this^^^^^^^
The Enterprise crew did not know that at the time though. As far as Picard knew, Tomalak could have been fully prepared to use the death of his crewman as an excuse to escalate the situation to war. Picard mentions this to Worf in the same episode that by not saving the Romulan, Worf is risking a war. That was my point, he was risking it. Just as anyone who refuses vaccination risks infecting others. Same goes for the Romulan; he was risking a war by not accepting the transfusion. Therefore, just as someone should be forced to undergo vaccination, so too should those two have been forced upon the transfusion, according to your own logic. If there is no excuse for not getting vaccinated, then there is even less of an excuse for risking an interstellar war!
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
According to the UCMJ, certain kinds of assault are considered murder, so fall under that punishment, so in a legal sense, yes.
However, any individual who is assimilated, has the capacity to be disconnected from the collective (I won't say de-assimilated, as some individuals are too drastically altered) meaning that even entire races which are assimilated (and there's been no canon evidence I'm aware of Entire Species being assimilated, only individuals of said species...) so in a literal sense, no it's not, because the person can be saved.
That's BS. Unless the Enterprise crew were completely blind, they would have noticed that all of the near-wars with the Romulans, no matter how bad, had NOT flared into open conflict. That really raises big doubts about the willingness of the Rihan people to go to war.
The risk was minimal to nonexistant, unlike going around unvaccinated where the risk has been repeatedly shown to be significant.
There is always a trivial amount of risk. Simply by existing the USA is risking a war with every other country on Earth. Sure, that risk is almost zero, but it exists.
I'm risking death simply by being alive. That risk is almost zero, but it exists.
If I were to refuse my vaccinations, I would have a significant risk of catching communicable diseases. I know this from some experience, as I (deathly afraid of needles) refused to get vaccinated for the swine flu.
Then I went to a rock concert, and spent the next 3 weeks puking my guts out with--guess what?--the swine flu.
When I was 4, my family was unable to get regular flu shots at our normal early date due to a schedule SNAFU. Me, my two-year-old brother, and my mom spent a month wheezing and puking.
Short version is, vaccination is important. Without it, there is a distinct and non-trivial risk of both becoming infected and infecting others.
It isn't because morality is subjective. Did the TRIBBLE think they were evil? No. Therefore morality is subjective. If it is subjective, then it is relative, because everyone has a different idea of what is right. I don't agree that bombing Dresden was right; many do.
It's like George Santayana saying 'Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it' and someone else disagreeing with him; it's a philosophy, therefore subjective!
And again, since the person is not dead in ANY sense; since they can be restored both physically and mentally to how they were, it is not genocide; it is mass slavery with the individual's personality suppressed. Suppressed, not destroyed. Is it wrong? In my opinion, yes, greatly so. Give me liberty or give me death. But it is NOT death and I would resolve to risk my own life saving such an individual as opposed to killing them, Borg or not!
As pointed out after the Holodeck scene in First Contact, after Picard kills an assimilated member of his crew, when the human girl from the past berates him for it he says, 'I couldn't save him'. The girl then replies, 'you didn't even try!' showing the point that wiping out the Borg is just as bad as what the Borg do.
The answer is not to destroy the Borg, but to liberate them! We know we can liberate them because the individual consciousness is still there in every drone; they still have their souls! Therefore, they aren't dead and can be saved. This is the key difference between Assimilation and Genocide; when a populous is exterminated, there is no way to get them back - they're gone forever. Assimilation, however only suppresses the individuals' personalities. They can be restored. They're not gone.
The Undine reserved to exterminate the Borg, killing every single drone, ending all possibility that they could be restored - they're gone forever. What the Undine were doing is closer to genocide than what the Borg do.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood