and in that particular sense, i'm more romantic than erotic. dont care how it is. as long as its there
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
and usable of course.
I don't know if I have the exact same standard as the others, but I do know that plot is important to me. What I object to is you ignoring the plot points shown in Balance of Terror and claiming it was a simple cat and mouse episode. I also find it strange that you do this with an episode that first introduced the Romulans, a race you are supposed to be a fan of.Reliant121 wrote:See, Rochey/Seafort/Katefan expect me to have the exact same standard, plot is superior. I can appreciate a plot, but I am a man for eye candy. call me simple or something, i seriously dont give a crap. And what Katefan said about me missing the point, I watch star trek for one thing: enjoyment. not to look for meanings, not to look for deeper philosophy. Enjoyment. Now if your enjoyment is looking for that, then fine. But it is not for me.
I see your point but the point that he and other were making is that you dont need solid proof to back up your opinion. He see's Kirk as being annoying, he may not be any more annoying that other captains on paper but he comes off that way.And that is one of the things I find frustrating in arguing with you. You claim Kirk is arrogant, yet fail to show any indication of that arrogance that goes beyond any instance not also shown by any of the other captains. You say he is violent but are unable to prove he is more violent than, say, Worf or Sisko. Chauvenist? Like I said, it was the sixties and there were different standards. In
So it was okay because it was what everyone else was doing? That's no excuse IMOMikey wrote: Chauvinism implies a particularly conscious decision to treat women in a certain way; no such decision is involved in Kirk's case, because he treated them no better or worse than the norm of the mid-to-late '60's.
What exactly did he do that's so bad?Blackstar the Chakat wrote:[
So it was okay because it was what everyone else was doing? That's no excuse IMO
That's not what I said. I said he was following the socializations of the time period, with making a conscious decision to act in a chauvinistic manner. That has nothing to do with how it translates to a 2008 moral compass, nor whether or not your moral compass is more valid than mine, or his, or anyone else's.Blackstar the Chakat wrote:So it was okay because it was what everyone else was doing? That's no excuse IMOMikey wrote: Chauvinism implies a particularly conscious decision to treat women in a certain way; no such decision is involved in Kirk's case, because he treated them no better or worse than the norm of the mid-to-late '60's.
Because she's a woman and saying "any humans" sounds fucking stupid. I watch TOS today and I don't notice and sexism at all, in fact Kirk was protective of all his crew.Reliant121 wrote:Then I ask, how can i appreciate it if i cant understand it? I cannot understand it. i've tried to imagine a society based like that. I cant. i cant think of living in it. I cannot comprehend it. So how can i appreciate?
and i am bringing in only one item of proof, because it's been a little while since i saw TOS.
Turnabout intruder: Dr. Lester inhabits kirk. Blah blah blah she gets sent back to her body. Now in an extract from his ending log; "Her her life could have been as full as any woman's".
Admittedly, this can be semantic. but if i remember there was a little emphasis on Woman's. Why not anyones? why distinguish specifically that it was a womans life. Why distinguish?