www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:As I understand it one of the core idea of Trek is that bigotry of that kind is meant to have died out a long time ago; we may dispute the realism of that, but it is supposed to have happened.

STVI seems to refute that rather emphatically.

I was thinking more of the TNG era.

Tsukiyumi wrote:That's actually one of my all-time favorite Kirk moments, when he says that out loud. You just know the anger has been building for years...

My personal favourite is "the word is no. I am therefore going anyway."

Picard and co ignored Starfleet orders in FC to save the Federation from assimilation, and Insurrection to save a bunch of luddites from inconvenience.

Kirk and co ignored Starfleet orders in TSFS because of a plea from a friend. That's why I much prefer the old crew to the new.

I would have thought the FC sitch.

Captain Seafort wrote:
My personal favourite is "the word is no. I am therefore going anyway."

Picard and co ignored Starfleet orders in FC to save the Federation from assimilation, and Insurrection to save a bunch of luddites from inconvenience.

Kirk and co ignored Starfleet orders in TSFS because of a plea from a friend. That's why I much prefer the old crew to the new.

Exactly, from the TOS cast I get that they do what they do because of their friendship (incidently that's why a RL soldier fights). With TNG Picard and crew appear to be drones to dogma, Patrick is a terrific actor but even he can only do so much with what he's given.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Patrick is a terrific actor but even he can only do so much with what he's given.

It's certainly clear that at times the writers weren't thinking straight when they wrote certainly lines. A Frenchman bragging about Trafalgar?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:Patrick is a terrific actor but even he can only do so much with what he's given.

It's certainly clear that at times the writers weren't thinking straight when they wrote certainly lines. A Frenchman, bragging about Trafalgar?

Captain Seafort wrote:
It's certainly clear that at times the writers weren't thinking straight when they wrote certainly lines. A Frenchman bragging about Trafalgar?

Perhaps he was bragging that the guy lived.

ond we start having designed babies which in my opinion is only a decade or so away we will see a drastic drop in the homosexual population.

You get pregnant and go see the doctor. He gives you a form with dozens of boxes for all types of thing, parkinsons, alzhimers, heart defect ect ect. In my opinion given the choice a mother would tick all of those boxes. Who doesnt want to child to be healthy and happy. Now slightly more in question is if they would let you choose the look, I think they probably would but thats more iffy. Now if there was a box there for gay I cant see to many people, even people who have no problem with it morally, who would not tick that box. Being straight is easier, every gay person I know says it is even if they are happy being gay.

So I think there would be such a small gay population in the future to be almost non existant.

Congenital organ defects and diseases with a genetic component - Tay-Sachs, Alzheimer's, etc. - are one thing. But so far, there isn't any compelling evidence that homosexuality isd efinitely and completely a genetic or congenital state of being, so I think your analogy falls apart.

I will look for it but I believe they have found some sort of Gay gene.

Or to be more correct, a gene gay people have which straight people don't. Thus if you change that gene they may no longer be gay.

And since almost everyone agrees now being gay is not a choice. It is something you are. If that is the case it must be an inbuilt function which would be in your genes.

Teaos wrote:I will look for it but I believe they have found some sort of Gay gene.

Or to be more correct, a gene gay people have which straight people don't. Thus if you change that gene they may no longer be gay.

That makes a hypothesis, not a fact. I have yet to read to find any evidence that is more than anecdotal and circumstantial that this gene is solely responsible for homosexuality.

And since almost everyone agrees now being gay is not a choice. It is something you are. If that is the case it must be an inbuilt function which would be in your genes.

One doesn't lead to the other. One can be socialized without consent, even without one's conscious knowledge.

Teaos wrote:Now if there was a box there for gay I cant see to many people, even people who have no problem with it morally, who would not tick that box. Being straight is easier, every gay person I know says it is even if they are happy being gay.

So I think there would be such a small gay population in the future to be almost non existant.

And that lasts until the bias goes, at which point people stop ticking the boxes and here come the gays again.

Its bias to want your kid to have children naturally?

To want them to be like you?

Teaos wrote:Its bias to want your kid to have children naturally?

To want them to be like you?

No but I'd rather they have the choice that was denied us.

What choice? They dont choose to be gay. They just are.