YOU are involved in the events of INS

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:43 pm

The metaphasic radiation was no more a natural part of the Ba'ku species' existence than a life support machine - it was sustaining a population that was at best barely sufficent to survive otherwise.

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:45 pm

It was - but after 300 years, I'd easily call it an inherent part of their day-to-day lives.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:51 pm

If I'd lived with a life support machine for 300 years, and it had been an inherent part of the lives of at least one or two generations that every single person had one, then yes. The life support would be a natural part of the culture.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:30 am

Why are the Ba'ku necessarily being deprived of the radiation if they're moved? Surely the UFP can supply them with it, just like they can supply their own people. Therefore there'd be no loss of lifespan for them.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:51 pm

Rochey wrote:Why are the Ba'ku necessarily being deprived of the radiation if they're moved? Surely the UFP can supply them with it, just like they can supply their own people. Therefore there'd be no loss of lifespan for them.

The UFP's initial treatment of them clearly indicates that the Ba'ku aren't Fed citizens. Now, if the UFP was willing to kidnap them and steal their planet, why should we think that the same UFP would go to any expense to extend teh benefits of that stlen radiation to them?

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:24 pm

If they're that uncaring about keeping the Ba'ku alive, why not just nuke the site from orbit?
They obviously cared enough that they were willing to undertake the time and expense of moving them all in secret.

Sonic Glitch · Post by **Sonic Glitch** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:36 pm

Rochey wrote:If they're that uncaring about keeping the Ba'ku alive, why not just nuke the site from orbit?
They obviously cared enough that they were willing to undertake the time and expense of moving them all in secret.

Because the "good guys" (the Federation) are only allowed to be shown as slightly immoral in American entertainment in the 90s as opposed to completely immoral? I'm with Mikey on this issue by the way.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:15 pm

me,myself and I wrote:Because the "good guys" (the Federation) are only allowed to be shown as slightly immoral in American entertainment in the 90s as opposed to completely immoral?

Then why were they depicted as genocidal in "Homeward"?

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:38 pm

Ah, but that's the good type of genocide.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:44 pm

So, you're saying that they were willing to dupe and kidnap the Ba'ku, and steal their planet (seriously affecting the Ba'ku's on lifespans, BTW) because the Ba'ku's well-being was their first priority?

Sonic Glitch · Post by **Sonic Glitch** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:02 am

Captain Seafort wrote:
me,myself and I wrote:Because the "good guys" (the Federation) are only allowed to be shown as slightly immoral in American entertainment in the 90s as opposed to completely immoral?
Then why were they depicted as genocidal in "Homeward"?

Because it wasn't obvious? I haven't seen that episode in a while so I don't recall the specifics. Was that the one with Worfs stepbrother?

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:01 am

So, you're saying that they were willing to dupe and kidnap the Ba'ku, and steal their planet (seriously affecting the Ba'ku's on lifespans, BTW) because the Ba'ku's well-being was their first priority?

No, they were willing to dupe and kidnap the Ba'ku and steal their planet because it could help billions, if not trillions, of people. My point was that they also had no interest in harming the Ba'ku, and were obviously interested in keeping them alive.

Reliant121 · Post by **Reliant121** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:42 pm

So...out of curiousity, would you support the government if it demolished my street, to put in a new motorway? us lot have no home, but the masses get places faster. Is that right?

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:38 pm

Reliant121 wrote:So...out of curiousity, would you support the government if it demolished my street, to put in a new motorway? us lot have no home, but the masses get places faster. Is that right?

For a new motorway, no, for a new hospital I would.

Reliant121 · Post by **Reliant121** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:42 pm

And where Am i to go? i have nowhere to go. Because of blood condition, i cant live on the streets. my family has nowhere to put us up. So i am to die? You would kill one, you save a hundred? I suppose its personal choice, but I dont have the guts to do that.

YOU are involved in the events of INS

What would you do in Picard's place?

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS

Re: YOU are involved in the events of INS