Gotta give props for even working in the Konami code.
I actually had a random memory of watching this show recently. Specifically, I remembered one episode where the geek-cop summoned Automan by typing "AUTOMAN" on a cash register. Yes, it really was an awesome show. At least, I remember thinking Automan's car looked pretty awesome.
Thanks for the promote! In reply to this comment by littledragon_79: *promote
All I can say is: nailed it.
@kasinator I agree, we need Star Trek back on the air again to give us some sort of pop-culture that reinforces the idea that all people should try to engage in moral reasoning about everything they do. I'd really like to see someone take on a version of Trek that mostly tried to echo the ethical struggles of our era, and try to hash them out. Part of the problem is that all of the key struggles we're having today are considered unquestionably settled in the Federation, all questions economic are settled (via a mechanism that always remains steadfastly off-camera), all questions about the proper role of the state seem settled (but again, the role of the state in non-Starfleet lives is hardly ever mentioned), certainly the idea of respecting all religions, and viewing all sentient lifeforms without prejudice is so ingrained in Federation citizens that it's shocking to even hear them make mild jibes about the physical attributes of another race. I almost think the right way to reboot Star Trek now would be to have it be about someone in the 24th century making a reality show that follows the lives of a group of teens coming of age on Earth in the Federation...and then give us some insight into how the Federation gets a little screwed up by the resurrection of media they thought had thankfully died off in WW3...
@kasinator, I agree with your point, but I also think you're restating the conclusion of the original video -- not that the Prime Directive is bad, but that the way it became an unquestioned dogma in the series was bad. Like the original video showed, there are plenty of examples where the only defense of Prime Directive absolutism were fallacious arguments (argument from ignorance, and argument from authority were highlighted). I argue that that's because it's a TV show, and the writers obviously weren't trained moral philosophers. Also, they'd long since painted themselves into a corner by making such a big deal about how it's a core principle of their civilization -- like, say, the 1st Amendment. To state the obvious, the Federation isn't a real civilization, so its laws, ethics, and doctrines aren't going to have the same rigor as ones that have been subjected to centuries of debate by real people who have to live by them. In any case, discuss is more meant for questions of rules infractions about a video, not just for comment threads that get interesting. *return
Quite well done. I've usually excused the capricious way in which the "prime directive" ended up being a placeholder for "I need the heroes to be conflicted about resolving a major issue by doing something trivial so there's dramatic tension", but he really nails them to the wall. The real problem is that after Gene Roddenberry died, you had that awful, awful travesty known as Star Trek: Voyager, where following the Prime Directive always meant doing something hideously awful. The other series got sketchy about it at times, but ST:Voy is really the issue here.
We'll see. Conway is gonna let it drop, sorta, largely because there are substantive things wrong with Paul's policies, and would rather drive the focus back towards that, now that the press-bait of Aqua Buddha has done its job. In reply to this comment by AmandaF: Buddha is being brought up again and again. Paul is nevertheless facing the disappointment of his university-days prank. The NoZe brotherhood was a group of students Rand Paul was a part of at Baylor. The group was founded to trigger aggravation for the administration. The disputed reports of the NoZe Brotherhood cover an array of intrusions. One of the many stories is that they kidnapped a female and asked her to "worship the Aqua Buddha". This is a little embarrassing for Paul, I wonder if there is enough personal loans in this world to sweep this under the rug.
Thanks for the quality! In reply to this comment by jwray: *quality
Thanks for the quality. In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson: >> ^NetRunner: Why do I have comments from two people who apparently didn't watch the video? Because soon, watching things will be just like reading. Why sit and watch when you can have thoughts beamed into your brain in a fraction of the time? Also *quality to piss off the neigh sayers
@blankfist vehicular homicide isn't some myth, people commit murder with their car all the time. Also, there's a lot of people accidentally killing pedestrians with cars. We have very different ways of dealing with those situations under the eyes of the law. Which is to say, the state tells you that you need to hit your brakes, or else they'll violently coerce you. Just like they tell you to test for salmonella in food before you serve it to people, or else they'll violently coerce you. And you're okay with letting it do so. Which, according to the standard of "If the government can be used to force him to [do something] he doesn't want to [do], then the government thereby owns and has a right to his labor," means you're in favor of slavery. Which means I should violently resist your oppression of people's liberty. Keep in mind that none of this is my idea; it's your philosophy, consistently applied. All absurdity that's been involved along the way has been yours.
>> ^blankfist:I'm saying if someone hits someone with their car, then, yes, they should be held accountable. In your opinion, should it make a difference in the eyes of the law what the circumstances were? For example, should there be a difference in penalty for someone saying "fucking jaywalker needs to learn a lesson" and hitting him intentionally, or someone who tries his best to stop but can't? If the jaywalker dies in both cases, and all that matters is property damages, then those two situations should be equivalent. Is that the way you think justice should work?
>> ^blankfist: If the government can be used to force him to serve people he doesn't want to serve, then the government thereby owns and has a right to his labor. That's the original statement. Now you're saying we're allowed to use the government to force him to do things, if we can prove that physical harm would result from him not doing it? Most regulation can be justified under this revised standard. Hell, even things like food stamps, social security, and universal healthcare can be justified under it as well.
Not yet a member? No problem!Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?Recover it now.
A code has been sent to your email. Please submit it here:
Already signed up?Log in now.
Remember your password?Log in now.