We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
jadedog's profile

following: 34
followed tags: 5
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 4
member for: 437 days
style: normal

comments 12

    It seemed odd to me for two reasons. One, O’Brien is a military man. The military has a chain of command and its instilled in its members that the chain of command shouldn’t be broken for a whole slew of reasons

You missed a piece in this. When O'Brien went in for his dressing down with Sisko, O'Brien wondered out loud why the transporter wasn't shut down and isolated to O'Brien's com badge location when Sisko realized that O'Brien and his com badge weren't in the same place. O'Brien could not have carried out his plan without assistance from Sisko. Sisko gave a blustery non-answer.

O'Brien wasn't a rogue player here. They all held the same values but were constrained by the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive was the rule that they didn't interfere with other cultures. The Prime Directive is a metaphor of people who go into other cultures and change their cultures for the worse, as was blamed on the Christians in the case of some native cultures.

If Sisko knew about and could stop O'Brien in a second but allowed his actions, was Sisko complicit in the crime?

I don't think it's very unrealistic

If Flynn (a military man) committed an illegal action, and Trump knew about it but allowed it anyway, was Trump complicit in the illegal action? Those are some of the questions the US is now asking.

I think those scenarios get played out in a lot of ways.

In DS9, there's a recurring theme of exploring the point at which inaction or blindly following orders becomes immoral in itself. Picard struggled with it and so did Sisko. They both took actions or inactions they felt were more moral than blindly following orders.

[Edit: removed a possible spoiler] I'll just say here that your questions about what happens when military orders aren't followed is explored a lot.

About the hunters, I just saw a post on reddit yesterday about a hunter who was killed when the elephant he killed fell on him. The hunter and anti-hunter discussion turned so vitriolic that the thread had to be shut down due to death threats. It doesn't seem like the hunter question is very settled. There's not much more to explore.

    Those are a ton of questions. Those questions are deep as fuck. Yet none of them were adequately addressed let alone resolved. Tosk went free. For them, the hunt continued. For me, I’m sitting here with philosophical blue balls.

I've read that when a piece of fiction stays with you, it's a great piece of fiction. This piece made you think and question. I rarely see that when people watch things. I think that's a great achievement for a piece of fiction.

    Their introduction and the whole explanation for the mystery brings about what could be some very interesting moral dilemmas that never get explored. Finally, we have the episode's protagonist act irrationally and against his own self interest to help his new alien friend, everything works out in the end, with the exception of the moral dilemmas being completely ignored.

What would you like them to explore?

Disclaimer: I'm a big Star Trek fan, and my favorite series is DS9 because of the moral ambiguity.

To me, that episode was about hunting and the moral dilemmas of hunting animals. But it could be about any situation where the prey has accepted their fate, even in a human context because of social acceptance.

That episode first gave the perspective of the hunted, their actions and motivations. It opens the question. How would you behave if you were in a class that was hunted? Tosk was skittish, distrustful, secretive and non-assertive except when the Tosk thought it might get in more trouble. Those are probably traits many would adopt if they were hunted.

Then it gets revealed why the Tosk was behaving that way. Another class of the aliens was hunting Tosk.

That custom was foreign to the crew of DS9 because class and species differences were supposedly eliminated by that time.

It's still common in our time though. People hunt animals and marginalize other people.

It didn't seem at all odd to me that O'Brien acted against his interest to help Tosk. People sacrifice their self-interest to help animals all the time. They sacrifice even more if the hunted class are people, like the Jewish people in the time of the Holocaust. O'Brien saw Tosk as another person, not a dispensable creature because he wasn't in a culture that saw hunting as socially acceptable.

The ethical line that gets drawn when people see other beings as animals or beings like themselves is also an ethical question.

It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder why more people didn't hide Jewish people during the Holocaust.

It has implications for what happens today. If people can see other people as enough different from themselves, they can care less about them. People of different religions or races can be marginalized or treated differently.

The writers of DS9 couldn't explore those moral ambiguities explicitly because once a real life context was given, not in the form of a metaphor, the viewer is likely to revert to their view of the socially accepted view of the moment and not explore the possibility that there might be other ways of looking at things.

jadedog  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: So this is a thing that happened

You might be interested in this story about leaks in the white house.

    When asked Tuesday night for an update on the unfolding situation, one top White House aide simply texted a reporter two fireworks emoji.
jadedog  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: So this is a thing that happened

More congress (Adam Schiff) getting involved, asking for tapes of the dinner meeting.

jadedog  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Teaching stuff is resolved.

    I would say that it should be a lesson for me, to stop using weird analogies

I learned this lesson the hard way too. I got crucified (ha!) once when I made a weird analogy about a religious topic on an atheist website. I learned that a lot of religious and anti-religious people take their analogies very literally . . . and seriously.

I try to keep my weird analogies to non-religious topics, if possible.

    It seems Spicer was originally planning on revealing the firing in an emailed statement, but some sort of technical issue prevented him from sending it fast enough. So he did the reasonable thing and shouted the news to reporters who happened to be hanging out outside his office at the time, then immediately retreated to his office and locked the door.

As I read in another article about this, it would be a funny TV show. Except it's not.

In real life, it's terrifying and not funny at all.

Well, I have to admit, I lol'ed at the image. Still, more terrifying than funny.

From what I've read, it's not about the amount of money for the people I've read who are criticizing. It's about the source of the income. The speech is to Cantor Fitzgerald, a Wall Street banking and investment firm.

I didn't see those same people balking when Obama accepted the $65M book deal. That wasn't seen as a Wall Street type firm.

I'm not sure that few want to admit it. I've seen numerous articles on the topic. To those people, it's the symbolism and the perception that it leaves that not only has the potential to taint his Presidency but also the integrity of the Democratic party going forward.

Bernie Sanders called it "unfortunate" in this clip and "distasteful" in another.

Elizabeth Warren is "troubled" by it according to Fox News . Fox New is smirking about it.

Tucker Carlson debated someone in the democratic party about it.

An opinion piece in New York magazine spoke against it, saying that it leaves doubt in the minds of people, particularly in the democratic party about his motives at the time, and by extension, others in the democratic party

Another article critical of Obama taking the $400K saying that it leave doubt about what could have happened if money weren't involved.

Here's a progressive saying that progressives need to come to terms with it before the party can move on.

Van Jones doesn't think it's distasteful, but says that Obama should do a poverty tour of the country before he does the Wall Street speech.

    Go to page 9, to the "Table 9. Victim and offender relationship, 2004" in Criminal Victimization, 2004 report which I can only presume was used as the source. You will see that while the quoted statistic does apply to females (age 12 or older) when considering the problem of rape or sexual assault… it's actually committed 100% by strangers to the victim when it comes to males from the same age group.

You linked to endnote 8 instead of 9. That report is for sexual assault in general, not to juveniles.

Endnote 9 goes to this pdf. bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

The table is on page 13 of 17 in Table 6. The numbers in that table are 34.2% for family members, 58.7% for acquaintances and 7% for strangers in the juvenile categories.

There's a slight bit of difference from the round numbers on the website, but they're in the ballpark. There's still an overwhelming percentage of acquaintances.

The breakdown for gender is on Table 7. The males are closer to the general statistic. The females are more likely to be abused by strangers.

The data from that report is pretty old, from the early nineties.

    Pedophilia is also a moral panic. Yes, there are pedophiles and yes they exist and yes they abuse children. But this behavior is extremely rare. The most likely source of child abuse is family members, not strangers, teachers, priests etc.

Do you have a cite for this?

I did a quick search and found this information from the Dept. of Justice website . Based on that information, your assertion is incorrect. These are slightly old statistics from 2010-2012.

    Approximately 1.8 million adolescents in the United States have been the victims of sexual assault.

    An estimated 60% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are known to the child but are not family members, e.g., family friends, babysitters, child care providers, neighbors.

    About 30% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members.

    Only about 10% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are strangers to the child.

According to this site, of the 1.8 million adolescents who are the victims of child sexual abuse, the vast majority (60%) of child sexual abuse comes from people who are not family members but are in positions of authority in the child's life, like teachers, scout leaders, care providers, etc.

The numbers are not negligible.

Putting aside the hype in the media, the problem is substantial enough to warrant attention. Do you disagree?

I can see why there's an issue. I read the whole page of rules. That's a lot of rules.

It would be hard to avoid every situation where one child and one adult might be in the same space together in say, a camping trip, even if for just a short time. For instance, an adult might have to go find a child if they're late for something. Taking two adults to go find that one child would probably leave others unattended.

On the other hand, I can see the need for the rules.

It's a difficult situation. Are there any ideas floating around about how to solve this situation?

As the article mentions, it affects more than just the Boy Scouts.

This link in my comment might be better as a topic for a new thread, but I think it has bearing on this rift of the DNC with Sanders. The reason I think it has less to do with Mello and the democratic party is because Nancy Pelosi said in an interview that she has worked with great pro-life dems before. Mello has supported Planned Parenthood.

    Mr. Sanders and the new leadership of the Democratic National Committee touched a party sore spot this week when they took their “Unity Tour” to Omaha to rally for a mayoral candidate who opposes abortion rights.

I'm guessing that Bernie will be touching on a lot more sore spots if the class action lawsuit against the DNC goes through. I was just watching this today.

The attorney for the class action lawsuit on the Sanders' side on behalf of the campaign contributors says that the argument of the attorney for the DNC is that the DNC can choose any candidate they want without deference to the popular vote. (The actual quote is more astonishing in the video) The class action lawsuit is against the DNC for unfairly picking Clinton over Sanders in the primaries. They're seeking their campaign contributions back from the DNC.

Edit: switched to Clinton over Sanders. I had them backwards originally.

posts and shares 3/9