Wieki leaks Us leaked e-mails show Isreal was behind Oil pipe line blast in Iran and also in aiding kurdish terrorist to atttck irans border posts ,Todays news
What Data failed to mention is the numerous events when the revolutionary regimes turned out to be far more genocidal and tyrannical than the oppressive regimes before them. Revolution is gambling, its all about who controls the guns in the end that matters.
@Malikarcanum We have a racist apologist on the boards. Happens everywhere. I would have been happy just to discuss TNG, but some people hate jews so much they cant live and let live.
And a point on the actual scene itself in context: they don't take into account that the Federation try to control with power/violence, hence the Maquis 'terrorist' group.
Israeli Americans stoning 2 Human Rights workers including an old woman and child. Notice how the soldier clearly shows bias against the HRWs. Why does that girl want the camera to be turned off
BTW, the same process that created the modern borders of Israel also created Jordan, which is 2/3rds Palestinian. They already HAD a country. But they're unwilling to live in peace with their neighbors out of prejudice and religious intolerance
@andromidius the only two real differences between terrorism and revolution is who wins and who loses. If the revolutionaries lose they are terrorists, if they win, they're revolutionaries.
@daPlumber702 I never bought that. And Dr Crusher points out the obvious flaw. Terrorists kill anyone and everyone for petty shock value. Revolutionists, like Washington, actually engaged the REAL enemy, the direct representatives of the government, and brought that government to its knees.
@SpreadingtheMuse There is a bit of that.. terrorists today are mindless in the way they carry out their attacks. But the revolutionaries in the american revolution called themselves terrorists in many cases. They did quite a few things that were not normally accepted on the battlefield at the time. What I meant by my previous statement was simply that terrorism lays in the eye of the beholder. It is not good or bad of itself, merely a collection of acts.
Just like the western skum bag who have ganged up on IRAN even thou iran never attcked any nation for 250 years , while Isreal constantly bombs gaza and its neighbours
@zakaslam1 Well we can see your view is completely biased already, and thus any debate or rebutal would fall on deaf ears. Ignoring the sins of one side and focusing exclusively on the other is a sign of a blinkered fool.
@SpreadingtheMuse BIG fucking Yes ! iran will retailiate if attcked by these 7 countries who will allow War mongering imperial skum to use thier terroties for a launch platform , Wake up its not Iran thats planning to attck its YOU , dont you watch the News you troll
@SpreadingtheMuse Why does Iran have the largets jewish population in outside isreal in the Middle east if the racist ? why does Irainian law belive and impliment Equal rights for all its citizens regardless of race , colour or religon , UNLIKE the zionist nazi laws of ISREAL . last time i looked at the news Isreal was demanding a Military atatck on Iran , , why are their so many threats from isreal on main stream news , , Infact who do you thinks going to attck first Isreal or Iran ?
@zakaslam1 Why does Iran always say "Zionist conspiracy" if they're NOT racist? We can only judge them by their own words. Iran THREATENED Israel. Has been for years. They started it with their xenophobia.
@SpreadingtheMuse Because the right wing extremists in isreal call themselfs ZIONIST you Moron Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות , Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement of Isreal , Secondly Agian you ignore constant Isreali threats on everyday News channels , Its Isreal thats voting for WAR , its Isreal calling for WAR , its isreal Buying equipment for WAR , its isreal carrying mock attcks for WAR , its isreal threating to use nuclear weapons in pre emptive strikes WTF ! zionists = Nazis
@zakaslam1 Why is a country that justs want the right to exist called "extreme?" Israel would leave everyone alone, IF everyone stopped threatening to exterminate them every time a certain Iran zealot president spoke at the United Nations.
Leave Israel alone and they'll leave you alone YOU make the threats. Yours is the country with official bloodlust.
@SpreadingtheMuse Isreal was created in 1948 by displacing them from there Homes and lands and imprisoning thousand of palistianians in Camps surrounded by barbwire , these camps were condemed quickly by the united nation and world critizism forced Meir the Israel's first woman prime minister to close these camps down , Zionism prevented palistainian from being except as Equal Citizens into the new isreal state , and the domolishing and theft of palistianian homes and lands carries on TODAY
@zakaslam1 Israel has been Jewish homeland for 5000 years. Is there not a temple of Solomon? Didnt they have a line of kings going back centuries? Even the ROMANS called the whole place "Judea," land of the jews.
There has never been a country called "Palestine." Not ever in recorded history. Its an invented concept by anti-jew bigots.
@SpreadingtheMuse with that kind of thinking do you think ALL europeans should be deported from the USA ? or maybe you think its right for the egyption people of today to take over half of africa because they used to own and live in that lands for 8 thousand years , What about austrailia should that be given back to the ancestrail people , what about Iraq that was once part of Iran (persia )
@zakaslam1 All I "think" is that any claim that the Israelis dont have a right to their own country is racist. They're perfectly willing to live side by side. A sizable % of israels population is arab, as is their parliament. But it is ISRAELI land. Has been for 5000 years. They have a right to live there without being threatened by bloodthirsty religious nuts.
@SpreadingtheMuse LMFAO ! zionist dont like non jews escpicailly Arabs , want planet are you on , You serouisly dont know what happened to the palistinians in 1948 , do you even know anything ? imagine for one minute black people werenot allowed to use hospitals or schools or buy houses or own businesses ? can you do that you arrogant self minded fool !!
THESE days, the israelis welcome all. Palestinians are elected and accepted members of Israeli parliament. True or false?
How many jews does Iran allow in ITS government? A gov where every candidate has to pass a laughably bigoted "religious test" by your unaccountable Ayatollahs?
@SpreadingtheMuse These days the Isreal welcome All ,DONT fucking make me laugh , Liberman said Only pure jews are welcome in Isreal , Just like Hitlers speech Germany is for the German .. Zionism = Nazism Serouisly i suggest you read and understand zionism on google search engine and actually study zionist nazi policies of Isreal
@SpreadingtheMuse Plan III proposes, first, a Conference of Zionist and other Jewish organizations in the United States and abroad for the sole purpose of establishing an International Jewish Parliament. Membership in the Parliament will of course be open to Jews throughout the world on the basis of proportional representation. Heroic efforts must be made to recruit Israelis in the Diaspora, hundreds of thousands of whom are in the United States SO IT WAS SAID AND SO IT WAS DONE .
@zakaslam1 A bigoted youtube movie used as proof for OTHER bigoted youtubers? Dont make me laugh ;)
Israel is the only country there that gives a flying ass about human rights. Look at all the dead bodies in Syria, and the oppression and vote rigging in Iran.
@SpreadingtheMuse Ha ha ha IRAN , isreal threatens Iran everyday , they even goes further practicing and launching practice drill to attack Iran and thats not it , they trying to force the USA & Nato to attack Iran for them , but wait thats not all , Isreal willing to use nuclear bombs to wipe out Iran , wait they even threated to use nukes to take controll of saidi oil fields in the 90s WTF !
@zakaslam1 Iran threatens ISRAEL everyday. If they go around saying "jews will die," they cant be naive enough to then wonder why Israel threatens to defend itself
@SpreadingtheMuse Strange i turned the news on today and isreal was threating to attck IRAN , then agian Isreal been on the news threating to Attack Iran everyday , DEFENCE IS WHEN YOU GET ATTACKED ,YOU FIGHT BACK , do you know that , so why is it when i type in Isreal threatens to strike Iran , you can actually hear and see your zionist leader standing on stage and saying we going to attack Iran soon ?
@SpreadingtheMuse O right i understand , you want to be like them and hate muslims in kindness , well I am not like you i like jews I dont like Nazis and zionists becuause there policies are agianst human nature , There is no ONE rule for one and a different rule for others!
@zakaslam1 And saying "Israel has no right to exist" ISNT against human nature??? How are the Israelis SUPPOSED to respond to such blatant hate-mongering?
You're right. One set of rules for everyone. Iran is the one who wants to have another set of rules for Israel, rules that say they're sub-human and can be killed
@SpreadingtheMuse Wow your a fucling zionist nazi , everyone is a threat to german aryan people 1945 espicially the jew , HEAR YOU REPEAT NAZISM under ZIONISM , Irans class jews as sub human and they can be killed , YOU STUPID DUMB FUCK Jews lived in palistine before 1948 , the largest jewish population outside isreal in the middle east is IRAN , Jews are spread allover Persia , See jewish population of Iran , no fucking anti semistism all holocoust reported by these jews who are not Zionist
@SpreadingtheMuse Everyone knows Iran wont attck Isreal , But everyone knows its Isreal thats wants to attck Iran , Thats WHY THE USA WARNED ISREAL NOT TO ATTCK IRAN , INCLUDING FRANCE , the world is begining to see Isreal as the real Zionist Monster ,Nobody wants war except isreal , A zionist woman gave birth to a Bastard child , who was adopted by a german family and raised up as thier own , this childs name was ALDOLF HITLER ,
@SpreadingtheMuse NO IRAN NEVER SAID THEY WILL BOMB Isreal ! ISREAL SAYS IT WILL BOMB IRAN , DONT YOU WATCH THE NEWS ? ITS YOU WHOS LYING , LOOK YOUR A ZIONIST NAZI hate is your religon ,
@zakaslam1 YES THEY DID. And they throw money at ever terrorist group that will fight a proxy war for them against israel. Hezbollah is Iranian bought and paid for. Paid to kill israelis.
@SpreadingtheMuse Only according to Zionist Nazis propaganda , And the zionists have already attcked Iran by sanctions , Zionists again on the news calling for strikes agianst IRAN , LOOKS like the real monster is ISREAL no doubt about it !
@SpreadingtheMuse Second Point Vote rigging In IRAN was a zionist lie to topple Iran backed by zionist christains of the usa , The New York times wrote 250 million dollars were given to Iranian opposition groups by usa and isreal funded organisations .But Amidimajad had history on his side , In the first election he WON 93 percent of votes , in the second he Won 73 percent , ALL Irainians presidents have won their 2 TERM in power FACT ! and history proves, so why should it be any different
@SpreadingtheMuse Israel was once again the subject of condemnation by the highly politicized 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission during its annual six-week session from March 17 - April 23, 2003 YOU WERE SAYING ONLY ISREAL CARES ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS , THEN WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY CONDEMED BY THE UNITED NATIONS ?
The proposition of peaceful solution is untenable. War is legal. If it's made illegal it will end, or the act of war will be a crime. War is a conscious, instituted choice, and it vitos all trump cards, often under a falacious pretext as witnessed by Vietnam and others. The perps failed to defend the deeply flawed premise that might is right when all their guns and cannon failed. Either war must be criminalized, or the casualties of war must be borne by its archetects and not civilians.
@rick4037 Which makes sense considering the time this episode was first aired. I disagree with the censorship, but sort of understand why people may feel it necessary. The episode, in context, I believe says everything that needs to be said about the Troubles. While not unsympathetic to the terrorists, it clearly shows their actions in a negative light. It doesn't take the obvious "Right vs. Wrong" and, well, explores the issue fully
George Washington was a terrorist too. Basically he was the Osama bin Laden of the 18th century. He led the rebellion of the British colonies in North America against their rightful King George. The entire USA is therefore a terrorist stronghold. Queen Elizabeth could legally wipe out the USA any minute if she wished to.
@SKAshthra how stupid and dumb was it to nationally remove all tv episodes and movies from videos stores revlving terrorism? That made absolutely no sesne at all....
If you want truth, ask why hiroshima was A bombed over the small attack on pearl harbor yet no A bomb was dropped on iraq and why we are still there for oil. It is possible a culture of people are working closely with isreal today who were once persecuted as a race many decades before?
@WillShakespeare2007 1. what BS. 2. Terrorism is legitimate when there is no other choice. The US ignores terror attacks & keeps opressing arabs. In other circumstance (not having moronic americans running things) it works.
Mandella was a terrorist (freedom fighter) and his cause was just. Yes he killed, but he killed tools of oppression.
I wish the US would learn from their mistakes, but I wont hold my breath.
We need more dead Americans and maybe they will get the fuck out of the Middle East.
I think one thing to bear in mind is that when this was written, there were a lot of Irish nationalist sympathizers in the US. In fact many of them had been pouring money into Ireland to support the Nationalist movement. So their attitude to the IRA and their supporters was a little ambivalent to say the least.
Post 9/11 I think you will find it is a very different story. The Libyans would get a mention, but then they were not terrorists but an armed rebellion.
It resulted in the entire episode being banned in the UK for many years. But its now ok. Our problem was this was made while we were engaged in an active conflict.
Wow, I didn't realize this episode had been banned! In Canada, it was (as far as I know) always shown as-is, with no disclaimers at the beginning.
As for the whole terrorism thing, ultimately the dialogue between Picard and Data sums it up nicely - while violent confrontation has been effective in changing political structures, the ethics of it are a much larger question.
@CatMaster90001 We look at things in the wrong way sometimes. Guerrilla warfare against military targets is a campaign of terror against an opposing force, not a civilian population. There is a thin line between terrorism and Guerrilla Warfare, but it IS there. And it is a slippery slope. But a well controlled campaign can topple a government, effectively with minimum collateral damage.
@wanderer711 Excellently said, fellow intellectual. ^^ There's this little saying I heard once, and I think we all should especially take it into consideration. "One country's hero is another country's terrorist"...
It might help the debate here to clear up the terms 'universal' and 'objective'. It seems as though whenever someone says 'objective' what they really mean is the former.
to any one out there with any power! PLEASE bring back Star Trek! Do a new series! we are sick of all the shit on tv with all the NCIS et all bullshit.
fascinating - I had no idea also that this had been banned in the UK. Really says something though about the country we are living in when they are worried about stuff like this...
"The complete episode was only shown for the first time on the BBC in September 2007, Sky TV soon followed suit and aired the full uncut episode"
Curious, I don't recall the BBC airing TNG in 2007. They seem to only be on pay for cable/sky channels for years. Not that I look any more, as I own them all on DVD (and soon on Blu-ray... can't frickin wait!)
@dega Banned content usually does show up on DVD and private media. It's only when it is shown on a public basis that it is edited or completely cut out.
I always found most of Data's questions to be at inappropriate times. They were on the bridge, on duty and he is asking a question non duty related for his own personal knowledge.
@Coffeextreme I think that's just a quirk of who and what he is that they tolerated and accepted, that they are in effect dealing with a hyper-intelligent child who possesses all knowledge humans have gained but knows not one thing about how we're motivated to do the things we do.
This all depends hugely on what they mean by terrorism. If they mean a violent minority attacking a peaceful minority in murderous attacks then how can that be democratic or just. Effectiveness is no excuse.
Nerve gas is an effective riot control agent, that doesn't make it an ethical one.
What data forgot to mention is, it's gunna be southern Ireland rejoining the UK once they loose the rest of their money and have to be bailed out again.
i dont mean just next generation, watch the old james t kirk ones, theres a lot of hidden meaning in the scripts like the writers were trying to warn people
How hypocritical and pathetic our governments are, in the way they try to actually manage our THOUGHTS. Then they talk about free speech being a fundamental tenant.
What were they fearing? That the Irish would all of a sudden rise up against the British? Inspired by a fictitious android from the future? Jeez.
I must admit i profoundly disagree with the opinion in the clip. Intentional violation of innocents is never ethical. Although I'm against censorship, this clip wouldn't have made sense in the individualist, inclusive and richly capable world of star trek. There are always possibilities is the motto, and historically you can never say what could have happened without the terrorist act, since chance is also a factor subsequently so there are bound to be some 'lucky hits'.
@intermender They weren't saying it was ethical. They said it was often an effective way to achieve a goal. Ethics generally tends to be the first thing that gets thrown out during wartime, on account of all the murdering.
@SquigglyP Well, not quite - Data says 'an effective way to achieve political change' which sounds more ambiguous then achieving any specific goal. How do the terrorists know it will result in a change for the better even from their point of view. They surely can't know the future or what might have occurred from alternative action. And surely there is never any justification for ignoring ethics, even historical tradition. Also terrorism is not the same as war combatants who are soldiers.
@intermender Nothing in this clip was referring to ethics. Merely what is and is not effective. And while it pains me to admit it, terrorism often achieves its desired effect.
Look at 9-11. They did not simply seek to harm us in a physical sense, as any idiot can do that. They sought to throw the entire American social system on its head, to change our way of life. It worked. We became more paranoid, took away freedoms, & closed ourselves from rational thought.
@AndrewDeLong Well 9/11 was a fluke, because America had been caught wrong footed, in accident, and with incapable, misconceived government. But when there is suffering of innocents, ethics is always of consideration: Is any aim - which btw terrorists cannot know will result - worth the suffering of innocents? Because that is implicit in any act of Terrorism. But terrorism is like pulling a peanut out of a hat and saying that is a success after torching the hat to ashes.
@intermender I sincerely doubt ethics play a role when one resorts to terrorism, on account of the taking of human life in such a casual manner. That is usually a strong indicator that ethically based attempts have failed, or were deemed insufficient.
@AndrewDeLong My point is since terrorism ignores ethics it is never a 'successful tactic'. Resorting to terrorism doesn't mean ethics failed, it only means ethics is ignored because the terrorist thinks his objective is worth it. That isn't a failure of ethics, it is a failure of vision on the part of the terrorist. There simply is no justification for making innocents suffer. The irony of terrorist action is whomever you attack merely serves to strengthen another enemy.
@AndrewDeLong I'm sorry but you are taking the position of cultural relativism. Ethics is universal, not a point of view. It doesn't matter who you are, what matters is that you are human being. Are you really saying a terrorists opinion of ethics is equivalent to human empathy?
@intermender Ethics is entirely relative, yes. What you view as an ethical practice, someone else my not. There is NOTHING that is objective when it comes to something that is perceived, such as ethics.
There is a man in China that believes it is ethically sound to beat one's kids every day from birth until age 12, because he does not consider them human beings up until that point. Are these universal ethics? Nope. Why? Because such a thing simply does not exist.
@AndrewDeLong No, you miss my point: ethics is arrived at by rational and evidential debate which is not subjective. Are you enjoying defending terrorism, because honestly i don't know why you haven't conceded the discussion already.
@intermender "No, you miss my point: ethics is arrived at by rational and evidential debate which is not subjective."
Define rational and evidential. Your definition may not be that of a terrorist's. The fact remains, ethics are born of points of view, of which there are no two alike. Thus, one ethical set is not the same as another. There is simply no such thing as an absolute when it comes to ethics. I do not find capital punishment ethically sound, others do. Case in point
As for a terrorist's version of ethics being equivalent to human empathy, since such things are relativistic, the answer is yes and no. To me, they are not equal concepts. To a terrorist, they are equal. You cannot simply say humanity or humane acts are superior to terrorist's ethics, as such an idea is born out of point of view. Your POV is not theirs, and likewise for their POV not being yours. You cannot simply say one is greater than the other. They are relative, at best.
@intermender Again, you are wrong on this. Even evidential debate, even rationale, are born of differing points of view. Evidence is only as good as one is willing to accept it, and even then, it may not be factual or objective in nature. All of these things you ascribe to the formulation of ethics are, at their base, quite subjective.
@intermender Human empathy may inform ethics in some cases, human apathy in others. Again, you are only speaking from one perspective, yours. That is hardly ground to claim that all ethical sets are derived in the same manner. You are a very small sample, and even your very argument on the matter is not quantitative.
@AndrewDeLong I'm sorry you are arguing for arguments sake - i've answered your charge of perspective two comments back. You keep trying to make this personal, but I told you then why it isn't. That answer is still on this page, but if you keep ignoring it and saying i am making subjective opinion instead, you're going to miss seeing it as it scrolls off the page.
@intermender I've read it, and it's rather wrong. You are arguing that ethics are derived from rational and evidential processes. The problem is, even these are subjective by their very nature, both in presentation and acceptance. One does not derive objectivity from two VERY subjective processes.
I'm sorry, but the mere fact that you keep referring to an inaccurate and incorrect argument, still does not make you right in this case.
@AndrewDeLong You are arguing that rational and evidential debate are useless because they are subject to presentation? Then all i have to do is appear in court with a smart suit and i can escape any driving ticket?
@intermender I've seen it happen, so yes. The problem you have is simple. You're ignoring the human factor when it comes to rational and evidential presentation. The capacity in which they are presented and received is entirely subjective. What is rational to one is not to another. "This coming from a guy who idea of objectivity is to declare 'Ethics are subjective, nuff said' ?"
Even that statement is a subjective one, I admit. Which only serves to prove my point.
@AndrewDeLong .. and the only reason i keep referring to is is that this is the first time you even acknowledged the point - or rather mis-acklnowledged it to be more precise! lol
@intermender Again, your problem is that you're ignoring the human factor in all of this. One's perception of reality, of rationale, of evidence itself, is an entirely personal matter. Thus, the ethics derived from those factors are also personal, ergo, subjective by their very nature.
Ethics differ, what is and is not ethical differs, how one arrives at such conclusions differ. Therefore, the ethics you or I have are not the same as a terrorist's version. It's all subjective.
@AndrewDeLong Dude, on the contrary - i'm embracing the human factor, not ignoring it because rational and evidential debate is all about objective progress despite human frailty. Sam Harris makes a similar point with analogy to medicine - there is no exact science of medicine, but there are evolving methods to achieve the best approximation.
@intermender "Dude, on the contrary - i'm embracing the human factor, not ignoring it because rational and evidential debate is all about objective progress despite human frailty."
Again, wrong. Rationale is subjective. Evidence is subjective. For example, you & I may find it apparent that there is a sun, based upon our ability to see it. A blind man cannot acknowledge this observation, thus what should seem plainly objective two us, is not so for him. Evidence is subjective.
@AndrewDeLong You seem to be arguing that ethics is wholly subjective and ambivalent - so i make it simple for you - act so your actions do not cause innocents to suffer. Do you want to explain to me how that is subjective?
@intermender "You seem to be arguing that ethics is wholly subjective and ambivalent - so i make it simple for you - act so your actions do not cause innocents to suffer. Do you want to explain to me how that is subjective?"
Because that is only one set of ethics. By someone else's ethical standard, making others suffer may be perfectly acceptable. That's how it's subjective.
Also, suffering itself is subjective. Both in experience and in observation.
@AndrewDeLong lol, let me ask you something - do you think science takes the human factor into consideration during its operation? If so, by your argument, science is subjective.
@intermender Science is a non-issue and a red herring in this case. What you are claiming is of non-scientific origin and is not itself quantitative. Please, don't try to make a point by drawing a parallel between two unrelated subjects.
@intermender Rationale is not quantitative because it is entirely subjective. Evidential in the case that you would apply it is again subjective, ergo non-quantitative. "You don't see a parallel between rational and evidential debate and science?"
In the case of ethics, no. Ethics are not a quantitative thing, science is all about quantitative material.
Tell me, how can you quantify ethics, if no two ethical sets are the same thing?
@intermender "Tell me how you can say two ethical sets are different if you deem all ethics subjective?"
You're kidding, right? That's the very idea of subjectivity. My ethics are born of my worldview, which can only be a subjective experience. Another ethical set is born of another worldview, which is again a subjective only experience.
The very idea that ethical sets are different from person to person is what MAKES them subjective.
@AndrewDeLong@AndrewDeLong Ethics can be quantified in the sense of using rationale and evidence in conjunction as check, and in open debate, together with science to inform on human nature, to evolve a universal and at once demonstratable ethics. We do not have to draw upon historical 'ethical sets' that lacked these methods of development. to quantify ethics - they are simply discarded as flawed attempts and misnomers. Also see what i said about calling guesses ethics in my other comment.
@intermender "Are you really taking the position that ethics cannot benefit from rational and evidential debate, if not wholly beholden to it?"
Comprehension isn't your friend right now.
No. I'm taking the position that rationale is subjective, and evidential material are not ALWAYS present when ethics are formulated. Do try to keep up.
@AndrewDeLong Well why would you want to only use evidence and rationale in isolation like you are suggesting here (if i comprehend, and am keeping up), rather than in conjunction, to check and feedback on each other? Also why are you determined to admit 'guesses' under the term ethics? Just don't admit guesses into ethics. Its no use you admitting guesses into ethics and then declaring all ethics are subjective making terrorism and cultural relativism justified. That's a circular argument.
@intermender You apparently do not comprehend what I am saying. I am not isolating the evidential and the rational into separate camps. Even together they're subjective. How one rationalizes evidence is subjective, hell, the very ACT of rationalizing is a subjective one.
And yes, in a relative sense, terrorism is ethically justifiable, as their ethical set would allow for as much.
Just because you do not have a certain ethical set, it does not exclude another from possessing it
The easiest way to say it is this, my ethics are born of my world view, ergo, they are only ethics exactly as I can have them. No one else can have my exact set of ethics. Likewise, someone else has their own ethics, born of their own world view, and can only have their exact ethics. No two ethical sets are the same, and thusly are subject only to their respective beholder, making them subjective by nature, and relative to other beholders of ethical sets.
@AndrewDeLong Nope theres an easier way to say it: Im sorry you are doing it again: your saying whatever a personal guess it is admissible under the term ethics and so renders all ethics a guess. Circular argurment. I'm talking about human universals that reveal themselves by independent means reproducible by anyone that can inform us to developing ethics. Then we just throw away the guesses as redundant - I'm sorry you're hung up on them. Let em go.
@intermender Let me describe it this way: what is ethical to you? What actions do you view as being ethically sound? Now ask yourself, do others use that same set? No. Because ethical sets are subjective.
@AndrewDeLong If one set is not subjective and the others are, by your non-sequitur reasoning all are. Like i said, you are choosing not to let go of that position. Ethics is simple. Start from innocents do must not suffer, everyone should have a sovereign personal space. I enjoyed chatting with you, but no matter what i say or demonstrate you are not going to budge from your position. To you all is either subjective or not, there is no spectrum or progress in eliminating subjectivity.
@intermender "Ethics is simple. Start from innocents do must not suffer, everyone should have a sovereign personal space."
You assume this is a universal thought. That is your position on the matter. You assume that this is the basis of all ethics. You could not be more wrong. It is the basis for YOUR ethics.
You are trying to pull objectivity out of something that is beholden to subjective, individual stances, is both intellectually irresponsible, and utterly amazing.
@AndrewDeLong I think we are not defining universality the same way. I am defining it as something independently verifiable by anyone; you are defining it as the sum of everyone's opinion regardless of formative basis, personal or otherwise? So my position is objective process toward emergent ethic. Innocents must not be made to suffer can start the process. Simple example: Ask, if you should attack the innocent to forestall a threat. Perfectly transparent process cannot 'pull anything'?
@AndrewDeLong .. expanding, if you get the same answer that I do, and then if everyone gets the same answer then it is not my personal ethic? Person A threatens your survival, person B is innocent, question: where do you direct your attention? Do you get the same answer that I do? Or try this, eliminate the innocent, would you feel safer? Or this: Do you feel safer in a world full of innocents?
@AndrewDeLong " I am not isolating the evidential and the rational into separate camps. Even together they're subjective. How one rationalizes evidence is subjective, hell, the very ACT of rationalizing is a subjective one." ... evidence and rational in conjunction particularly in open debate is not subjective since they progressively eliminate subjectivity - it is the pragmatic tuning approach of science too. Theory, experiment, review, revolution ..., You are simply refusing to accept this.
@intermender "evidence and rational in conjunction particularly in open debate is not subjective since they progressively eliminate subjectivity"
Irrelevant when it comes to ethics. Worldviews generate ethical sets. They are not derived from some formula, they are not agreed upon at some conference. They are arrived at from personal experience, making them wholly subjective. No circular argument, just your inability to comprehend a simple concept.
@intermender "And.. human empathy always informs ethics because it is always a significant factor."
Prove that quantitatively. I have seen ethical sets derived of human apathy, which is the polar opposite of empathy, in fact, it's the exact lack of the stuff.
YOU gain an ethical set from human empathy. This does not mean everyone else does. and you have no way of proving such a claim.
@AndrewDeLong True, but that doesn’t make ethics 'entirely relative'. A person in China and a person in the West would both understand ethics to amount to treating something in accordance with its own point of view. You wouldn’t find say, one person in Beijing arguing that ethics consisted of a method for preparing food and the guy in Holland arguing for ethics as a competitive sport It's only the extent or limit that ethical principals that can be applied that's relative.
Wieki leaks Us leaked e-mails show Isreal was behind Oil pipe line blast in Iran and also in aiding kurdish terrorist to atttck irans border posts ,Todays news
zakaslam1 18 hours ago
"zionist nazis" So in other words, you believe every single racist diatribe you're dumb enough to read online. ;)
Iran threatened Israel. Israel defends itself. Dont tell me thats hard to figure out. Stop being an apologist for racists.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 day ago
What Data failed to mention is the numerous events when the revolutionary regimes turned out to be far more genocidal and tyrannical than the oppressive regimes before them. Revolution is gambling, its all about who controls the guns in the end that matters.
killerbee2k 2 days ago
Why is it that every single video I go on devolves into a sham of a political debate?
Malikarcanum 4 days ago
@Malikarcanum We have a racist apologist on the boards. Happens everywhere. I would have been happy just to discuss TNG, but some people hate jews so much they cant live and let live.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 days ago
Heaven or Hell LOL.
LikesAndDislikesShow 4 days ago
And a point on the actual scene itself in context: they don't take into account that the Federation try to control with power/violence, hence the Maquis 'terrorist' group.
Noobshire 5 days ago
The United Nations has been passing racist anti-jew hatred for YEARS. Dont be naive enough to bring them up. Two racists dont make a right.
SpreadingtheMuse 6 days ago
Data's a Muslim!
marxmith 6 days ago
Israeli Americans stoning 2 Human Rights workers including an old woman and child. Notice how the soldier clearly shows bias against the HRWs. Why does that girl want the camera to be turned off
zakaslam1 1 week ago
Type Racist jews on YOU-TUBE because this is zionist Isreal
zakaslam1 1 week ago
BTW, the same process that created the modern borders of Israel also created Jordan, which is 2/3rds Palestinian. They already HAD a country. But they're unwilling to live in peace with their neighbors out of prejudice and religious intolerance
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
Comment removed
OmarAlQaseer 2 weeks ago
12 years to go. yee haa
greenmustard1966 2 weeks ago
The response should have been 'there's a difference between terrorism and armed revolution'.
The main one being, terrorism targets 'soft targets' by preference. i.e. Civilians. Revolutions fight against the controlling forces primarily.
One can be seen as noble and brave, the other cowardly and pathetic. Guess which is which?
andromidius 2 weeks ago
@andromidius the only two real differences between terrorism and revolution is who wins and who loses. If the revolutionaries lose they are terrorists, if they win, they're revolutionaries.
daPlumber702 2 weeks ago
@daPlumber702 I never bought that. And Dr Crusher points out the obvious flaw. Terrorists kill anyone and everyone for petty shock value. Revolutionists, like Washington, actually engaged the REAL enemy, the direct representatives of the government, and brought that government to its knees.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 weeks ago
@SpreadingtheMuse There is a bit of that.. terrorists today are mindless in the way they carry out their attacks. But the revolutionaries in the american revolution called themselves terrorists in many cases. They did quite a few things that were not normally accepted on the battlefield at the time. What I meant by my previous statement was simply that terrorism lays in the eye of the beholder. It is not good or bad of itself, merely a collection of acts.
daPlumber702 2 weeks ago
@daPlumber702 Did the word "terrorist" even exist in 1776? I doubt they called themselves that
SpreadingtheMuse 2 weeks ago
@andromidius The goal is the same, and only the tactics differ. Either way takes bravery and self sacrifice.
garzburgh11 2 weeks ago
Just like the western skum bag who have ganged up on IRAN even thou iran never attcked any nation for 250 years , while Isreal constantly bombs gaza and its neighbours
zakaslam1 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@zakaslam1 Well we can see your view is completely biased already, and thus any debate or rebutal would fall on deaf ears. Ignoring the sins of one side and focusing exclusively on the other is a sign of a blinkered fool.
andromidius 2 weeks ago
@zakaslam1 Iran has threatened to attack several countries. Are they lying?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 weeks ago
@SpreadingtheMuse BIG fucking Yes ! iran will retailiate if attcked by these 7 countries who will allow War mongering imperial skum to use thier terroties for a launch platform , Wake up its not Iran thats planning to attck its YOU , dont you watch the News you troll
zakaslam1 2 weeks ago
@zakaslam1 Whoever said "retaliate?" Iran has threatened to START a conflict with Israel, for no other reason than Iran's leaders are racist bigots.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 weeks ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Why does Iran have the largets jewish population in outside isreal in the Middle east if the racist ? why does Irainian law belive and impliment Equal rights for all its citizens regardless of race , colour or religon , UNLIKE the zionist nazi laws of ISREAL . last time i looked at the news Isreal was demanding a Military atatck on Iran , , why are their so many threats from isreal on main stream news , , Infact who do you thinks going to attck first Isreal or Iran ?
zakaslam1 2 weeks ago
@zakaslam1 Why does Iran always say "Zionist conspiracy" if they're NOT racist? We can only judge them by their own words. Iran THREATENED Israel. Has been for years. They started it with their xenophobia.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 weeks ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Because the right wing extremists in isreal call themselfs ZIONIST you Moron Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות , Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement of Isreal , Secondly Agian you ignore constant Isreali threats on everyday News channels , Its Isreal thats voting for WAR , its Isreal calling for WAR , its isreal Buying equipment for WAR , its isreal carrying mock attcks for WAR , its isreal threating to use nuclear weapons in pre emptive strikes WTF ! zionists = Nazis
zakaslam1 2 weeks ago
@zakaslam1 Why is a country that justs want the right to exist called "extreme?" Israel would leave everyone alone, IF everyone stopped threatening to exterminate them every time a certain Iran zealot president spoke at the United Nations.
Leave Israel alone and they'll leave you alone YOU make the threats. Yours is the country with official bloodlust.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 weeks ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Isreal was created in 1948 by displacing them from there Homes and lands and imprisoning thousand of palistianians in Camps surrounded by barbwire , these camps were condemed quickly by the united nation and world critizism forced Meir the Israel's first woman prime minister to close these camps down , Zionism prevented palistainian from being except as Equal Citizens into the new isreal state , and the domolishing and theft of palistianian homes and lands carries on TODAY
zakaslam1 1 week ago
@zakaslam1 Israel has been Jewish homeland for 5000 years. Is there not a temple of Solomon? Didnt they have a line of kings going back centuries? Even the ROMANS called the whole place "Judea," land of the jews.
There has never been a country called "Palestine." Not ever in recorded history. Its an invented concept by anti-jew bigots.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@SpreadingtheMuse with that kind of thinking do you think ALL europeans should be deported from the USA ? or maybe you think its right for the egyption people of today to take over half of africa because they used to own and live in that lands for 8 thousand years , What about austrailia should that be given back to the ancestrail people , what about Iraq that was once part of Iran (persia )
zakaslam1 1 week ago
@zakaslam1 All I "think" is that any claim that the Israelis dont have a right to their own country is racist. They're perfectly willing to live side by side. A sizable % of israels population is arab, as is their parliament. But it is ISRAELI land. Has been for 5000 years. They have a right to live there without being threatened by bloodthirsty religious nuts.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@SpreadingtheMuse LMFAO ! zionist dont like non jews escpicailly Arabs , want planet are you on , You serouisly dont know what happened to the palistinians in 1948 , do you even know anything ? imagine for one minute black people werenot allowed to use hospitals or schools or buy houses or own businesses ? can you do that you arrogant self minded fool !!
zakaslam1 1 week ago
@zakaslam1
THESE days, the israelis welcome all. Palestinians are elected and accepted members of Israeli parliament. True or false?
How many jews does Iran allow in ITS government? A gov where every candidate has to pass a laughably bigoted "religious test" by your unaccountable Ayatollahs?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@SpreadingtheMuse These days the Isreal welcome All ,DONT fucking make me laugh , Liberman said Only pure jews are welcome in Isreal , Just like Hitlers speech Germany is for the German .. Zionism = Nazism Serouisly i suggest you read and understand zionism on google search engine and actually study zionist nazi policies of Isreal
zakaslam1 1 week ago
@zakaslam1 You DIDNT KNOW that arabs are in Isrealis parliament even as we speak? Dumbass ;)
An hours worth of cut and pasted "I'm a racist bigot" talking points are no match for actually knowing the facts ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Plan III proposes, first, a Conference of Zionist and other Jewish organizations in the United States and abroad for the sole purpose of establishing an International Jewish Parliament. Membership in the Parliament will of course be open to Jews throughout the world on the basis of proportional representation. Heroic efforts must be made to recruit Israelis in the Diaspora, hundreds of thousands of whom are in the United States SO IT WAS SAID AND SO IT WAS DONE .
zakaslam1 1 week ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Type racist jews on you tube Please! Israeli Americans stoning 2 Human Rights workers including an old woman and child.
zakaslam1 1 week ago
@zakaslam1 A bigoted youtube movie used as proof for OTHER bigoted youtubers? Dont make me laugh ;)
Israel is the only country there that gives a flying ass about human rights. Look at all the dead bodies in Syria, and the oppression and vote rigging in Iran.
SpreadingtheMuse 6 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Ha ha ha IRAN , isreal threatens Iran everyday , they even goes further practicing and launching practice drill to attack Iran and thats not it , they trying to force the USA & Nato to attack Iran for them , but wait thats not all , Isreal willing to use nuclear bombs to wipe out Iran , wait they even threated to use nukes to take controll of saidi oil fields in the 90s WTF !
zakaslam1 6 days ago
@zakaslam1 Iran threatens ISRAEL everyday. If they go around saying "jews will die," they cant be naive enough to then wonder why Israel threatens to defend itself
SpreadingtheMuse 5 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Strange i turned the news on today and isreal was threating to attck IRAN , then agian Isreal been on the news threating to Attack Iran everyday , DEFENCE IS WHEN YOU GET ATTACKED ,YOU FIGHT BACK , do you know that , so why is it when i type in Isreal threatens to strike Iran , you can actually hear and see your zionist leader standing on stage and saying we going to attack Iran soon ?
zakaslam1 5 days ago
@zakaslam1 I've been watching the news for the last 3 decades, and here's what I've heard from your rulers time and time again:
"Israel will die"
"Jews are pigs"
"Holocaust was faked"
We're glad you can delude yourself into thinking you DONT have a pack of bigoted religious racists for a ruling council
SpreadingtheMuse 5 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse O right i understand , you want to be like them and hate muslims in kindness , well I am not like you i like jews I dont like Nazis and zionists becuause there policies are agianst human nature , There is no ONE rule for one and a different rule for others!
zakaslam1 5 days ago
@zakaslam1 And saying "Israel has no right to exist" ISNT against human nature??? How are the Israelis SUPPOSED to respond to such blatant hate-mongering?
You're right. One set of rules for everyone. Iran is the one who wants to have another set of rules for Israel, rules that say they're sub-human and can be killed
SpreadingtheMuse 4 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Wow your a fucling zionist nazi , everyone is a threat to german aryan people 1945 espicially the jew , HEAR YOU REPEAT NAZISM under ZIONISM , Irans class jews as sub human and they can be killed , YOU STUPID DUMB FUCK Jews lived in palistine before 1948 , the largest jewish population outside isreal in the middle east is IRAN , Jews are spread allover Persia , See jewish population of Iran , no fucking anti semistism all holocoust reported by these jews who are not Zionist
zakaslam1 4 days ago
@zakaslam1 Iran wants to kill Israel. Dont tell me you're naive enough not to know that.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Everyone knows Iran wont attck Isreal , But everyone knows its Isreal thats wants to attck Iran , Thats WHY THE USA WARNED ISREAL NOT TO ATTCK IRAN , INCLUDING FRANCE , the world is begining to see Isreal as the real Zionist Monster ,Nobody wants war except isreal , A zionist woman gave birth to a Bastard child , who was adopted by a german family and raised up as thier own , this childs name was ALDOLF HITLER ,
zakaslam1 3 days ago
@zakaslam1 "everyone knows" Ten out of ten islamoholics agree!
I DONT know that. All we can do is take these people at their word. If they say "we bomb Israel," are they lying or kidding?
SpreadingtheMuse 3 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse NO IRAN NEVER SAID THEY WILL BOMB Isreal ! ISREAL SAYS IT WILL BOMB IRAN , DONT YOU WATCH THE NEWS ? ITS YOU WHOS LYING , LOOK YOUR A ZIONIST NAZI hate is your religon ,
zakaslam1 2 days ago
@zakaslam1 YES THEY DID. And they throw money at ever terrorist group that will fight a proxy war for them against israel. Hezbollah is Iranian bought and paid for. Paid to kill israelis.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Only according to Zionist Nazis propaganda , And the zionists have already attcked Iran by sanctions , Zionists again on the news calling for strikes agianst IRAN , LOOKS like the real monster is ISREAL no doubt about it !
zakaslam1 2 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Second Point Vote rigging In IRAN was a zionist lie to topple Iran backed by zionist christains of the usa , The New York times wrote 250 million dollars were given to Iranian opposition groups by usa and isreal funded organisations .But Amidimajad had history on his side , In the first election he WON 93 percent of votes , in the second he Won 73 percent , ALL Irainians presidents have won their 2 TERM in power FACT ! and history proves, so why should it be any different
zakaslam1 6 days ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Israel was once again the subject of condemnation by the highly politicized 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission during its annual six-week session from March 17 - April 23, 2003 YOU WERE SAYING ONLY ISREAL CARES ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS , THEN WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY CONDEMED BY THE UNITED NATIONS ?
zakaslam1 6 days ago
The proposition of peaceful solution is untenable. War is legal. If it's made illegal it will end, or the act of war will be a crime. War is a conscious, instituted choice, and it vitos all trump cards, often under a falacious pretext as witnessed by Vietnam and others. The perps failed to defend the deeply flawed premise that might is right when all their guns and cannon failed. Either war must be criminalized, or the casualties of war must be borne by its archetects and not civilians.
lessermystery 3 weeks ago
Edit: The proposition that there is NO peaceful solution is untenable. Sorry.
lessermystery 3 weeks ago
We must do at Picard and Data say....
Dracotonis 3 weeks ago
the reason this was banded was due to british government ban on any mention of the IRA ie the mentin of irish reunifaction
rick4037 3 weeks ago 9
@rick4037 Which makes sense considering the time this episode was first aired. I disagree with the censorship, but sort of understand why people may feel it necessary. The episode, in context, I believe says everything that needs to be said about the Troubles. While not unsympathetic to the terrorists, it clearly shows their actions in a negative light. It doesn't take the obvious "Right vs. Wrong" and, well, explores the issue fully
goji2099 3 weeks ago
@rick4037
George Washington was a terrorist too. Basically he was the Osama bin Laden of the 18th century. He led the rebellion of the British colonies in North America against their rightful King George. The entire USA is therefore a terrorist stronghold. Queen Elizabeth could legally wipe out the USA any minute if she wished to.
TheSunmanho 3 hours ago
So, Data unconsciously quotes JFK. "Those who make peaceful resolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
williamskidfears 3 weeks ago
@SKAshthra how stupid and dumb was it to nationally remove all tv episodes and movies from videos stores revlving terrorism? That made absolutely no sesne at all....
If you want truth, ask why hiroshima was A bombed over the small attack on pearl harbor yet no A bomb was dropped on iraq and why we are still there for oil. It is possible a culture of people are working closely with isreal today who were once persecuted as a race many decades before?
MuscleManDaniel 3 weeks ago
This was one of the more memorable episodes, too.
scionicspectre 3 weeks ago
Can't see why that would be banned.
robtul12 3 weeks ago
@robtul12
0:39 the irish unification of 2024
ColdHeartedMan86 3 weeks ago
This is obviously faked. No way is that a real space ship.
MrGamerDerek 3 weeks ago 21
@MrGamerDerek OMG that's hilarious!
kingsnoofer 3 weeks ago
@WillShakespeare2007 Keep the fuck out of other peoples countries and your precious little bastards can live a long life.
Pommie invaders and their bastards are legitimate targets.
Similarly, Americans are legitimate targets for terrorism. The children are collateral damage.
baalisgod666 3 weeks ago
@WillShakespeare2007 1. what BS. 2. Terrorism is legitimate when there is no other choice. The US ignores terror attacks & keeps opressing arabs. In other circumstance (not having moronic americans running things) it works.
Mandella was a terrorist (freedom fighter) and his cause was just. Yes he killed, but he killed tools of oppression.
I wish the US would learn from their mistakes, but I wont hold my breath.
We need more dead Americans and maybe they will get the fuck out of the Middle East.
baalisgod666 3 weeks ago
I think one thing to bear in mind is that when this was written, there were a lot of Irish nationalist sympathizers in the US. In fact many of them had been pouring money into Ireland to support the Nationalist movement. So their attitude to the IRA and their supporters was a little ambivalent to say the least.
Post 9/11 I think you will find it is a very different story. The Libyans would get a mention, but then they were not terrorists but an armed rebellion.
Tubular2007 4 weeks ago
It resulted in the entire episode being banned in the UK for many years. But its now ok. Our problem was this was made while we were engaged in an active conflict.
Thorndac 4 weeks ago
@WillShakespeare2007 But that it was filmed by the director, does not necessitate that he wanted to blow up little children.
Logical fallacy: Slippery slope.
mrteemumilto 4 weeks ago
Wow, I didn't realize this episode had been banned! In Canada, it was (as far as I know) always shown as-is, with no disclaimers at the beginning.
As for the whole terrorism thing, ultimately the dialogue between Picard and Data sums it up nicely - while violent confrontation has been effective in changing political structures, the ethics of it are a much larger question.
MatthewMiddletonTV 4 weeks ago
only 12 years to go!
someuser905 4 weeks ago
Goddamn 9/11 fanatics! This was an insightful scene, you just took it the wrong way!!
CatMaster90001 4 weeks ago
@CatMaster90001 We look at things in the wrong way sometimes. Guerrilla warfare against military targets is a campaign of terror against an opposing force, not a civilian population. There is a thin line between terrorism and Guerrilla Warfare, but it IS there. And it is a slippery slope. But a well controlled campaign can topple a government, effectively with minimum collateral damage.
wanderer711 4 weeks ago
@wanderer711 Excellently said, fellow intellectual. ^^ There's this little saying I heard once, and I think we all should especially take it into consideration. "One country's hero is another country's terrorist"...
CatMaster90001 4 weeks ago
I just saw this on BBC America the other day....
vyse128 4 weeks ago
paranoia does wonders - as always . . .
Kuplungmaster 1 month ago
I remember when this was first shown on BBC2 in the UK, and they did remove the reference to the IRA.
lmpoar 1 month ago 2
It might help the debate here to clear up the terms 'universal' and 'objective'. It seems as though whenever someone says 'objective' what they really mean is the former.
olywood9 1 month ago
I just saw this episode recently and this scene was not taken out of it......
demonjaymz 1 month ago
to any one out there with any power! PLEASE bring back Star Trek! Do a new series! we are sick of all the shit on tv with all the NCIS et all bullshit.
TheGreatAfricanGuru 1 month ago
@TheGreatAfricanGuru Just go watch Doctor Who :P
talkahuano 1 month ago
fascinating - I had no idea also that this had been banned in the UK. Really says something though about the country we are living in when they are worried about stuff like this...
Catandthespoon 1 month ago
in 1984 (prophetic) BBC also banned: whom gods destroy, miri, plato's stepchildren, and the empath. their reason? unsuitable for children.
dajamesnyc 1 month ago
"The complete episode was only shown for the first time on the BBC in September 2007, Sky TV soon followed suit and aired the full uncut episode"
Curious, I don't recall the BBC airing TNG in 2007. They seem to only be on pay for cable/sky channels for years. Not that I look any more, as I own them all on DVD (and soon on Blu-ray... can't frickin wait!)
GhibliFan1 1 month ago
I had no idea this was this episode was banned. I'm not sure what that says about us right now.
jayce79 1 month ago 25
@jayce79 it means we cant handle reality
DigiTrail 4 weeks ago
@jayce79 It says that we have a long way to go, before we are truly civilized.
sweiland75 3 weeks ago
@jayce79 Your confusion is... only human.
Khyrid 1 week ago
This is independent thought and as such it is banned from the bourgeoisie media.
mrteemumilto 1 month ago 2
this clip wasnt banned. i has it on dvd :)
dega 1 month ago
@dega I think its banned on BBC, and they play TNG all the time! I <3 TNG!
Theymightbe2323 1 month ago
@dega Banned content usually does show up on DVD and private media. It's only when it is shown on a public basis that it is edited or completely cut out.
Stealthbat007 1 month ago
Yeah, a tad controversial.
philwoodford 1 month ago
Comment removed
Halindir 1 month ago
I always found most of Data's questions to be at inappropriate times. They were on the bridge, on duty and he is asking a question non duty related for his own personal knowledge.
Coffeextreme 1 month ago
@Coffeextreme I think that's just a quirk of who and what he is that they tolerated and accepted, that they are in effect dealing with a hyper-intelligent child who possesses all knowledge humans have gained but knows not one thing about how we're motivated to do the things we do.
tremedar 2 weeks ago
This all depends hugely on what they mean by terrorism. If they mean a violent minority attacking a peaceful minority in murderous attacks then how can that be democratic or just. Effectiveness is no excuse.
Nerve gas is an effective riot control agent, that doesn't make it an ethical one.
Treblaine 1 month ago
What data forgot to mention is, it's gunna be southern Ireland rejoining the UK once they loose the rest of their money and have to be bailed out again.
OktoberSunset 1 month ago
Yes, I remember the BBC not showing this episode when it first aired TNG.
themachman19691 1 month ago
i dont mean just next generation, watch the old james t kirk ones, theres a lot of hidden meaning in the scripts like the writers were trying to warn people
GLICKTON 1 month ago
if you watch all the startreks that have ever been made you see a lot of clips like this.
GLICKTON 1 month ago
Makes me sick.
How hypocritical and pathetic our governments are, in the way they try to actually manage our THOUGHTS. Then they talk about free speech being a fundamental tenant.
What were they fearing? That the Irish would all of a sudden rise up against the British? Inspired by a fictitious android from the future? Jeez.
DaveKarl 1 month ago
Terrorism is wrong, when it's against civilian targets. If fact, that isn't terrorism, it's an act of war.
suddenrushsarge 1 month ago
They do have this clip on the DVD so who needs to watch it on TV.
EastAngliaUK 1 month ago
The BBC are very politically motivated. They are seen as a Unionist Propaganda Machine outside of England.
hafpipe 1 month ago
I must admit i profoundly disagree with the opinion in the clip. Intentional violation of innocents is never ethical. Although I'm against censorship, this clip wouldn't have made sense in the individualist, inclusive and richly capable world of star trek. There are always possibilities is the motto, and historically you can never say what could have happened without the terrorist act, since chance is also a factor subsequently so there are bound to be some 'lucky hits'.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender They weren't saying it was ethical. They said it was often an effective way to achieve a goal. Ethics generally tends to be the first thing that gets thrown out during wartime, on account of all the murdering.
SquigglyP 1 month ago
@SquigglyP Well, not quite - Data says 'an effective way to achieve political change' which sounds more ambiguous then achieving any specific goal. How do the terrorists know it will result in a change for the better even from their point of view. They surely can't know the future or what might have occurred from alternative action. And surely there is never any justification for ignoring ethics, even historical tradition. Also terrorism is not the same as war combatants who are soldiers.
intermender 1 month ago
Comment removed
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@intermender Nothing in this clip was referring to ethics. Merely what is and is not effective. And while it pains me to admit it, terrorism often achieves its desired effect.
Look at 9-11. They did not simply seek to harm us in a physical sense, as any idiot can do that. They sought to throw the entire American social system on its head, to change our way of life. It worked. We became more paranoid, took away freedoms, & closed ourselves from rational thought.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong Well 9/11 was a fluke, because America had been caught wrong footed, in accident, and with incapable, misconceived government. But when there is suffering of innocents, ethics is always of consideration: Is any aim - which btw terrorists cannot know will result - worth the suffering of innocents? Because that is implicit in any act of Terrorism. But terrorism is like pulling a peanut out of a hat and saying that is a success after torching the hat to ashes.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender I sincerely doubt ethics play a role when one resorts to terrorism, on account of the taking of human life in such a casual manner. That is usually a strong indicator that ethically based attempts have failed, or were deemed insufficient.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong My point is since terrorism ignores ethics it is never a 'successful tactic'. Resorting to terrorism doesn't mean ethics failed, it only means ethics is ignored because the terrorist thinks his objective is worth it. That isn't a failure of ethics, it is a failure of vision on the part of the terrorist. There simply is no justification for making innocents suffer. The irony of terrorist action is whomever you attack merely serves to strengthen another enemy.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender You're right, but you're also wrong.
You view the act of terrorism as unethical, because that is how you view ethics to begin with. A terrorist sees these acts as perfectly ethical.
The mistake you make is in assuming ethics are universal and objective. They are not.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong I'm sorry but you are taking the position of cultural relativism. Ethics is universal, not a point of view. It doesn't matter who you are, what matters is that you are human being. Are you really saying a terrorists opinion of ethics is equivalent to human empathy?
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender Ethics is entirely relative, yes. What you view as an ethical practice, someone else my not. There is NOTHING that is objective when it comes to something that is perceived, such as ethics.
There is a man in China that believes it is ethically sound to beat one's kids every day from birth until age 12, because he does not consider them human beings up until that point. Are these universal ethics? Nope. Why? Because such a thing simply does not exist.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong No, you miss my point: ethics is arrived at by rational and evidential debate which is not subjective. Are you enjoying defending terrorism, because honestly i don't know why you haven't conceded the discussion already.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender "No, you miss my point: ethics is arrived at by rational and evidential debate which is not subjective."
Define rational and evidential. Your definition may not be that of a terrorist's. The fact remains, ethics are born of points of view, of which there are no two alike. Thus, one ethical set is not the same as another. There is simply no such thing as an absolute when it comes to ethics. I do not find capital punishment ethically sound, others do. Case in point
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
As for a terrorist's version of ethics being equivalent to human empathy, since such things are relativistic, the answer is yes and no. To me, they are not equal concepts. To a terrorist, they are equal. You cannot simply say humanity or humane acts are superior to terrorist's ethics, as such an idea is born out of point of view. Your POV is not theirs, and likewise for their POV not being yours. You cannot simply say one is greater than the other. They are relative, at best.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong Not POV - see last comment.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender Again, you are wrong on this. Even evidential debate, even rationale, are born of differing points of view. Evidence is only as good as one is willing to accept it, and even then, it may not be factual or objective in nature. All of these things you ascribe to the formulation of ethics are, at their base, quite subjective.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong .. also are you saying human empathy does not inform ethics? lol, i'm sorry but you can't be serious
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender Human empathy may inform ethics in some cases, human apathy in others. Again, you are only speaking from one perspective, yours. That is hardly ground to claim that all ethical sets are derived in the same manner. You are a very small sample, and even your very argument on the matter is not quantitative.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong I'm sorry you are arguing for arguments sake - i've answered your charge of perspective two comments back. You keep trying to make this personal, but I told you then why it isn't. That answer is still on this page, but if you keep ignoring it and saying i am making subjective opinion instead, you're going to miss seeing it as it scrolls off the page.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender I've read it, and it's rather wrong. You are arguing that ethics are derived from rational and evidential processes. The problem is, even these are subjective by their very nature, both in presentation and acceptance. One does not derive objectivity from two VERY subjective processes.
I'm sorry, but the mere fact that you keep referring to an inaccurate and incorrect argument, still does not make you right in this case.
Ethics are subjective, nuff said.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong You are arguing that rational and evidential debate are useless because they are subject to presentation? Then all i have to do is appear in court with a smart suit and i can escape any driving ticket?
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender I've seen it happen, so yes. The problem you have is simple. You're ignoring the human factor when it comes to rational and evidential presentation. The capacity in which they are presented and received is entirely subjective. What is rational to one is not to another. "This coming from a guy who idea of objectivity is to declare 'Ethics are subjective, nuff said' ?"
Even that statement is a subjective one, I admit. Which only serves to prove my point.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong This coming from a guy who idea of objectivity is to declare 'Ethics are subjective, nuff said' ?
intermender 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong .. and the only reason i keep referring to is is that this is the first time you even acknowledged the point - or rather mis-acklnowledged it to be more precise! lol
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender Again, your problem is that you're ignoring the human factor in all of this. One's perception of reality, of rationale, of evidence itself, is an entirely personal matter. Thus, the ethics derived from those factors are also personal, ergo, subjective by their very nature.
Ethics differ, what is and is not ethical differs, how one arrives at such conclusions differ. Therefore, the ethics you or I have are not the same as a terrorist's version. It's all subjective.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong Dude, on the contrary - i'm embracing the human factor, not ignoring it because rational and evidential debate is all about objective progress despite human frailty. Sam Harris makes a similar point with analogy to medicine - there is no exact science of medicine, but there are evolving methods to achieve the best approximation.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender "Dude, on the contrary - i'm embracing the human factor, not ignoring it because rational and evidential debate is all about objective progress despite human frailty."
Again, wrong. Rationale is subjective. Evidence is subjective. For example, you & I may find it apparent that there is a sun, based upon our ability to see it. A blind man cannot acknowledge this observation, thus what should seem plainly objective two us, is not so for him. Evidence is subjective.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong You seem to be arguing that ethics is wholly subjective and ambivalent - so i make it simple for you - act so your actions do not cause innocents to suffer. Do you want to explain to me how that is subjective?
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender "You seem to be arguing that ethics is wholly subjective and ambivalent - so i make it simple for you - act so your actions do not cause innocents to suffer. Do you want to explain to me how that is subjective?"
Because that is only one set of ethics. By someone else's ethical standard, making others suffer may be perfectly acceptable. That's how it's subjective.
Also, suffering itself is subjective. Both in experience and in observation.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago 2
@AndrewDeLong lol, let me ask you something - do you think science takes the human factor into consideration during its operation? If so, by your argument, science is subjective.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender Science is a non-issue and a red herring in this case. What you are claiming is of non-scientific origin and is not itself quantitative. Please, don't try to make a point by drawing a parallel between two unrelated subjects.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong You don't see a parallel between rational and evidential debate and science?
intermender 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong How is rational and evidential debate not quantitative?
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender Rationale is not quantitative because it is entirely subjective. Evidential in the case that you would apply it is again subjective, ergo non-quantitative. "You don't see a parallel between rational and evidential debate and science?"
In the case of ethics, no. Ethics are not a quantitative thing, science is all about quantitative material.
Tell me, how can you quantify ethics, if no two ethical sets are the same thing?
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
Tell me how you can say two ethical sets are different if you deem all ethics subjective?
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender "Tell me how you can say two ethical sets are different if you deem all ethics subjective?"
You're kidding, right? That's the very idea of subjectivity. My ethics are born of my worldview, which can only be a subjective experience. Another ethical set is born of another worldview, which is again a subjective only experience.
The very idea that ethical sets are different from person to person is what MAKES them subjective.
How can you ask that with a straight face?
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
Comment removed
intermender 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewDeLong @AndrewDeLong Ethics can be quantified in the sense of using rationale and evidence in conjunction as check, and in open debate, together with science to inform on human nature, to evolve a universal and at once demonstratable ethics. We do not have to draw upon historical 'ethical sets' that lacked these methods of development. to quantify ethics - they are simply discarded as flawed attempts and misnomers. Also see what i said about calling guesses ethics in my other comment.
intermender 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong Are you really taking the position that ethics cannot benefit from rational and evidential debate, if not wholly beholden to it?
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender "Are you really taking the position that ethics cannot benefit from rational and evidential debate, if not wholly beholden to it?"
Comprehension isn't your friend right now.
No. I'm taking the position that rationale is subjective, and evidential material are not ALWAYS present when ethics are formulated. Do try to keep up.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong Well why would you want to only use evidence and rationale in isolation like you are suggesting here (if i comprehend, and am keeping up), rather than in conjunction, to check and feedback on each other? Also why are you determined to admit 'guesses' under the term ethics? Just don't admit guesses into ethics. Its no use you admitting guesses into ethics and then declaring all ethics are subjective making terrorism and cultural relativism justified. That's a circular argument.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender You apparently do not comprehend what I am saying. I am not isolating the evidential and the rational into separate camps. Even together they're subjective. How one rationalizes evidence is subjective, hell, the very ACT of rationalizing is a subjective one.
And yes, in a relative sense, terrorism is ethically justifiable, as their ethical set would allow for as much.
Just because you do not have a certain ethical set, it does not exclude another from possessing it
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
The easiest way to say it is this, my ethics are born of my world view, ergo, they are only ethics exactly as I can have them. No one else can have my exact set of ethics. Likewise, someone else has their own ethics, born of their own world view, and can only have their exact ethics. No two ethical sets are the same, and thusly are subject only to their respective beholder, making them subjective by nature, and relative to other beholders of ethical sets.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong Nope theres an easier way to say it: Im sorry you are doing it again: your saying whatever a personal guess it is admissible under the term ethics and so renders all ethics a guess. Circular argurment. I'm talking about human universals that reveal themselves by independent means reproducible by anyone that can inform us to developing ethics. Then we just throw away the guesses as redundant - I'm sorry you're hung up on them. Let em go.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender Let me describe it this way: what is ethical to you? What actions do you view as being ethically sound? Now ask yourself, do others use that same set? No. Because ethical sets are subjective.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong If one set is not subjective and the others are, by your non-sequitur reasoning all are. Like i said, you are choosing not to let go of that position. Ethics is simple. Start from innocents do must not suffer, everyone should have a sovereign personal space. I enjoyed chatting with you, but no matter what i say or demonstrate you are not going to budge from your position. To you all is either subjective or not, there is no spectrum or progress in eliminating subjectivity.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender "Ethics is simple. Start from innocents do must not suffer, everyone should have a sovereign personal space."
You assume this is a universal thought. That is your position on the matter. You assume that this is the basis of all ethics. You could not be more wrong. It is the basis for YOUR ethics.
You are trying to pull objectivity out of something that is beholden to subjective, individual stances, is both intellectually irresponsible, and utterly amazing.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong I think we are not defining universality the same way. I am defining it as something independently verifiable by anyone; you are defining it as the sum of everyone's opinion regardless of formative basis, personal or otherwise? So my position is objective process toward emergent ethic. Innocents must not be made to suffer can start the process. Simple example: Ask, if you should attack the innocent to forestall a threat. Perfectly transparent process cannot 'pull anything'?
intermender 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong .. expanding, if you get the same answer that I do, and then if everyone gets the same answer then it is not my personal ethic? Person A threatens your survival, person B is innocent, question: where do you direct your attention? Do you get the same answer that I do? Or try this, eliminate the innocent, would you feel safer? Or this: Do you feel safer in a world full of innocents?
intermender 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong " I am not isolating the evidential and the rational into separate camps. Even together they're subjective. How one rationalizes evidence is subjective, hell, the very ACT of rationalizing is a subjective one." ... evidence and rational in conjunction particularly in open debate is not subjective since they progressively eliminate subjectivity - it is the pragmatic tuning approach of science too. Theory, experiment, review, revolution ..., You are simply refusing to accept this.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender "evidence and rational in conjunction particularly in open debate is not subjective since they progressively eliminate subjectivity"
Irrelevant when it comes to ethics. Worldviews generate ethical sets. They are not derived from some formula, they are not agreed upon at some conference. They are arrived at from personal experience, making them wholly subjective. No circular argument, just your inability to comprehend a simple concept.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago
@AndrewDeLong And.. human empathy always informs ethics because it is always a significant factor.
intermender 1 month ago
@intermender "And.. human empathy always informs ethics because it is always a significant factor."
Prove that quantitatively. I have seen ethical sets derived of human apathy, which is the polar opposite of empathy, in fact, it's the exact lack of the stuff.
YOU gain an ethical set from human empathy. This does not mean everyone else does. and you have no way of proving such a claim.
AndrewDeLong 1 month ago 2
@AndrewDeLong True, but that doesn’t make ethics 'entirely relative'. A person in China and a person in the West would both understand ethics to amount to treating something in accordance with its own point of view. You wouldn’t find say, one person in Beijing arguing that ethics consisted of a method for preparing food and the guy in Holland arguing for ethics as a competitive sport It's only the extent or limit that ethical principals that can be applied that's relative.
olywood9 1 month ago
wow. never knew that it was banned in the uk. interesting.
FRamirez1978 1 month ago