Wow didn't know there were actually picard apologists on this board.
your PALE MOONLIGHT
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
ProtoAvatar
"About the 'sense of individuality' attack - as I remember the episode, it was a last second addition, a long-shot, made after Picard decided NOT to use the logic puzzle."
TRUE
"It was NOT an option competing with the 'logic puzzle' - we did not see Picard weighing the pros and cons for them"
TRUE
"- the 'logic puzzle' was clearly far better."
FALSE No specific mention of this by the characters. No comparison of the methods was done.
"We did see Picard saying "there was a chance of the sense of individuality being transmitted throughout the collective", "
TRUE
"acknowledging this chance was infinitesimal."
FALSE, he never said any such thing. He certainly did not use the word infinitesimal. Stop putting words in the characters mouths.
"The logic puzzle, on the other hand, had a very good chance of working - according to the episode."
TRUE
"Picard "did not just do nothing" - the option Picard chose had a very small chance of working and Picard knew this."
You've gone from "infitisimal" to "very small chance" here.
"Picard knew that he had only one realistic (as in, it could actually happen, it's not just a mathematical dream) chance of stopping the collective - by using the logic paradox."
Sorry, again putting your thoughts of what you imagine the character said. He never stated the words mathematical dream for one thing. No calculation of the odds of it working were done.
"But Picard didn't use this logic puzzle - ensuring that billions upon billions will die, when he had a realistic chance of stopping this.
And he didn't use this logic puzzle on so-called 'moral grounds', not because the 'sense of individuality' attack had a better chance."
TRUE, I won't deny this. They had made up their minds against using Hugh. If they had no alternative, I would be much harsher on their case. But as they realised, there was an alternative.
Yes it was a longer shot than the logic puzzle. That does not therefore mean that the odds of it working are now infinitesimal or a "mathematical dream". We certainly know that it worked for one Borg ship. Perhaps the Collective had mental safeguards in place that Picard nor the others knew little about. Picard was the one with the collective experiance however. As a result I would value his knowledge of the chances of the individual virus actually working.
Sisko's actions in this episode are not directly comparable.
And I notice theres no mention that Sisko/Starfleet/Section 31 could have saved the lives of millions of people by simply .....closing/blocking the wormhole in season's 3-5. I realise then that there would then be no show, but come on! You are going to criticise Picards moral actions while convinently ignoring that giant galaxy spanning elephant in the same room?
"About the 'sense of individuality' attack - as I remember the episode, it was a last second addition, a long-shot, made after Picard decided NOT to use the logic puzzle."
TRUE
"It was NOT an option competing with the 'logic puzzle' - we did not see Picard weighing the pros and cons for them"
TRUE
"- the 'logic puzzle' was clearly far better."
FALSE No specific mention of this by the characters. No comparison of the methods was done.
"We did see Picard saying "there was a chance of the sense of individuality being transmitted throughout the collective", "
TRUE
"acknowledging this chance was infinitesimal."
FALSE, he never said any such thing. He certainly did not use the word infinitesimal. Stop putting words in the characters mouths.
"The logic puzzle, on the other hand, had a very good chance of working - according to the episode."
TRUE
"Picard "did not just do nothing" - the option Picard chose had a very small chance of working and Picard knew this."
You've gone from "infitisimal" to "very small chance" here.
"Picard knew that he had only one realistic (as in, it could actually happen, it's not just a mathematical dream) chance of stopping the collective - by using the logic paradox."
Sorry, again putting your thoughts of what you imagine the character said. He never stated the words mathematical dream for one thing. No calculation of the odds of it working were done.
"But Picard didn't use this logic puzzle - ensuring that billions upon billions will die, when he had a realistic chance of stopping this.
And he didn't use this logic puzzle on so-called 'moral grounds', not because the 'sense of individuality' attack had a better chance."
TRUE, I won't deny this. They had made up their minds against using Hugh. If they had no alternative, I would be much harsher on their case. But as they realised, there was an alternative.
Yes it was a longer shot than the logic puzzle. That does not therefore mean that the odds of it working are now infinitesimal or a "mathematical dream". We certainly know that it worked for one Borg ship. Perhaps the Collective had mental safeguards in place that Picard nor the others knew little about. Picard was the one with the collective experiance however. As a result I would value his knowledge of the chances of the individual virus actually working.
Sisko's actions in this episode are not directly comparable.
And I notice theres no mention that Sisko/Starfleet/Section 31 could have saved the lives of millions of people by simply .....closing/blocking the wormhole in season's 3-5. I realise then that there would then be no show, but come on! You are going to criticise Picards moral actions while convinently ignoring that giant galaxy spanning elephant in the same room?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
I use 'infinitesimal', 'very small' and 'mathematical dream' as synonims.
What is their meaning? I have an 'infinitesimal', 'very small' chance of winning the lottery. Mathematically, the chance exists, realistically, not so much - hence 'mathematical dream'.
Facts speak louder than words.
If the two options' chances were relatively equal, LaForge/Data would have presented both to Picard&staff; Picard&staff would have weighed both.
This did not happen - LaForge/Data presented only one option - 'the logic paradox'; Picard&staff weighed only this option.
The 'sense of individuality' option was determined to have such a low chance of success by comparison, that it was not even considered while the 'logic paradox' option was on the table.
Picard's words 'a chance' merely confirm what Picard&crew's actions established - the 'sense of individuality' has a very small chance of succes (unlike the 'logic puzzle').
An alternative with a very low chance of success - see above.
Until middle S5, there was a chance of peace with the Dominion. This goes a long way towars justifying the Federation not using the option of 'closing the wormhole'.
When it became clear that the Dominion WILL start a war, the Federation did try to close the wormhole - and failed.
During the war, Sisko used the option opened to him - as one would expect in war, lesser evil rather than moral option.
Since "Best of both worlds" there was war between the Borg and the Federation. No chance of peace with the borg whatsoever. This is the situation in which Picard refused to use the 'logic puzzle' option.
Picard tried to make the moral option - but in war, there's NO SUCH THING, simply because if you don't kill the enemy, you will be killed by him. Picard comndemned BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS to death, simply so that he can look into the mirror and FOOL HIMSELF that he chose the moral option.
Consider - if, during the dominion war, Enterprise encountered a weaker jem'hadar vessel, Picard, following the same logic as in "I, Hugh", would let this jem'hadar vessel escape rather than destroy him (or putting the jem'hadar in the position to kill themselvs), because, ONLY at that particular moment, the jem'hadar crew posed no threat (meaning, hurting the jem'hadar is immoral). But Picard will try to convince that peace is preferable and they should stop with the war, so he did something
.But tomorrow, this jem'hadar vessel may very well encounter a smaller federation vessel and destroy it.
But that's not Picard's problem anymore - he doesn't have to watch this, and can pretend he's not responsible for the death of the federation crew-members. And, of course, because he tried to convince these jem'hadar to desert, knowing how improbable this is.
Last edited:
1. LaForge didn't present Hugh's individuality to Picard as an option because, at the time, Hugh wasn't manifesting as an individual. In fact, when the logic puzzle was ready for deployment LaForge -did- protest its use, as did Crusher and Guinan. If Picard's accountable for not deploying the puzzle, those three are just as accountable for having influenced Picard's decision.
2. When is it -ever- established that the logic puzzle will definitely be more likely to work than passing on Hugh's sense of individuality? Dialog, please. Given it was never used, I believe you're talking pure theory. If memory serves, it was touted as being about as likely to succeed as the deflector dish attack in BoBW...and we all saw how well that worked out. You can argue the deflector dish attack failed because the Borg accessed Picard's knowledge...and I can argue that the logic puzzle never would have worked because the Borg had defenses in place to prevent that sort of thing in the first place. Heck, it may have been even less effective than spreading Hugh's individuality, which took out at least one ship and probably more (there were certainly more than 5 Borg present in Descent).
2. When is it -ever- established that the logic puzzle will definitely be more likely to work than passing on Hugh's sense of individuality? Dialog, please. Given it was never used, I believe you're talking pure theory. If memory serves, it was touted as being about as likely to succeed as the deflector dish attack in BoBW...and we all saw how well that worked out. You can argue the deflector dish attack failed because the Borg accessed Picard's knowledge...and I can argue that the logic puzzle never would have worked because the Borg had defenses in place to prevent that sort of thing in the first place. Heck, it may have been even less effective than spreading Hugh's individuality, which took out at least one ship and probably more (there were certainly more than 5 Borg present in Descent).
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
LaForge/Data didn't present and Picard&crew didn't consider the 'sense of individuality' option after Hugh got 'individuality', either.
This option was so improbable to work when compared to the 'logic puzzle", that it was not even considered as long as the 'logic paradox' option was still available
.And Picard made the decision - NOT LaForge, Grusher or Guinan. The're guilty of being really bad advisors, who didn't understand the situation with the borg.
As I said - FACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Picard's words 'a chance' merely confirm what the actions of the crew established, that the 'sense of individuality' option was highly unlikely to work.
About the 'logic puzzle' - as far as I remember, it was never compared to the deflector dish attack; and the deflector attack would have worked if the borg hadn't assimilated Picard's knowledge of it.
DonIago, It was established in "Best of both worlds 2" that the deflector dish attack didn't work due to the borg "accessing Picard's knowledge" - Locutus confirmed it.
And it was established in "I, Hugh" - through facts/actions and words - that the 'logic paradox' had a very good chance of working and that the 'sense of individuality', almost none.
Indeed, in "I, hugh", the crew was certain that the 'logic paradox' will work. Picard was convinced that the logic paradox will work - and he made his decision having this conviction.
You claiming otherwise contradicts on-screen evidence. And you accuse me of talking 'pure theory'
.
Last edited:
"LaForge/Data didn't present and Picard&crew didn't considered the 'sense of individuality' option after Hugh got 'individuality', either.
This option was so improbable to work when compared to the 'logic puzzle", that it was not even considered as long as the 'logic paradox' option was still available."
Theory, not fact.
"And picard made the decision - NOT LaForge, Grusher or Guinan. The're guilty of being really bad advisors, who didn't understand the situation with the borg."
I'm pretty sure they quite well understood what was at stake.
"As I said - FACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Picard's words 'a chance' merely confirm what the actions of the crew established, that the 'sense of individuality' option was highly unlikely to work."
Yes, and the logic puzzle also had 'a chance' of working. Where in the episode is it stated that the puzzle -would- work?
"the deflector attack would have worked if the borg hadn't assimilated Picard's knowledge of it."
"DonIago, It was established in "Best of both worlds 2" that the deflector dish attack didn't work due to the borg "accessing Picard's knowledge" - Locutus confirmed it."
Theory, not fact. And I'd hardly consider Locutus the most credible source of information.
"And it was established in "I, Hugh" - through facts/actions and words - that the 'logic paradox' had a very good chance of working and that the 'sense of individuality', almost none."
Where in the episode is this stated? Stop repeating yourself and provide dialog, if you can.
This option was so improbable to work when compared to the 'logic puzzle", that it was not even considered as long as the 'logic paradox' option was still available
."Theory, not fact.
"And picard made the decision - NOT LaForge, Grusher or Guinan. The're guilty of being really bad advisors, who didn't understand the situation with the borg."
I'm pretty sure they quite well understood what was at stake.
"As I said - FACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Picard's words 'a chance' merely confirm what the actions of the crew established, that the 'sense of individuality' option was highly unlikely to work."
Yes, and the logic puzzle also had 'a chance' of working. Where in the episode is it stated that the puzzle -would- work?
"the deflector attack would have worked if the borg hadn't assimilated Picard's knowledge of it."
"DonIago, It was established in "Best of both worlds 2" that the deflector dish attack didn't work due to the borg "accessing Picard's knowledge" - Locutus confirmed it."
Theory, not fact. And I'd hardly consider Locutus the most credible source of information.
"And it was established in "I, Hugh" - through facts/actions and words - that the 'logic paradox' had a very good chance of working and that the 'sense of individuality', almost none."
Where in the episode is this stated? Stop repeating yourself and provide dialog, if you can.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
"LaForge/Data didn't present and Picard&crew didn't considered the 'sense of individuality' option after Hugh got 'individuality', either.
This option was so improbable to work when compared to the 'logic puzzle", that it was not even considered as long as the 'logic paradox' option was still available
Theory, not fact.
No, DonIago.
LaForge/Data's on-screen actions = facts.
You trying to deny them = baseless theory.
According to the crew's actions/words, the 'logic paradox' was virtually certain to work. The 'sense of individuality' was very improbable to work.
They didn't show it. On the contrary.
The rest of your post is you writing baseless theory.
I proved my points - with the actions/words of the crew in "I, Hugh".
Your 'affirmations' amount to - 'you're wrong because I say so'. You'll have to do a LOT better than 'I say so', DonIago.
Last edited:
Ok
1: Elephant in the Room
"Until middle S5, there was a chance of peace with the Dominion. This goes a long way towars justifying the Federation not using the option of 'closing the wormhole'.
When it became clear that the Dominion WILL start a war, the Federation did try to close the wormhole - and failed.
During the war, Sisko used the option opened to him - as one would expect in war, lesser evil rather than moral option."
Sorry, they had the option of mining the wormhole at any time, thus denying the Dominion access. (covert or otherwise) They could have negotiated using the comm array through the wormhole and forged peace. Further they then had the option up to A Call to Arms to stop the Dominion reinforcement fleets.
They did not.
That is beyond stupid. That is beyond what Picard failed to do. Picard had pressure constraints, Sisko/Starfleet had 3 YEARS to make their decision. With no moral drawbacks to doing so. Its utterly unforgiveable. 600 MILLION Cardassian deaths! All because the Dominion came through a single easily containable entry point. I cannot fathom the stupidity here. Its repugnant. God bless the Romulans who at least tried ahead of time! (although they were willing to blow up the station and kill the wormhole aliens to do so. Surely if you want to condemn Picard you must also support the Romulans actions in Visionary?)
2: Two options considered at the same time, oh hang on they were NOT considered at the same initial time.
"Facts speak louder than words.
If the two options' chances were relatively equal, LaForge/Data would have presented both to Picard&staff; Picard&staff would have weighed both. This did not happen - LaForge/Data presented only one option - 'the logic paradox'; Picard&staff weighed only this option.
The 'sense of individuality' option was determined to have such a low chance of success by comparison, that it was not even considered while the 'logic paradox' option was on the table."
Come on man, you know this is not true. During the course of the episode they realised that Hugh was becoming an individual and thus a possible carrier of that. Not when they presented the initial logic puzzle plan. Thats a lie on your part.
3: Does Chance = very small chance = infinitesimal ???????
"use 'infinitesimal', 'very small' and 'mathematical dream' as synonims.
What is their meaning? I have an 'infinitesimal', 'very small' chance of winning the lottery. Mathematically, the chance exists, realistically, not so much - hence 'mathematical dream'."
"Picard's words 'a chance' merely confirm what Picard&crew's actions established - the 'sense of individuality' has a very small chance of succes (unlike the 'logic puzzle')."
Picard never clarifies the odds of his chance. Yes I will admit it the phrase he uses sound like a long shot when you see the episode, but it is still a chance of resolving the ENTIRE BORG PROBLEM BLOODLESSLY! Without genocide, without death, without a gross perversion of the Federation's ideals.
Now, if that chance was not there, I would probably be like you, willing to use the logic puzzle problem, but that CHANCE was there and despite your attempts to minimise it away, it was still a valid option. One that Picard had to consider.
4: Moral choice verus immoral choice in war
"Since "Best of both worlds" there was war between the Borg and the Federation. No chance of peace with the borg whatsoever. This is the situation in which Picard refused to use the 'logic puzzle' option.
Picard tried to make the moral option - but in war, there's NO SUCH THING, simply because if you don't kill the enemy, you will be killed by him. Picard comndemned BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS to death, simply so that he can look into the mirror and FOOL HIMSELF that he chose the moral option."
If his moral choice had destroyed the Borg in a bloodless fashion, well then I would have chosen it over the immoral choice. It depends on how low teh chance of it working was. Picard was the one with the previous collective history, plus he did not minimise the chance of it working like you are doing.
Your comments are only valid if there is NO moral choice in war.
5: Comparisons
Consider - if, during the dominion war, Enterprise encountered a weaker jem'hadar vessel, Picard, following the same logic as in "I, Hugh", would let this jem'hadar vessel escape rather than destroy him (or putting the jem'hadar in the position to kill themselvs), because, ONLY at that particular moment, the jem'hadar crew posed no threat (meaning, hurting the jem'hadar is immoral). But Picard will try to convince that peace is preferable and they should stop with the war, so he did something. But tomorrow, this jem'hadar vessel may very well encounter a smaller federation vessel and destroy it.
But that's not Picard's problem anymore - he doesn't have to watch this, and can pretend he's not responsible for the death of the federation crew-members. And, of course, because he tried to convince these jem'hadar to desert, knowing how improbable this is."
No the scenario is Picard wants to destroy the Jem'Hader ship, he is about to fire when he realises that they are all knocked out.
Takes them prisioner, gives them medical aid as enemy combatants. He realises that a founder is among them, he is about to give her the section 31 virus when is is talked down, instead he convinces her to stop the war, a number of dominion battlecruisers are on their way to get her back as she has some hand-wavey tech stuff that broadcasts her location, she gives her word that she will stop the war. He lets her go, she DOES convince the group of Dominion battlecruisers to stop they war. She intends to link with the rest to change their mind. But other Founders brand her a traitor and refuse to listen to her.
Picard being the man he is could not do that if there was a chance that the founder could be listened too.
6: Hindsight
Two things to consider
What if Sisko's actions were exposed and Garak somehow messed up killing the Senator. He gets back to Romulus and the Romulans join the war against the Klingons and the Federation. A few months later the Dominion (the Romulans now reluctant allies) rule the Alpha Quadrant?
What if Picard's individual virus ship, transports directly to Unimatrix one in the Delta Quadrant? The entire Borg collective is infected at a single stroke.
Hindsight my friend. Its easy to condemn one captain while praising the other. Both did the best they could with the available information at hand.
1: Elephant in the Room
"Until middle S5, there was a chance of peace with the Dominion. This goes a long way towars justifying the Federation not using the option of 'closing the wormhole'.
When it became clear that the Dominion WILL start a war, the Federation did try to close the wormhole - and failed.
During the war, Sisko used the option opened to him - as one would expect in war, lesser evil rather than moral option."
Sorry, they had the option of mining the wormhole at any time, thus denying the Dominion access. (covert or otherwise) They could have negotiated using the comm array through the wormhole and forged peace. Further they then had the option up to A Call to Arms to stop the Dominion reinforcement fleets.
They did not.
That is beyond stupid. That is beyond what Picard failed to do. Picard had pressure constraints, Sisko/Starfleet had 3 YEARS to make their decision. With no moral drawbacks to doing so. Its utterly unforgiveable. 600 MILLION Cardassian deaths! All because the Dominion came through a single easily containable entry point. I cannot fathom the stupidity here. Its repugnant. God bless the Romulans who at least tried ahead of time! (although they were willing to blow up the station and kill the wormhole aliens to do so. Surely if you want to condemn Picard you must also support the Romulans actions in Visionary?)
2: Two options considered at the same time, oh hang on they were NOT considered at the same initial time.
"Facts speak louder than words.
If the two options' chances were relatively equal, LaForge/Data would have presented both to Picard&staff; Picard&staff would have weighed both. This did not happen - LaForge/Data presented only one option - 'the logic paradox'; Picard&staff weighed only this option.
The 'sense of individuality' option was determined to have such a low chance of success by comparison, that it was not even considered while the 'logic paradox' option was on the table."
Come on man, you know this is not true. During the course of the episode they realised that Hugh was becoming an individual and thus a possible carrier of that. Not when they presented the initial logic puzzle plan. Thats a lie on your part.
3: Does Chance = very small chance = infinitesimal ???????
"use 'infinitesimal', 'very small' and 'mathematical dream' as synonims.
What is their meaning? I have an 'infinitesimal', 'very small' chance of winning the lottery. Mathematically, the chance exists, realistically, not so much - hence 'mathematical dream'."
"Picard's words 'a chance' merely confirm what Picard&crew's actions established - the 'sense of individuality' has a very small chance of succes (unlike the 'logic puzzle')."
Picard never clarifies the odds of his chance. Yes I will admit it the phrase he uses sound like a long shot when you see the episode, but it is still a chance of resolving the ENTIRE BORG PROBLEM BLOODLESSLY! Without genocide, without death, without a gross perversion of the Federation's ideals.
Now, if that chance was not there, I would probably be like you, willing to use the logic puzzle problem, but that CHANCE was there and despite your attempts to minimise it away, it was still a valid option. One that Picard had to consider.
4: Moral choice verus immoral choice in war
"Since "Best of both worlds" there was war between the Borg and the Federation. No chance of peace with the borg whatsoever. This is the situation in which Picard refused to use the 'logic puzzle' option.
Picard tried to make the moral option - but in war, there's NO SUCH THING, simply because if you don't kill the enemy, you will be killed by him. Picard comndemned BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS to death, simply so that he can look into the mirror and FOOL HIMSELF that he chose the moral option."
If his moral choice had destroyed the Borg in a bloodless fashion, well then I would have chosen it over the immoral choice. It depends on how low teh chance of it working was. Picard was the one with the previous collective history, plus he did not minimise the chance of it working like you are doing.
Your comments are only valid if there is NO moral choice in war.
5: Comparisons
Consider - if, during the dominion war, Enterprise encountered a weaker jem'hadar vessel, Picard, following the same logic as in "I, Hugh", would let this jem'hadar vessel escape rather than destroy him (or putting the jem'hadar in the position to kill themselvs), because, ONLY at that particular moment, the jem'hadar crew posed no threat (meaning, hurting the jem'hadar is immoral). But Picard will try to convince that peace is preferable and they should stop with the war, so he did something. But tomorrow, this jem'hadar vessel may very well encounter a smaller federation vessel and destroy it.
But that's not Picard's problem anymore - he doesn't have to watch this, and can pretend he's not responsible for the death of the federation crew-members. And, of course, because he tried to convince these jem'hadar to desert, knowing how improbable this is."
No the scenario is Picard wants to destroy the Jem'Hader ship, he is about to fire when he realises that they are all knocked out.
Takes them prisioner, gives them medical aid as enemy combatants. He realises that a founder is among them, he is about to give her the section 31 virus when is is talked down, instead he convinces her to stop the war, a number of dominion battlecruisers are on their way to get her back as she has some hand-wavey tech stuff that broadcasts her location, she gives her word that she will stop the war. He lets her go, she DOES convince the group of Dominion battlecruisers to stop they war. She intends to link with the rest to change their mind. But other Founders brand her a traitor and refuse to listen to her.
Picard being the man he is could not do that if there was a chance that the founder could be listened too.
6: Hindsight
Two things to consider
What if Sisko's actions were exposed and Garak somehow messed up killing the Senator. He gets back to Romulus and the Romulans join the war against the Klingons and the Federation. A few months later the Dominion (the Romulans now reluctant allies) rule the Alpha Quadrant?
What if Picard's individual virus ship, transports directly to Unimatrix one in the Delta Quadrant? The entire Borg collective is infected at a single stroke.
Hindsight my friend. Its easy to condemn one captain while praising the other. Both did the best they could with the available information at hand.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
@blackzoid
"I, Hugh" - relevant facts:
Enterprise discovers Hugh.
Picard orders LaForge/Data to study him to find ways to attack the borg.
LaForge studies Hugh. LaForge finds that Hugh has individuality.
LaForge/Data present to Picard the ways they discoverd to attack the borg - 'the logic paradox' (LaForge/Data are certain that 'the logic paradox ' will work); they do not mention 'the individuality attack' (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, LaForge/Data would have mentioned the option, as ordered).
LaForge (and others) try to convince Picard NOT to use 'the logic paradox'. LaForge (and others) don't even mention 'the individuality attack' as an alternative (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, LaForge would have mentioned this very strong argument).
Picard is certain 'the logic paradox' will work. He doesn't even consider 'the individuality attack' (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, Picard would have considered this option, too).
Picard says about the 'individuality attack' that it has 'a chance' of success. This semantic construction is used only when this chance is very small. Also, it is established that Picard&crew were aware of 'the individuality attack' option.
Conclusion - proven by actions/words of the crew - 'the logic paradox' has a very good chance of succeeding. 'The individuality attack''s chance of success is very low.
How low is not mathematically specified, but you can be sure it's...well, low.
If Picard expected it to work, he was deluding himself.
And there is no moral choice in war.
If Picard refused to use/hurt 1 being, despite the tremendous potential gain for the Federation, he would most certainly refuse to use/hurt more beings who posed no immediate threat (the crew of jem'hadar) for, comparatively, an insignificant gain for the Federation.
Between middle S5 - S6, the war was clearly coming, and not mining the wormhole was, indeed, stupid.
It was appeasement.
Considering that, in middle S5, Sisko tried to close the wormhole, I think the decision not to mine the wormhole was not his; most likely it belonged to that president outwitted by Admiral Leyton. During this president's term, the Federation exhibited appeasement behaviour on a number of occasions (see TNG).
And there were 800 million cardassian dead on Cardassia Prime alone; throughout the Cardassian Union, the number is easily above 1 billion. In the end, they were even more delusional than the Federation - they allied themselves with the Dominion of their own free will.
At least the Federation was delusional due to its quest for peace. The cardassians were delusional due to their hunger for conquest.
Sisko:
With the Romulans neutral, the Federation will fall.
With the Romulans siding with the Dominion, the Federation will fall.
With the Romulans siding with the Federation, the Federation will prevail.
What were the chances of the romulans entering the war with Garak helping? Considering Garak's abilities, increased.
What were the chances of the romulans finding about Garak's machinations? Considering Garak's abilities, minimal.
Picard:
The borg's nature
VOY:Scorpion "~One should not expect reason or compassion from the borg. In their collective state, they feel no pity, no remorse - only the will to conquer" (Picard's words)
TNG:Q, who "The borg are relentless"
The borg's capabilities
Voy:Scorpion - the borg have MILLIONS OF CUBES.
It's a virtual certainty that the borg will invade the Alpha Quadrant NOT with a cube, but with THOUSANDS of cubes. It's not a question of if, but when. The Federation and the borg are in a state of war.
If the borg send 10000 cubes (a small force, by their standards), what are the chances of the Federation/any alpha power surviving? NEGLIGIBLE.
'The logic paradox' has a very good chance of destroying the borg (proved above). Risk of using the attack? none.
'The individuality attack' has a far lower chance of dismantling the borg (proved above). Risk of usinng the attack? None.
Picard used 'the inviduality attack', risking the very existence of the Federation, condemning BILLIONS to death in the Delta Quadrant and elsewhere.
Picard isn't very good at risk gain analysis, is he
?
"I, Hugh" - relevant facts:
Enterprise discovers Hugh.
Picard orders LaForge/Data to study him to find ways to attack the borg.
LaForge studies Hugh. LaForge finds that Hugh has individuality.
LaForge/Data present to Picard the ways they discoverd to attack the borg - 'the logic paradox' (LaForge/Data are certain that 'the logic paradox ' will work); they do not mention 'the individuality attack' (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, LaForge/Data would have mentioned the option, as ordered).
LaForge (and others) try to convince Picard NOT to use 'the logic paradox'. LaForge (and others) don't even mention 'the individuality attack' as an alternative (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, LaForge would have mentioned this very strong argument).
Picard is certain 'the logic paradox' will work. He doesn't even consider 'the individuality attack' (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, Picard would have considered this option, too).
Picard says about the 'individuality attack' that it has 'a chance' of success. This semantic construction is used only when this chance is very small. Also, it is established that Picard&crew were aware of 'the individuality attack' option.
Conclusion - proven by actions/words of the crew - 'the logic paradox' has a very good chance of succeeding. 'The individuality attack''s chance of success is very low.
How low is not mathematically specified, but you can be sure it's...well, low.
The chance of destroying the borg bloodlessly was as low as the chance of winning the lottery.
If Picard expected it to work, he was deluding himself.
And there is no moral choice in war.
blackzoid, Picard refused to use 'the logic paradox' on Hugh, during war, despite the huge potential gain for the Federation, because it would have meant using/hurting Hugh, who was not a threat at the moment (NOT because ther was another option, blackzoid).
If Picard refused to use/hurt 1 being, despite the tremendous potential gain for the Federation, he would most certainly refuse to use/hurt more beings who posed no immediate threat (the crew of jem'hadar) for, comparatively, an insignificant gain for the Federation.
As I said, until middle S5, there was a chance of peace with the Dominion, and NOT mining the wormhole is justified.
Between middle S5 - S6, the war was clearly coming, and not mining the wormhole was, indeed, stupid.
It was appeasement.
Considering that, in middle S5, Sisko tried to close the wormhole, I think the decision not to mine the wormhole was not his; most likely it belonged to that president outwitted by Admiral Leyton. During this president's term, the Federation exhibited appeasement behaviour on a number of occasions (see TNG).
And there were 800 million cardassian dead on Cardassia Prime alone; throughout the Cardassian Union, the number is easily above 1 billion. In the end, they were even more delusional than the Federation - they allied themselves with the Dominion of their own free will.
At least the Federation was delusional due to its quest for peace. The cardassians were delusional due to their hunger for conquest.
Risk gain analysis:
Sisko:
With the Romulans neutral, the Federation will fall.
With the Romulans siding with the Dominion, the Federation will fall.
With the Romulans siding with the Federation, the Federation will prevail.
What were the chances of the romulans entering the war with Garak helping? Considering Garak's abilities, increased.
What were the chances of the romulans finding about Garak's machinations? Considering Garak's abilities, minimal.
Picard:
The borg's nature
VOY:Scorpion "~One should not expect reason or compassion from the borg. In their collective state, they feel no pity, no remorse - only the will to conquer" (Picard's words)
TNG:Q, who "The borg are relentless"
The borg's capabilities
Voy:Scorpion - the borg have MILLIONS OF CUBES.
It's a virtual certainty that the borg will invade the Alpha Quadrant NOT with a cube, but with THOUSANDS of cubes. It's not a question of if, but when. The Federation and the borg are in a state of war.
If the borg send 10000 cubes (a small force, by their standards), what are the chances of the Federation/any alpha power surviving? NEGLIGIBLE.
'The logic paradox' has a very good chance of destroying the borg (proved above). Risk of using the attack? none.
'The individuality attack' has a far lower chance of dismantling the borg (proved above). Risk of usinng the attack? None.
Picard used 'the inviduality attack', risking the very existence of the Federation, condemning BILLIONS to death in the Delta Quadrant and elsewhere.
Picard isn't very good at risk gain analysis, is he
?
Last edited:
I have to agree with Proto as I have I hugh on my hard drive and on disc and just watched through it again.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
As you know, after watching the episode, two things become clear:
Picard refused to use the logical puzzle NOT because he had an alternative, but because he didn't want to use/hurt Hugh.
The 'logical paradox' had a very good chance of destroying the borg. The 'sense of individuality' option had a very low chance of succes.
Meaning Picard's hands ARE stained with the blood of BILLIONS the borg killed since then, because he could have saved them and he didn't.
Last edited:
Yea I had to watch that episode again (which isn't that great to me imo in the tng run) since I saw so many peeps dragging it around. You can draw the line where picard is a sterile murderer of billions from it.
ProtoAvatar.
"Enterprise discovers Hugh.
Picard orders LaForge/Data to study him to find ways to attack the borg.
LaForge studies Hugh. LaForge finds that Hugh has individuality.
LaForge/Data present to Picard the ways they discoverd to attack the borg - 'the logic paradox' (LaForge/Data are certain that 'the logic paradox ' will work); they do not mention 'the individuality attack' (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, LaForge/Data would have mentioned the option, as ordered).
LaForge (and others) try to convince Picard NOT to use 'the logic paradox'. LaForge (and others) don't even mention 'the individuality attack' as an alternative (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, LaForge would have mentioned this very strong argument).
Picard is certain 'the logic paradox' will work. He doesn't even consider 'the individuality attack' (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, Picard would have considered this option, too).
Picard says about the 'individuality attack' that it has 'a chance' of success. This semantic construction is used only when this chance is very small. Also, it is established that Picard&crew were aware of 'the individuality attack' option.
Conclusion - proven by actions/words of the crew - 'the logic paradox' has a very good chance of succeeding. 'The individuality attack''s chance of success is very low.
How low is not mathematically specified, but you can be sure it's...well, low."
You are assuming that because Geordi/Data did not present the option as ordered, they deemed its chances of success were no-existant.
Thats not true ase they did not consider it as a means of attack. It was Picard in the final meeting who brought it up. Thats the sequence of events in the episode. Nowhere is it mentioned until the final meeting that it is a possibility of attack. It was always the logic puzzle only up to that point. Simple as that. Don't stray from what the epsiode actually showed and make up your own episode instead. Nowhere did they consider it as a means of attack, until Picard, the only one with internal collective human experiance (possibly bar Data's experiance in BoBW. He wasn't an internal drone though) brought it up.
"The chance of destroying the borg bloodlessly was as low as the chance of winning the lottery.
If Picard expected it to work, he was deluding himself."
But it DID work. On at least 2 Borg ships. Don't just blindly dismiss that. And as the Borg are a single connected collective, that means that it could have spread further, if luck had being on their side. What if the logic paradox had also only spread to those same two ships eh? What if the small Borg probe ship had immediatley jumped to unimatrix one as I stated and infected the entire unicomplex? What then would you say?
"And there is no moral choice in war."
There is always the least moral and most moral choice, especially when it comes to genocide of entire races. Don't just think in black and white. The is the Deep Space Nine forum. Grey area's remember?
"blackzoid, Picard refused to use 'the logic paradox' on Hugh, during war, despite the huge potential gain for the Federation, because it would have meant using/hurting Hugh, who was not a threat at the moment (NOT because ther was another option, blackzoid).
If Picard refused to use/hurt 1 being, despite the tremendous potential gain for the Federation, he would most certainly refuse to use/hurt more beings who posed no immediate threat (the crew of jem'hadar) for, comparatively, an insignificant gain for the Federation."
Yes. I would be on your side if Picard refused to use Hugh at all. Say he wiped Hugh's memory and returned him to the Borg. Thats fine, lets castigate Picard but the fact is, he DID realise there was another choice. Again its not a simple yes/no black/white situation which is what you are so intent on making it be.
And the Borg are a special case with the entire race being one collective component . Are you now saying that against normal enemy combatants that Picard would not destroy their ships? Even though he fought in the Cardassian wars? That he would never destroy any inferior enemy ship in a time of war?
"As I said, until middle S5, there was a chance of peace with the Dominion, and NOT mining the wormhole is justified.
HAHAHAHA!
You argue about the fact that the Borg were in a state of war with the Federation and thus the Federation had no moral obligations as it was wartime and then you ignore the fact that Sisko's mining the wormhole was the actual reason for the declaration of hostilities? I'm sorry but face it, Sisko took an action beforehand that started the war. He actually officially started the war. Vreenack stated that and Sisko did not deny it.
So he finally offically took an action (although to be fair it was the closing the wormhole one, not the minefield one), after.........the Founders had killed numerious Federation citzens, started a war between the Klingons and the Cardassians, started a war between the Klingons and the Federation. But only until he sees the Dominion invasion fleet on the way.
Do you actually honestly believe that that is prudent planning? Its one single entry point in space. One. The lack of action is indefensible. We are talking about risk analysis later but how do you run this through the equation? its just absurd.
Hang on I just realised something......... Didn't our old non-moral friend PICARD actually blockade the Klingon/Romulan border to prevent Romulan involvment in the Klingon civil war. He stated that it was an internal Klingon matter and that the Romulans must not be allowed to interfere. He was even in Klingon territory when he did this!
We should have had Picard and the rest of the TNG appeasers in charge of the Station from Season 3to Mid Season 5 It certainly seems like you want it to be one rule for Picard and one rule for Sisko here! Poor old Picard, can never catch a break.
"Between middle S5 - S6, the war was clearly coming, and not mining the wormhole was, indeed, stupid.
It was appeasement.
Considering that, in middle S5, Sisko tried to close the wormhole, I think the decision not to mine the wormhole was not his; most likely it belonged to that president outwitted by Admiral Leyton. During this president's term, the Federation exhibited appeasement behaviour on a number of occasions (see TNG)."
From Memory alpha
#It is unknown exactly when Jaresh-Inyo was elected President, although the script of "Homefront" stated that he was "recently" elected. The script described Jaresh-Inyo himself as "willowy" and "contemplative". Regarding his comment that he never sought his position, Ronald D. Moore stated: "We assume the Fed President was duly elected, but that he reluctantly was induced to run for the position." (AOL chat, 1997)
# Jaresh-Inyo was not a popular character with either the fans or the producers. It was generally felt that he came across as far too soft to be the leader of the Federation, that there was no chance someone like him would ever have gotten into that position. Interestingly, of this problem Ira Steven Behr simply says, "the casting decision didn't particularly work", implying that the producers were unhappy with Herschel Sparber's performance. The writers saw Jaresh-Inyo as being like Jimmy Carter. (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion)
# Jaresh-Inyo says "with the exception of the Borg incident, there hasn't been a State of Emergency declared on Earth in a century". This could refer to the V'Ger incident in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which is conjecturally set exactly a century before this episode. On the other hand, the Star Trek Chronology speculates this to be a reference to the Whale Probe's inadvertent attack on Earth seen in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, set some 86 years before this episode.
You have ASSUMED (and its clearly not stated in the episode) that this president was in power during the timeframe of TNG. Just because he mentioned the events of the Borg episode does not mean that he was in power during them. Also we don't know if he was in power after Homefront/the Die is Cast for much longer. We know from "Extreme Measures" that he was out by Season 7.
Also lets again point back to Federation appeasement policies during TNG and how this is blatantly not true during the Klingon Civil War. Perhaps they were appeasers during TNG, but that does not mean that therefore during the entire TNG timeframe the Federation/Picard were a bunch of appeasers.
"And there were 800 million cardassian dead on Cardassia Prime alone; throughout the Cardassian Union, the number is easily above 1 billion. In the end, they were even more delusional than the Federation - they allied themselves with the Dominion of their own free will.
At least the Federation was delusional due to its quest for peace. The cardassians were delusional due to their hunger for conquest."
The Cardassians had lost the Obsidian Order and had been invaded by the Klingons, both due to Dominion manipulation. Are you honestly saying that there was no sense of some of the Cardassians felt vulnerable as a result of the Klingon invasion/post-war raiding and wanted help of some kind? That the entire Cardassian population did it entirely and solely to rule the Alpha Quadrant. That Dukat did NOT overthrew the elected civilan govenrment when he invited in the Dominion? Are you purposely ignoring things when you watch the shows?
"Risk gain analysis:
Sisko:
With the Romulans neutral, the Federation will fall.
With the Romulans siding with the Dominion, the Federation will fall.
With the Romulans siding with the Federation, the Federation will prevail."
TRUE
"What were the chances of the romulans entering the war with Garak helping? Considering Garak's abilities, increased.
What were the chances of the romulans finding about Garak's machinations? Considering Garak's abilities, minimal."
Hang on here, lets not assume that Garak is infallible. I specifically mentioned the point that Garak should fail this additional test. Anyway its quite clear that Sisko knew nothing about Garak's later actions. Up to Vreenack saying "ITS A FAAKE" is where Sisko's moral choice ends. Thats it.
So hows does the risk gain analysis for Sisko's moral actions up to that point go then?
"Picard:
The borg's nature
VOY:Scorpion "~One should not expect reason or compassion from the borg. In their collective state, they feel no pity, no remorse - only the will to conquer" (Picard's words)
TNG:Q, who "The borg are relentless"
TRUE.
"The borg's capabilities
Voy:Scorpion - the borg have MILLIONS OF CUBES.
It's a virtual certainty that the borg will invade the Alpha Quadrant NOT with a cube, but with THOUSANDS of cubes. It's not a question of if, but when. The Federation and the borg are in a state of war.
If the borg send 10000 cubes (a small force, by their standards), what are the chances of the Federation/any alpha power surviving? NEGLIGIBLE."
TRUE
"'The logic paradox' has a very good chance of destroying the borg (proved above). Risk of using the attack? none."
TRUE if we accept the characters statements of how the Borg would react to the puzzle. My personal opinion is that it would not be 100% effective, but lets leave that alone.
"'The individuality attack' has a far lower chance of dismantling the borg (proved above). Risk of usinng the attack? None."
TRUE
"Picard used 'the inviduality attack', risking the very existence of the Federation, condemning BILLIONS to death in the Delta Quadrant and elsewhere.
Picard isn't very good at risk gain analysis, is he? "
You are going by YES/NO Black/White 1/0 assumptions again.
Looking at the episode again (without the benefit of hindsight from "Descent") , the logic puzzle virus is deemed 100% effective. The virus of individuality is deemed ???% effective.
If its strictly the statistical values, then yes we must kill the Borg.You are correct.
If its the moral value of stopping the Borg while no longer saving all the individuals trapped inside the collective who were once victims themselves, than it becomes a little more complicated.
There is a chance that they could all be saved. There is a chance that none of them will be saved. There is a chance that 70% could be saved. There is a chance that those 70% could declare war on the remaining Borg and defeat them themeselves for all we know.
Picard was once a Borg victim himself. He knows more than anyone what its like. Furthermore he also has more internal collective experiance than anyone to speculate on the final outcome of that ???% roll. Something that isn't in the maths.
Hows does the risk analysis look then? I don't know. I do know that its too much of a grey area choice to simply say that Picard should have done it the logic puzzle way. He was put on the spot with a moral conuundrum and the second Borg ship was on its way. Given what he knows from Descent, its would be easy for him not to make that choice again. But he did not have that info at the time of I Borg.
Give the man some slack.
"Enterprise discovers Hugh.
Picard orders LaForge/Data to study him to find ways to attack the borg.
LaForge studies Hugh. LaForge finds that Hugh has individuality.
LaForge/Data present to Picard the ways they discoverd to attack the borg - 'the logic paradox' (LaForge/Data are certain that 'the logic paradox ' will work); they do not mention 'the individuality attack' (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, LaForge/Data would have mentioned the option, as ordered).
LaForge (and others) try to convince Picard NOT to use 'the logic paradox'. LaForge (and others) don't even mention 'the individuality attack' as an alternative (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, LaForge would have mentioned this very strong argument).
Picard is certain 'the logic paradox' will work. He doesn't even consider 'the individuality attack' (if 'the individuality attacks''s chances of success were anywhere close to 'the logic paradox''s chances, Picard would have considered this option, too).
Picard says about the 'individuality attack' that it has 'a chance' of success. This semantic construction is used only when this chance is very small. Also, it is established that Picard&crew were aware of 'the individuality attack' option.
Conclusion - proven by actions/words of the crew - 'the logic paradox' has a very good chance of succeeding. 'The individuality attack''s chance of success is very low.
How low is not mathematically specified, but you can be sure it's...well, low."
You are assuming that because Geordi/Data did not present the option as ordered, they deemed its chances of success were no-existant.
Thats not true ase they did not consider it as a means of attack. It was Picard in the final meeting who brought it up. Thats the sequence of events in the episode. Nowhere is it mentioned until the final meeting that it is a possibility of attack. It was always the logic puzzle only up to that point. Simple as that. Don't stray from what the epsiode actually showed and make up your own episode instead. Nowhere did they consider it as a means of attack, until Picard, the only one with internal collective human experiance (possibly bar Data's experiance in BoBW. He wasn't an internal drone though) brought it up.
"The chance of destroying the borg bloodlessly was as low as the chance of winning the lottery.
If Picard expected it to work, he was deluding himself."
But it DID work. On at least 2 Borg ships. Don't just blindly dismiss that. And as the Borg are a single connected collective, that means that it could have spread further, if luck had being on their side. What if the logic paradox had also only spread to those same two ships eh? What if the small Borg probe ship had immediatley jumped to unimatrix one as I stated and infected the entire unicomplex? What then would you say?
"And there is no moral choice in war."
There is always the least moral and most moral choice, especially when it comes to genocide of entire races. Don't just think in black and white. The is the Deep Space Nine forum. Grey area's remember?
"blackzoid, Picard refused to use 'the logic paradox' on Hugh, during war, despite the huge potential gain for the Federation, because it would have meant using/hurting Hugh, who was not a threat at the moment (NOT because ther was another option, blackzoid).
If Picard refused to use/hurt 1 being, despite the tremendous potential gain for the Federation, he would most certainly refuse to use/hurt more beings who posed no immediate threat (the crew of jem'hadar) for, comparatively, an insignificant gain for the Federation."
Yes. I would be on your side if Picard refused to use Hugh at all. Say he wiped Hugh's memory and returned him to the Borg. Thats fine, lets castigate Picard but the fact is, he DID realise there was another choice. Again its not a simple yes/no black/white situation which is what you are so intent on making it be.
And the Borg are a special case with the entire race being one collective component . Are you now saying that against normal enemy combatants that Picard would not destroy their ships? Even though he fought in the Cardassian wars? That he would never destroy any inferior enemy ship in a time of war?
"As I said, until middle S5, there was a chance of peace with the Dominion, and NOT mining the wormhole is justified.
HAHAHAHA!
You argue about the fact that the Borg were in a state of war with the Federation and thus the Federation had no moral obligations as it was wartime and then you ignore the fact that Sisko's mining the wormhole was the actual reason for the declaration of hostilities? I'm sorry but face it, Sisko took an action beforehand that started the war. He actually officially started the war. Vreenack stated that and Sisko did not deny it.
So he finally offically took an action (although to be fair it was the closing the wormhole one, not the minefield one), after.........the Founders had killed numerious Federation citzens, started a war between the Klingons and the Cardassians, started a war between the Klingons and the Federation. But only until he sees the Dominion invasion fleet on the way.
Do you actually honestly believe that that is prudent planning? Its one single entry point in space. One. The lack of action is indefensible. We are talking about risk analysis later but how do you run this through the equation? its just absurd.
Hang on I just realised something......... Didn't our old non-moral friend PICARD actually blockade the Klingon/Romulan border to prevent Romulan involvment in the Klingon civil war. He stated that it was an internal Klingon matter and that the Romulans must not be allowed to interfere. He was even in Klingon territory when he did this!
We should have had Picard and the rest of the TNG appeasers in charge of the Station from Season 3to Mid Season 5 It certainly seems like you want it to be one rule for Picard and one rule for Sisko here! Poor old Picard, can never catch a break.
"Between middle S5 - S6, the war was clearly coming, and not mining the wormhole was, indeed, stupid.
It was appeasement.
Considering that, in middle S5, Sisko tried to close the wormhole, I think the decision not to mine the wormhole was not his; most likely it belonged to that president outwitted by Admiral Leyton. During this president's term, the Federation exhibited appeasement behaviour on a number of occasions (see TNG)."
From Memory alpha
#It is unknown exactly when Jaresh-Inyo was elected President, although the script of "Homefront" stated that he was "recently" elected. The script described Jaresh-Inyo himself as "willowy" and "contemplative". Regarding his comment that he never sought his position, Ronald D. Moore stated: "We assume the Fed President was duly elected, but that he reluctantly was induced to run for the position." (AOL chat, 1997)
# Jaresh-Inyo was not a popular character with either the fans or the producers. It was generally felt that he came across as far too soft to be the leader of the Federation, that there was no chance someone like him would ever have gotten into that position. Interestingly, of this problem Ira Steven Behr simply says, "the casting decision didn't particularly work", implying that the producers were unhappy with Herschel Sparber's performance. The writers saw Jaresh-Inyo as being like Jimmy Carter. (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion)
# Jaresh-Inyo says "with the exception of the Borg incident, there hasn't been a State of Emergency declared on Earth in a century". This could refer to the V'Ger incident in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which is conjecturally set exactly a century before this episode. On the other hand, the Star Trek Chronology speculates this to be a reference to the Whale Probe's inadvertent attack on Earth seen in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, set some 86 years before this episode.
You have ASSUMED (and its clearly not stated in the episode) that this president was in power during the timeframe of TNG. Just because he mentioned the events of the Borg episode does not mean that he was in power during them. Also we don't know if he was in power after Homefront/the Die is Cast for much longer. We know from "Extreme Measures" that he was out by Season 7.
Also lets again point back to Federation appeasement policies during TNG and how this is blatantly not true during the Klingon Civil War. Perhaps they were appeasers during TNG, but that does not mean that therefore during the entire TNG timeframe the Federation/Picard were a bunch of appeasers.
"And there were 800 million cardassian dead on Cardassia Prime alone; throughout the Cardassian Union, the number is easily above 1 billion. In the end, they were even more delusional than the Federation - they allied themselves with the Dominion of their own free will.
At least the Federation was delusional due to its quest for peace. The cardassians were delusional due to their hunger for conquest."
The Cardassians had lost the Obsidian Order and had been invaded by the Klingons, both due to Dominion manipulation. Are you honestly saying that there was no sense of some of the Cardassians felt vulnerable as a result of the Klingon invasion/post-war raiding and wanted help of some kind? That the entire Cardassian population did it entirely and solely to rule the Alpha Quadrant. That Dukat did NOT overthrew the elected civilan govenrment when he invited in the Dominion? Are you purposely ignoring things when you watch the shows?
"Risk gain analysis:
Sisko:
With the Romulans neutral, the Federation will fall.
With the Romulans siding with the Dominion, the Federation will fall.
With the Romulans siding with the Federation, the Federation will prevail."
TRUE
"What were the chances of the romulans entering the war with Garak helping? Considering Garak's abilities, increased.
What were the chances of the romulans finding about Garak's machinations? Considering Garak's abilities, minimal."
Hang on here, lets not assume that Garak is infallible. I specifically mentioned the point that Garak should fail this additional test. Anyway its quite clear that Sisko knew nothing about Garak's later actions. Up to Vreenack saying "ITS A FAAKE" is where Sisko's moral choice ends. Thats it.
So hows does the risk gain analysis for Sisko's moral actions up to that point go then?
"Picard:
The borg's nature
VOY:Scorpion "~One should not expect reason or compassion from the borg. In their collective state, they feel no pity, no remorse - only the will to conquer" (Picard's words)
TNG:Q, who "The borg are relentless"
TRUE.
"The borg's capabilities
Voy:Scorpion - the borg have MILLIONS OF CUBES.
It's a virtual certainty that the borg will invade the Alpha Quadrant NOT with a cube, but with THOUSANDS of cubes. It's not a question of if, but when. The Federation and the borg are in a state of war.
If the borg send 10000 cubes (a small force, by their standards), what are the chances of the Federation/any alpha power surviving? NEGLIGIBLE."
TRUE
"'The logic paradox' has a very good chance of destroying the borg (proved above). Risk of using the attack? none."
TRUE if we accept the characters statements of how the Borg would react to the puzzle. My personal opinion is that it would not be 100% effective, but lets leave that alone.
"'The individuality attack' has a far lower chance of dismantling the borg (proved above). Risk of usinng the attack? None."
TRUE
"Picard used 'the inviduality attack', risking the very existence of the Federation, condemning BILLIONS to death in the Delta Quadrant and elsewhere.
Picard isn't very good at risk gain analysis, is he? "
You are going by YES/NO Black/White 1/0 assumptions again.
Looking at the episode again (without the benefit of hindsight from "Descent") , the logic puzzle virus is deemed 100% effective. The virus of individuality is deemed ???% effective.
If its strictly the statistical values, then yes we must kill the Borg.You are correct.
If its the moral value of stopping the Borg while no longer saving all the individuals trapped inside the collective who were once victims themselves, than it becomes a little more complicated.
There is a chance that they could all be saved. There is a chance that none of them will be saved. There is a chance that 70% could be saved. There is a chance that those 70% could declare war on the remaining Borg and defeat them themeselves for all we know.
Picard was once a Borg victim himself. He knows more than anyone what its like. Furthermore he also has more internal collective experiance than anyone to speculate on the final outcome of that ???% roll. Something that isn't in the maths.
Hows does the risk analysis look then? I don't know. I do know that its too much of a grey area choice to simply say that Picard should have done it the logic puzzle way. He was put on the spot with a moral conuundrum and the second Borg ship was on its way. Given what he knows from Descent, its would be easy for him not to make that choice again. But he did not have that info at the time of I Borg.
Give the man some slack.
Well, it's happened yet again: the discussion has turned into a Picard/Sisko comparison. Out the is the the exploration of Sisko's actions and new ideas in the original topic - our individual "Pale Moonlight"s.
If I wanted to discuss "I,Hugh" I'd have gone to the TNG Forum, where I'd point out that 1) I don't think I agree with Picard, 2) La Forge didn't bring the "individuality virus" alternative to Picard because he didn't come up with it - Picard did while they were still looking for a means of attack, 3) the only case I can see for not using the "logic puzzle" is that though the Borg were a mortal threat to the Federation, they were not a present one. They were still far away enough to give the Federation more time to come up with other alternatives to a genocidal attack, and Picard took the opportunity to try and free the Borg.
The reason I can't quite agree here is that though Picard was unwilling to (if the virus worked) murder Hugh and kill the entire Collective of trillions to defend against eventual Borg attack, the Borg were presently engaged in assimilation of their far off region of space (did we know they were in the Delta Quadrant at the time?). Hugh volunteered to return to the Collective to protect his friend Geordi. Given the choice, he may have volunteered to give his life to destroy the Collective to save the unknown innocents being assimilated in distant space and maybe one day Geordi's. If he wasn't a regular cast member, of course.
But this thwarts the writer's intent. In both "I,Hugh" and "In the Pale Moonlight", the real point of the episode aren't the possible ramifications of the decisions, but the decisions themselves. "I,Hugh" was about a disconnected Borg being to our then surprise, not Evil. Note the benign title referencing Asimov's suspected-of-murder-but-ultimately-good robot. It was about being noble enough to recognize the goodness in one's the enemy before thoughtlessly killing them out of fear and hatred. I'm reminded of Ender's Game here
"In the Pale Moonlight" was about constricted writers seeing if they could get away with beating down a main Star Trek captain until he was a willing accomplice to murder, guilty of bribery, and making him and Starfleet war criminals. All in the cool and smokey "Pale Moonlight".
I can't say I would do what Picard did or wouldn't do what Sisko did, but, no, neither episode sat well with me.
If I wanted to discuss "I,Hugh" I'd have gone to the TNG Forum, where I'd point out that 1) I don't think I agree with Picard, 2) La Forge didn't bring the "individuality virus" alternative to Picard because he didn't come up with it - Picard did while they were still looking for a means of attack, 3) the only case I can see for not using the "logic puzzle" is that though the Borg were a mortal threat to the Federation, they were not a present one. They were still far away enough to give the Federation more time to come up with other alternatives to a genocidal attack, and Picard took the opportunity to try and free the Borg.
The reason I can't quite agree here is that though Picard was unwilling to (if the virus worked) murder Hugh and kill the entire Collective of trillions to defend against eventual Borg attack, the Borg were presently engaged in assimilation of their far off region of space (did we know they were in the Delta Quadrant at the time?). Hugh volunteered to return to the Collective to protect his friend Geordi. Given the choice, he may have volunteered to give his life to destroy the Collective to save the unknown innocents being assimilated in distant space and maybe one day Geordi's. If he wasn't a regular cast member, of course.
But this thwarts the writer's intent. In both "I,Hugh" and "In the Pale Moonlight", the real point of the episode aren't the possible ramifications of the decisions, but the decisions themselves. "I,Hugh" was about a disconnected Borg being to our then surprise, not Evil. Note the benign title referencing Asimov's suspected-of-murder-but-ultimately-good robot. It was about being noble enough to recognize the goodness in one's the enemy before thoughtlessly killing them out of fear and hatred. I'm reminded of Ender's Game here
- Ender succeeded in committing pointless genocide.
"In the Pale Moonlight" was about constricted writers seeing if they could get away with beating down a main Star Trek captain until he was a willing accomplice to murder, guilty of bribery, and making him and Starfleet war criminals. All in the cool and smokey "Pale Moonlight".
I can't say I would do what Picard did or wouldn't do what Sisko did, but, no, neither episode sat well with me.
Last edited:
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
@blackzoid
"I, Hugh"
First - Picarde made his choice NOT to use the logic paradox because it meant hurting/using Hugh - that's it. This was the reason behind his decision - detailed in the episode.
Picard condemned to death BILLIONS in order to save a single being - and he's deluding himself that he made the 'moral' choice.
Second - LaForge/Data/crew knew of the 'individuality' option since they noticed Hugh's individuality. If they did not presented it or discussed it or used it as an argument when they presented/discussed/argued about realistic options to attack the borg, then this 'individuality' option is NOT a realistic option to attack the borg.
And, make no mistake - the 'individuality' option did not work; the crew's assessment that it had very low chances of succes was confirmed factually.
'Working' would mean affecting more than one borg ship (and it was one borg ship: Hugh's mothership to which that borg shuttle belonged - in TNG Descent it is specifically mentioned that affected was only one borg ship).
'Working' would mean affecting a large percentage of the collective, perhaps the entire collective (as the logical paradox would have worked, according to LaForge/Data/crew). NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE?
In war, there are no moral choices. Why?
Because either you kill the enemy, or he'll kill you.
You may act in self-defense when you kill an enemy soldier, but he acts in self-defense when he tries to kill you.
And this enemy soldier, more often than not, is not a moustache-twirler, hungering for blood. He's just a person trying to get through the war alive, in order to return to his family - much like you.
Now - what's the moral choice here, blackzoid? War is fundamentally immoral - it's sometimes necessary, but never moral.
Sisko:
Jaresh-Inyo was not president during S5? You do realise he was 'recently elected' in middle S4.
Fine, if you prefere, Sisko got his orders from the previous president - or the next one. It really makes no difference.
Sisko mined the wormhole when it was blindingly obvious that the jem'hadar will arrive in a few hours. You call that 'before the war starts? Now you're just trying to be contrary, blackzoid.
And Garak was not infailible, just very good.
The cardasians:
The cardassians were attacked by the klingons - partly due to changeling manipulations. The Federation helped the cardassians, which led to the Federaation-Klingon treaty being dissolved.
Dukat brought the Dominion and the cardassians cheered - Dukat said it, Damar's adjutant in S7 confirmed it "LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I was overjoyed".
Give sommeone power and he will reveal his true face:
The cardassians exterminated all federation colonies in the demilitarized zone (and not every man, woman and child there were part of the Maquis, blackzoid).
They proceeded to attack the Klingons AND THE FEDERATION, starting the most violent war in recent history.
That's called 'hunger for conquest', blackzoid.
Picard:
Picard didn't use the logic paradox because it would have ment using/harming Hugh -this was his only reason, blackzoid (watch the episode - it presents Picard's decision-making process in detail).
If Picard couldn't harm a single being in order to save BILLIONS and the Federation itself, he would NEVER have harmed a few persons (a crew of jem'hadar) for a comparatively insignificant gain.
If Picard had this mindset during the cardassian was, he could NOT have functioned in that war. Picard obviously developed his suicidal pacifism afterwards.
And the federation blokade during the klingon civil war - did Picard even fire a shot then?
Yes, Picard was part of the borg once - meaning he knew the danger they posed. And he and the entire crew considered the individuality option a long-shot at best - proven through their actions and words. Their opinion was factually confirmed (the 'individuality' option afected one ship; the logic paradox had very good chances of affecting the entire collective - that's the difference in effectiveness between them).
"I, Hugh"
First - Picarde made his choice NOT to use the logic paradox because it meant hurting/using Hugh - that's it. This was the reason behind his decision - detailed in the episode.
Picard condemned to death BILLIONS in order to save a single being - and he's deluding himself that he made the 'moral' choice.
Second - LaForge/Data/crew knew of the 'individuality' option since they noticed Hugh's individuality. If they did not presented it or discussed it or used it as an argument when they presented/discussed/argued about realistic options to attack the borg, then this 'individuality' option is NOT a realistic option to attack the borg.
And, make no mistake - the 'individuality' option did not work; the crew's assessment that it had very low chances of succes was confirmed factually.
'Working' would mean affecting more than one borg ship (and it was one borg ship: Hugh's mothership to which that borg shuttle belonged - in TNG Descent it is specifically mentioned that affected was only one borg ship).
'Working' would mean affecting a large percentage of the collective, perhaps the entire collective (as the logical paradox would have worked, according to LaForge/Data/crew). NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE?
In war, there are no moral choices. Why?
Because either you kill the enemy, or he'll kill you.
You may act in self-defense when you kill an enemy soldier, but he acts in self-defense when he tries to kill you.
And this enemy soldier, more often than not, is not a moustache-twirler, hungering for blood. He's just a person trying to get through the war alive, in order to return to his family - much like you.
Now - what's the moral choice here, blackzoid? War is fundamentally immoral - it's sometimes necessary, but never moral.
Sisko:
Jaresh-Inyo was not president during S5? You do realise he was 'recently elected' in middle S4.
Fine, if you prefere, Sisko got his orders from the previous president - or the next one. It really makes no difference.
Sisko mined the wormhole when it was blindingly obvious that the jem'hadar will arrive in a few hours. You call that 'before the war starts? Now you're just trying to be contrary, blackzoid.
And Garak was not infailible, just very good.
The cardasians:
The cardassians were attacked by the klingons - partly due to changeling manipulations. The Federation helped the cardassians, which led to the Federaation-Klingon treaty being dissolved.
Dukat brought the Dominion and the cardassians cheered - Dukat said it, Damar's adjutant in S7 confirmed it "LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I was overjoyed".
Give sommeone power and he will reveal his true face:
The cardassians exterminated all federation colonies in the demilitarized zone (and not every man, woman and child there were part of the Maquis, blackzoid).
They proceeded to attack the Klingons AND THE FEDERATION, starting the most violent war in recent history.
That's called 'hunger for conquest', blackzoid.
Picard:
Picard didn't use the logic paradox because it would have ment using/harming Hugh -this was his only reason, blackzoid (watch the episode - it presents Picard's decision-making process in detail).
If Picard couldn't harm a single being in order to save BILLIONS and the Federation itself, he would NEVER have harmed a few persons (a crew of jem'hadar) for a comparatively insignificant gain.
If Picard had this mindset during the cardassian was, he could NOT have functioned in that war. Picard obviously developed his suicidal pacifism afterwards.
And the federation blokade during the klingon civil war - did Picard even fire a shot then?
Yes, Picard was part of the borg once - meaning he knew the danger they posed. And he and the entire crew considered the individuality option a long-shot at best - proven through their actions and words. Their opinion was factually confirmed (the 'individuality' option afected one ship; the logic paradox had very good chances of affecting the entire collective - that's the difference in effectiveness between them).
Last edited:
Um, yeah. Seeing as this is a major surprise in this book (the major surprise), I woulda put that behind spoilers.
ProtoAvatar
"First - Picarde made his choice NOT to use the logic paradox because it meant hurting/using Hugh - that's it. This was the reason behind his decision - detailed in the episode.
Picard condemned to death BILLIONS in order to save a single being - and he's deluding himself that he made the 'moral' choice."
Eh, no. Read what I said. He was dead set to use hugh up until he found out about Hugh's individuality.Then he was going to release him. I agree with you up to that point.
Then when he realised that the individuality attack was an option of its own he used it. That fact that using that option was the same as doing nothing is irrelevant. Thats where he made the moral choice. If he had relsead Hugh back to the Borg wothout even mentioning the indivudality attack, I'd be with you. The fact is that it was EXPLICITLY mentioned....eventually
"Second - LaForge/Data/crew knew of the 'individuality' option since they noticed Hugh's individuality. If they did not presented it or discussed it or used it as an argument when they presented/discussed/argued about realistic options to attack the borg, then this 'individuality' option is NOT a realistic option to attack the borg."
That is circular reasoning of the highest order! That is absurd. If Data/Geordi were ordered to find realistic means to destroy the Borg and thus fail due to ignorance to bring a particular option to the table, that does makes not therefore make the option not-realistic. It just makes it not-known or not thought off as a weapon at the time.
And i'm saying its due to ignorance because they don't have the necessary Borg collective experiance to call upon.
Just like with the Garak never failing scneario, you are relying on certain characters being infallible for your scenarios, whil denying it to Picard. If Geordi/Data have been given specific orders, they will thus find all possibilities for those orders to be carried out in the universe? They didn't present Picard with the Species 8472 cell attack plan either did they? Or Janeways other virus at the end of Endgame. Or the idea of the Borg resistance members in Unimatrix one?
"And, make no mistake - the 'individuality' option did not work; the crew's assessment that it had very low chances of succes was confirmed factually.
'Working' would mean affecting more than one borg ship (and it was one borg ship: Hugh's mothership to which that borg shuttle belonged - in TNG Descent it is specifically mentioned that affected was only one borg ship).
'Working' would mean affecting a large percentage of the collective, perhaps the entire collective (as the logical paradox would have worked, according to LaForge/Data/crew). NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE?"
1: The Borg ship in "I Hugh" that came to rescue Hugh was a scout of the same size with only a few Borg on it. NEVER was it mentioned as a Borg shuttle. But fine, lets take that as it is.
2: In Descent the Borg ship is now an odd shaped large craft with many freed Borg drones. Whats the transcript say about this Borg ship? Is it actually a mothership. I'm betting it says no such thing and that Hugh only says "our ship". Not exactly conclusive proof that it was only one ship.
3: If we are now talking about out of episode HINDSIGHT (theres that word again) effectiveness as opposed to the specific I Borg moral choices, you will now explain to me the odds of something that approximates:
10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 GOTO 10
actually wiping out the Borg. No more moral debates, you have decided to use the lack of the Borg being dead in "Descent" as a reason for Picard failing the on-mathamatically measured moral choices
EXPLICITLY prove to me that the Borg would be wiped out in their billions by a simplistic computer puzzle that Data obviously doesn't got caught in when he develops the programme. You can't can you? You rely on the characters expertise for one choice (Geordi/Data opinion of their logic puzzle) and discount it for another (Picards collective experience when he decides to see if Hugh's virus of indviduality would work)
"In war, there are no moral choices. Why?
Because either you kill the enemy, or he'll kill you.
You may act in self-defense when you kill an enemy soldier, but he acts in self-defense when he tries to kill you.
And this enemy soldier, more often than not, is not a moustache-twirler, hungering for blood. He's just a person trying to get through the war alive, in order to return to his family - much like you.
Now - what's the moral choice here, blackzoid? War is fundamentally immoral - it's sometimes necessary, but never moral."
War is an extension of Diplomacy at some times, a matter of self-preservation at others.
There are degress of "immorality". Its not a simplistic 1/0 catch-all argument which you seem to want it to be.
Do you kill your enemy?.....Fine.
Do you kill the enemy who was a former friend brainwashed into fighting you.....well ok.
Can you save the enemy who was a former friend brainwashed into fighting you ........yes if possible.
"Sisko:
Jaresh-Inyo was not president during S5? You do realise he was 'recently elected' in middle S4.
Fine, if you prefere, Sisko got his orders from the previous president - or the next one. It really makes no difference.
Sisko mined the wormhole when it was blindingly obvious that the jem'hadar will arrive in a few hours. You call that 'before the war starts? Now you're just trying to be contrary, blackzoid.
And Garak was not infailible, just very good."
1: You implied that he was the president during TNG times and that he was an appeaser and so responsible for some of what you think are TNG appeaser events. I showed you he was not necessary the president during the time of TNG. End of. I never claimed that he was not still the president leading up the outbreak of the Dominion war.
2: Sisko did not mine the wormhole before the fleet arrives, he advised his crew to work on a way to close the wormhole using transmitters that would not harm the wormhole aliens remember? The Fake Bashier sabotages this. The "mine the wormhole" idea was at the end of season 5 to stop the reinforcement convoys. Remember the war ACTUALLY started in a Call to Arms. Then. No other time.
And regardless of when the wormhole was to be closed it is a sign of stupidity from Sisko and crew that when they finally decide to block the wormhole (mines or ortherwise), a fleet is on its way and they get sabotaged. They had YEARS to do this. Yes, I will bring up actual effectiveness of technique in this argument. You have been bashing Picard over the head with it in the "I Borg" debate. Sisko deserves the same equal treatment from you right?
And as I said our old Moral Monster Picard was able to do the same in "Reunion". Successfully.
3: You have decided to ignore my assertion that Sisko's moral choice ends when he hears that Vreenick discovered thaat the rod was a fake, and instead want to focus on Garak's effectiveness. Its irrelevant. No matter if he is the amazing Garak Ex Machina, don't bring him into this. Sisko has potentially doomed the Federation when Vreenick leaves the room. Thats where the moral dilemma ends, when Vreenick walks out that door. Simple.
"The cardasians:
The cardassians were attacked by the klingons - partly due to changeling manipulations. The Federation helped the cardassians, which led to the Federaation-Klingon treaty being dissolved.
Dukat brought the Dominion and the cardassians cheered - Dukat said it, Damar's adjutant in S7 confirmed it "LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I was overjoyed".
Give sommeone power and he will reveal his true face:
The cardassians exterminated all federation colonies in the demilitarized zone (and not every man, woman and child there were part of the Maquis, blackzoid).
They proceeded to attack the Klingons AND THE FEDERATION, starting the most violent war in recent history.
That's called 'hunger for conquest', blackzoid."
Eh, what about the former contacts of the Obsidian Order who Garak contacted? What about Ghemor's dissidant movement? What about the former Civil government? Where they happy to be overthrown?
Damar's adjutant talked to every single Cardassian around? Thats laughable.
1/0 black/white thinking again. I guess you would have drunk the mug of bloodwine with Martok would you?
"Picard:
Picard didn't use the logic paradox because it would have ment using/harming Hugh -this was his only reason, blackzoid (watch the episode - it presents Picard's decision-making process in detail).
If Picard couldn't harm a single being in order to save BILLIONS and the Federation itself, he would NEVER have harmed a few persons (a crew of jem'hadar) for a comparatively insignificant gain."
Again ignore my earlier inconvienent comments why don't you? Picard successfully fought in the first Cardassian wars. Picard has destroyed ships before. Regardless of the outcome of "I Hugh", you still believe that Picard will therefore act in a way that would have got him killed/drummed out of the captain's chair long ago.
But he was still in the chair.
"If Picard had this mindset during the cardassian was, he could NOT have functioned in that war. Picard obviously developed his suicidal pacifism afterwards."
Is Picard a pacifist? Or just a reluctant warrior. Verry big difference.
"And the federation blokade during the klingon civil war - did Picard even fire a shot then?"
HAHAHA
Change the goalposts eh? I love it!
I compared that to Sisko/starfleet's utter utter utter stupidity in not mining the wormhole for 2-3 YEARS and you decide to now acknowledge it as a means of attacking Picard as you consider him a pacifist? But his pacifism (or actually reluctant warriorship) is not the point.
He successfully interecepted covert/overt Romulan manipulation while in non-Federation territory. While not starting a shooting war. And he had at most several weeks to do this. This is almost exactly the same situation that Sisko found himself in, but much harder as the border was not a single entry point. And the Dominion did not have cloaks.
If Picard was stationed at DS9, he would have easily saved the entire Alpha Quadrant from the ravages of the Dominion war. And done so, as you said quite clearly, without firing a single shot.
"Yes, Picard was part of the borg once - meaning he knew the danger they posed. And he and the entire crew considered the individuality option a long-shot at best - proven through their actions and words. Their opinion was factually confirmed (the 'individuality' option afected one ship; the logic paradox had very good chances of affecting the entire collective - that's the difference in effectiveness between them)."
1: Morality
option A (Logic Bomb)
Result= 100% Normal (population of Milkyway Galaxy) AND 100% Borg deaths
option B (Individual virus)
Result = ??% Normal (population of Milkyway Galaxy after more Borg attacks ) + ??% freed Borg individuals AND ??% Borg Deaths
Remember all Borg are fundamentally individual victims.
Brainwashed people, not soulless machines.
2: Effectiveness (which you are insitant on bringing up as you like to treat morality as a 1/0 Black/White scenario)
Option A
Prove to me that a simple infinite loop will destroy any advanced civilisation.
Have the Borg ever caught themelves looking at 2 mirrors reflecting light on each other? And yet they are still not destroyed. Hmm. I wonder....that they might have......the fundamental basics of internal anti-virus logic. And how could Geordi/Data knew anything at all about those anti-virus protocols?
Option B = possible 2 ships, cubical scout and whatever that other borg ship is. May be mothership, may be small ship and other big ship.
Ah the benefit of hindsight. Sisko gets the pass but Picard? No, lets wail on that guy.
"First - Picarde made his choice NOT to use the logic paradox because it meant hurting/using Hugh - that's it. This was the reason behind his decision - detailed in the episode.
Picard condemned to death BILLIONS in order to save a single being - and he's deluding himself that he made the 'moral' choice."
Eh, no. Read what I said. He was dead set to use hugh up until he found out about Hugh's individuality.Then he was going to release him. I agree with you up to that point.
Then when he realised that the individuality attack was an option of its own he used it. That fact that using that option was the same as doing nothing is irrelevant. Thats where he made the moral choice. If he had relsead Hugh back to the Borg wothout even mentioning the indivudality attack, I'd be with you. The fact is that it was EXPLICITLY mentioned....eventually
"Second - LaForge/Data/crew knew of the 'individuality' option since they noticed Hugh's individuality. If they did not presented it or discussed it or used it as an argument when they presented/discussed/argued about realistic options to attack the borg, then this 'individuality' option is NOT a realistic option to attack the borg."
That is circular reasoning of the highest order! That is absurd. If Data/Geordi were ordered to find realistic means to destroy the Borg and thus fail due to ignorance to bring a particular option to the table, that does makes not therefore make the option not-realistic. It just makes it not-known or not thought off as a weapon at the time.
And i'm saying its due to ignorance because they don't have the necessary Borg collective experiance to call upon.
Just like with the Garak never failing scneario, you are relying on certain characters being infallible for your scenarios, whil denying it to Picard. If Geordi/Data have been given specific orders, they will thus find all possibilities for those orders to be carried out in the universe? They didn't present Picard with the Species 8472 cell attack plan either did they? Or Janeways other virus at the end of Endgame. Or the idea of the Borg resistance members in Unimatrix one?
"And, make no mistake - the 'individuality' option did not work; the crew's assessment that it had very low chances of succes was confirmed factually.
'Working' would mean affecting more than one borg ship (and it was one borg ship: Hugh's mothership to which that borg shuttle belonged - in TNG Descent it is specifically mentioned that affected was only one borg ship).
'Working' would mean affecting a large percentage of the collective, perhaps the entire collective (as the logical paradox would have worked, according to LaForge/Data/crew). NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE?"
1: The Borg ship in "I Hugh" that came to rescue Hugh was a scout of the same size with only a few Borg on it. NEVER was it mentioned as a Borg shuttle. But fine, lets take that as it is.
2: In Descent the Borg ship is now an odd shaped large craft with many freed Borg drones. Whats the transcript say about this Borg ship? Is it actually a mothership. I'm betting it says no such thing and that Hugh only says "our ship". Not exactly conclusive proof that it was only one ship.
3: If we are now talking about out of episode HINDSIGHT (theres that word again) effectiveness as opposed to the specific I Borg moral choices, you will now explain to me the odds of something that approximates:
10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 GOTO 10
actually wiping out the Borg. No more moral debates, you have decided to use the lack of the Borg being dead in "Descent" as a reason for Picard failing the on-mathamatically measured moral choices
EXPLICITLY prove to me that the Borg would be wiped out in their billions by a simplistic computer puzzle that Data obviously doesn't got caught in when he develops the programme. You can't can you? You rely on the characters expertise for one choice (Geordi/Data opinion of their logic puzzle) and discount it for another (Picards collective experience when he decides to see if Hugh's virus of indviduality would work)
"In war, there are no moral choices. Why?
Because either you kill the enemy, or he'll kill you.
You may act in self-defense when you kill an enemy soldier, but he acts in self-defense when he tries to kill you.
And this enemy soldier, more often than not, is not a moustache-twirler, hungering for blood. He's just a person trying to get through the war alive, in order to return to his family - much like you.
Now - what's the moral choice here, blackzoid? War is fundamentally immoral - it's sometimes necessary, but never moral."
War is an extension of Diplomacy at some times, a matter of self-preservation at others.
There are degress of "immorality". Its not a simplistic 1/0 catch-all argument which you seem to want it to be.
Do you kill your enemy?.....Fine.
Do you kill the enemy who was a former friend brainwashed into fighting you.....well ok.
Can you save the enemy who was a former friend brainwashed into fighting you ........yes if possible.
"Sisko:
Jaresh-Inyo was not president during S5? You do realise he was 'recently elected' in middle S4.
Fine, if you prefere, Sisko got his orders from the previous president - or the next one. It really makes no difference.
Sisko mined the wormhole when it was blindingly obvious that the jem'hadar will arrive in a few hours. You call that 'before the war starts? Now you're just trying to be contrary, blackzoid.
And Garak was not infailible, just very good."
1: You implied that he was the president during TNG times and that he was an appeaser and so responsible for some of what you think are TNG appeaser events. I showed you he was not necessary the president during the time of TNG. End of. I never claimed that he was not still the president leading up the outbreak of the Dominion war.
2: Sisko did not mine the wormhole before the fleet arrives, he advised his crew to work on a way to close the wormhole using transmitters that would not harm the wormhole aliens remember? The Fake Bashier sabotages this. The "mine the wormhole" idea was at the end of season 5 to stop the reinforcement convoys. Remember the war ACTUALLY started in a Call to Arms. Then. No other time.
And regardless of when the wormhole was to be closed it is a sign of stupidity from Sisko and crew that when they finally decide to block the wormhole (mines or ortherwise), a fleet is on its way and they get sabotaged. They had YEARS to do this. Yes, I will bring up actual effectiveness of technique in this argument. You have been bashing Picard over the head with it in the "I Borg" debate. Sisko deserves the same equal treatment from you right?
And as I said our old Moral Monster Picard was able to do the same in "Reunion". Successfully.
3: You have decided to ignore my assertion that Sisko's moral choice ends when he hears that Vreenick discovered thaat the rod was a fake, and instead want to focus on Garak's effectiveness. Its irrelevant. No matter if he is the amazing Garak Ex Machina, don't bring him into this. Sisko has potentially doomed the Federation when Vreenick leaves the room. Thats where the moral dilemma ends, when Vreenick walks out that door. Simple.
"The cardasians:
The cardassians were attacked by the klingons - partly due to changeling manipulations. The Federation helped the cardassians, which led to the Federaation-Klingon treaty being dissolved.
Dukat brought the Dominion and the cardassians cheered - Dukat said it, Damar's adjutant in S7 confirmed it "LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I was overjoyed".
Give sommeone power and he will reveal his true face:
The cardassians exterminated all federation colonies in the demilitarized zone (and not every man, woman and child there were part of the Maquis, blackzoid).
They proceeded to attack the Klingons AND THE FEDERATION, starting the most violent war in recent history.
That's called 'hunger for conquest', blackzoid."
Eh, what about the former contacts of the Obsidian Order who Garak contacted? What about Ghemor's dissidant movement? What about the former Civil government? Where they happy to be overthrown?
Damar's adjutant talked to every single Cardassian around? Thats laughable.
1/0 black/white thinking again. I guess you would have drunk the mug of bloodwine with Martok would you?
"Picard:
Picard didn't use the logic paradox because it would have ment using/harming Hugh -this was his only reason, blackzoid (watch the episode - it presents Picard's decision-making process in detail).
If Picard couldn't harm a single being in order to save BILLIONS and the Federation itself, he would NEVER have harmed a few persons (a crew of jem'hadar) for a comparatively insignificant gain."
Again ignore my earlier inconvienent comments why don't you? Picard successfully fought in the first Cardassian wars. Picard has destroyed ships before. Regardless of the outcome of "I Hugh", you still believe that Picard will therefore act in a way that would have got him killed/drummed out of the captain's chair long ago.
But he was still in the chair.
"If Picard had this mindset during the cardassian was, he could NOT have functioned in that war. Picard obviously developed his suicidal pacifism afterwards."
Is Picard a pacifist? Or just a reluctant warrior. Verry big difference.
"And the federation blokade during the klingon civil war - did Picard even fire a shot then?"
HAHAHA
Change the goalposts eh? I love it!
I compared that to Sisko/starfleet's utter utter utter stupidity in not mining the wormhole for 2-3 YEARS and you decide to now acknowledge it as a means of attacking Picard as you consider him a pacifist? But his pacifism (or actually reluctant warriorship) is not the point.
He successfully interecepted covert/overt Romulan manipulation while in non-Federation territory. While not starting a shooting war. And he had at most several weeks to do this. This is almost exactly the same situation that Sisko found himself in, but much harder as the border was not a single entry point. And the Dominion did not have cloaks.
If Picard was stationed at DS9, he would have easily saved the entire Alpha Quadrant from the ravages of the Dominion war. And done so, as you said quite clearly, without firing a single shot.
"Yes, Picard was part of the borg once - meaning he knew the danger they posed. And he and the entire crew considered the individuality option a long-shot at best - proven through their actions and words. Their opinion was factually confirmed (the 'individuality' option afected one ship; the logic paradox had very good chances of affecting the entire collective - that's the difference in effectiveness between them)."
1: Morality
option A (Logic Bomb)
Result= 100% Normal (population of Milkyway Galaxy) AND 100% Borg deaths
option B (Individual virus)
Result = ??% Normal (population of Milkyway Galaxy after more Borg attacks ) + ??% freed Borg individuals AND ??% Borg Deaths
Remember all Borg are fundamentally individual victims.
Brainwashed people, not soulless machines.
2: Effectiveness (which you are insitant on bringing up as you like to treat morality as a 1/0 Black/White scenario)
Option A
Prove to me that a simple infinite loop will destroy any advanced civilisation.
Have the Borg ever caught themelves looking at 2 mirrors reflecting light on each other? And yet they are still not destroyed. Hmm. I wonder....that they might have......the fundamental basics of internal anti-virus logic. And how could Geordi/Data knew anything at all about those anti-virus protocols?
Option B = possible 2 ships, cubical scout and whatever that other borg ship is. May be mothership, may be small ship and other big ship.
Ah the benefit of hindsight. Sisko gets the pass but Picard? No, lets wail on that guy.
I don't think everyone gives him a pass. The point people I think are trying to show is that Sisko's actions are more believable than Picard's.
It's easy for me to sit back and judge someone else from a chair regardless if it's fictional or not.
Similar threads
