DaveJB wrote:You can hardly say the Enterprise was "making progress" when they don't know what they were saying.
Commander Data determined that the universal translater was making progress. It had found communication patterns in the signals sent by the entity and was begining to decipher it. It was made very clear that communication was possible and by every expectation going to be achieved. All that was required was time, and they did have it.
Who knows how long it would have taken the UT to figure out the entity's language? For all we know, the entity might have been taking a Bond-villain moment and taunting the ship.
We'll never know because it was killed
prematurely and possibly
unnecessarily. That's the point I'm arguing.
Obviously your memory of the episode is rusty, since Lore carried on an extensive conversation with the creature while onboard the Enteprise.
I didn't know that, but thanks for the fresh ammunition. If Lore told the entity about the Omicron Theta colonists, how could the entity possibly know they weren't sentient?
All this required was ignorance on the entity's part. Lore simply had to say nothing about them. You seem to think the entity focuses on killing humans or sentient lifeforms. It doesn't, it consumes wide ranges of life, from bacteria in the soil to trees, animals, etc. Sentient lifeforms are just another "victim" it's it's feeding habits.
Even if Lore lied to the entity and told them they weren't, surely the fact that Enterprise tried to defend itself
No, non-sentient lifeforms defend themselves all the time. Look to nature for examples.
Plants defend themselves. Are plants sentient?
and gave Lore "back" to the entity would have alerted the entity that Lore hadn't told it the whole truth.
The Enterprise beamed Lore into space where he spent two years drifting. He was not given back to the entity or like. It simply no longer had access to what was communicating with it, so it left.
If it did know they were sentient, then I don't see what the point of negotiating with the entity would be, as it obviously didn't care about what it was doing.
There's no evidence suggesting that the entity knew that it killed sentient lifeforms. Even if it did, it did so only to feed and survive. Killing other lifeforms to nourish one's self and
survive is not a crime or evil act. You and I do it all the time.
And I don't consider the entity's actions mass murder anymore than I would a whale's consumption of plankton.
Why don't you ask the plankton what they think of that? (Yes, I know plankton aren't intelligent, I was being sarcastic)
You have yet to submit evidence suggesting that the entity A) knew it was killing sentient lifeforms, B) did so intentionally, and C) had a choice in the matter. We as humans must kill to survive, even vegetarians.
Inaccurate analogy. I know that a "mad" sniper is beyond communicating with and I have a basis of reference for thought and existence between myself and the sniper. That was not known about the entity. And having my girlfriend killed by the sniper of course would hinder my objectivity.
Thanks for illustrating my point. Dr. Marr was in exactly the same situation that you would be in if the sniper killed your girlfriend - of course it would hinder her objectivity!
Exactly, which is why her decision was bad. It was not objective.
Getting back to the scenario, if there are more people around that the sniper could potentially kill, which of the following options carries the greater chance of success:
A) Shooting the sniper with intent to kill
B) Shooting the sniper with intent to disable him or his rifle
C) Trying to talk him down
Of course, C is going to be preferable, but realistically you'd have to choose A or B. Picard's intentions were no doubt noble, but they didn't have the greatest chance of success. Whether or not Marr was thinking objectively at the time is irrelevant, as A (or B, but I don't think that could have been applied in that situation) was most likely to prevent more deaths.
Your analogy does not work. The sniper is killing for no reason other than the killing and madness. The entity was killing so it could
survive, like
any other lifeform. It did nothing
wrong.
Well, taking any philosphy to the extreme rarely provides good results. Anyhow, my entire point is that the entity was killed prematurely, and the killing of it may not have even been necessary depending upon the results of the communication. The fact that the entity was willing to sit there and send signals to the Enterprise back and forth suggested it was not the "monster" it was being made out to be and may have possessed a significant level of intelligence.
Hitler possessed a significant level of intelligence, but would you seriously suggest he was no monster?
False analogy. Hitler commited crimes that served no purpose other than to put forth his vision of the world. The entity killed lifeforms so it could
survive. Do you honestly not see the difference here? Was Hitler a monster because he ate food that required said sources of food be killed?
The fact that the entity was willing to chat with the Enterprise proves nothing.
Proves it had the capability and willingness to communicate, suggesting a significant level of intelligence. But that is not my arguement, I'm trying to point out that the reason the entity killed was to
survive. That is not a crime, I do not fault a living creature for doing what it needs to do to
survive.
