this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
117 points (97.6% liked)

Risa

6941 readers
3 users here now

Star Trek memes and shitposts

Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stamets@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I still stand by my comment. While I misremembered it being over 50 years, and I typoed humanoid instead of human sterilized is still a correct word when it comes to human life. As for the rest of your comments

What occupation are these Maqius humans fleeing from?

What? The Maquis are literally an organized group of resistors who've had their homes, in the DMZ, occupied by Cardassia. That is literally their driving motivation. Their homes and worlds were signed over to the Cardassian Union and they were left to cope. They responded by creating the Maquis. This is also why I've used the word refugees. The people who settled on that planet were people who were forced out by Starfleet/Cardassia after they had their homes taken away from them.

Why do you say they have no other options despite being offered to be resettled?

Because resettlement isn't, and never was, an option. They weren't given the choice to stay or to leave. They were forced to leave. Forced out of their homes. Forced out of the place that they've put down roots and made memories. All to have their planets put in a DMZ and then resettled by an empire who does massively horrific shit on the daily.

How are the Maqius “reclaiming” that world?

Was literally their world.

Is using a chemical method to make the planet uninhabitable to humans less moral than Picard teleporting everyone away against their will?

Has zero relevance to the conversation at hand. They were two different circumstances and they're not comparable.

What do you think the cardassians would have done to the men women and children if Sisko did not solve this problem preemptively?

Completely hypothetical and also irrelevant. My issue is HOW Sisko 'solved' the problem. Not that he did.

Your entire comment has been predicated on looking at individual actions, alone, and in no vacuum. This is untenable to the point that I've made. That point being that my main issue with Sisko is him allowing his judgment to cloud his feelings. You aren't bringing that up. You aren't ever touching on that fact despite me saying that was my biggest issue.