This guy wiped out an entire race with a thought and your plan is to do what exactly?
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
484 points (98.4% liked)
Risa
6900 readers
28 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Me personally? I’m going to back away slowly without giving him my name.
It's like that scene in "The Dark Knight"
Lucius Fox : Let me get this straight, you think that your client, one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante, who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands, and your plan is to blackmail this person?
[Reese's face falls and Fox smiles]
Lucius Fox : Good luck.
I'm sure Picard could get a hold of Q and make a deal.
Q would have said,
"Oh the Husnock? Horrible, simply horrible species. Good riddance. Did you ask me here to give Uxbridge a medal or something? Because he certainly doesn't deserve it! Why I've already genocided three species this morning and didn't even get a thank you."
With a thought, because he was pissed off, and Wesley's big brain idea is to fuck with him. Picard had the wisdom to shrug and go "whatcha gonna do?"
Fiesta!
That guy put himself in solitary confinement, forever. What could the feddies do to him that is more fitting?
Play with the thermostat?
Cruel and unusual much?
Pipe in an endless loop of "Baby Shark" and Justin Bieber?
Taylor Swift. I've got that "wildest dreams" one stuck in my head. It's an anxiety thing.
Is it really confinement if you can leave of your own volition?
Also, hang him.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I mean, I sort of imagine it to be less the "rule on the books" part, and more the "do we actually have the physical capacity to enforce those rules" end of it. They cant really imprison him (I mean while he's feeling guilty he might stay willingly, but they cant keep him in if he eventually changes his mind, so itd more be him imprisoning himself). Trying to despite the futility of it would seem somewhat dangerous, because again, if he should ever change his mind, you clearly dont want to seem hostile to something with that kind of power, especially when you dont have it. Saying "Our law is not sufficient for you" could just be interpreted as the most diplomatic way given his mental state to justify leaving and not returning.
To be fair Janeway wasn't around at the time, so they didn't have any examples of genocide to go off of.
Didn't Sisko wipe out a whole planet because fuck you Eddington?
He just made it uninhabitable by humans. Not exactly the same as wiping it out, but since it forced displacement of a whole planet, it was genocide.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Phlox, Janeway, Sisko
Damn. Lots of genocide from the good guys.
Why not Phlox?
If the Federation was in the business of putting higher beings on trial, don't you think the second they learned Q was human they'd slap him in a courtroom so fast it'd make his head spin?
Hold up. Q is human??
Fuck me. That's big spoilers. When am I gonna find this out?
Later on we find out he was just 2 Q kids in a trenchcoat pretending to be human
I summon thee, @Stamets to do your duty
If these are spoilers you are about 30 years behind.
Q
Two that I can remember: Q got temporarily kicked out of the continuum (reference d above), also when Q got banished in the asteroid and Janeway let him out, he became human, then committed suicide.
Note that Q and Q are not the same person.
I was talking about the first Q, of course.
The case with the second Q was technically a civil suit.
Yeah I'm only a couple seasons into TNG.
Q was turned into a human by other Q. It lasted for an episode
He is in one episode.
Genocide requires intent. Whereas this alien just had a fleeting moment of anger at the time of his wife being murdered.
Can he really be tried for genocide? It's hard to say, but I'd say not. We all have dark intrusive thoughts, and in this instance it had disastrous consequences.
It's all moot anyway. If you have no means or intention to enforce a law, does it really exist?
Second degree species slaughter
Ah, a heated gaming moment. We've all been there.
Genocide requires intent.
Is that actually, legally, true?
In other words, does the word identify the cause, or the effect?
Can he really be tried for genocide? It’s hard to say, but I’d say not.
How so? The facts seem self-evident.
It’s all moot anyway. If you have no means or intention to enforce a law, does it really exist?
You can still classify someone though in such a way, in hopes that in some future time you can enforce the law on them, having being previously judged as a criminal.
Yes, genocide is intentional, it's in the definition.
Genocide does require intent, yes.
That's why manslaughter is different than murder
Doing something in anger is still intent.
We're talking thinking something, at a moment of extreme stress and anger, after everybody on the planet he lived on was killed, including his wife.
We aren't talking someone physically doing something.
You've never had any intrusive thought, ever? Can you affirm that you wouldn't have an angry thought even if everybody on Earth was murdered, including loved ones?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Shut up, Wesley! We must be circumspect with those who could visit genocide upon US with a thought. Also, don't bring up how often I challenged Q when he could have done the same or I'll just tell you to shut up again.
COMPUTER TURN OFF THAT NOISE
Genocide is systematic.
This was instantaneous.
Yea, but genocide is like way to much paperwork
The dude snapped when he's loved ones were killed, that is considered exculpatory of violent actions in almost all legal systems. The difference is that instead of a knife or a gun he had almost omnipotent powers of destruction.
In an ideal society he would get psychological counseling to deal with the trauma and ensure it doesn't happen again, but I think it's obvious he was a bit above Troi's pay grade.
view more: next ›