Date: 29 May 2012 09:29 Title: Post 6
I was going to say the same thing about the Romulans! I would imagine that they serve as a warning to Vulcans about what could happen if they let themselves loosen their control. Thanks for this set of forums; it's fun!
Date: 29 May 2012 09:26 Title: Post 5
No arguments here...Vulcans do think their ways are superior, obviously, or they wouldn't adopt them as their ways. We ALL think our ways are superior, or we wouldn't choose them!
Date: 29 May 2012 09:23 Title: Post 4
I think the Vulcan guiding philosophical utilitarianism precludes them being egotistical. It's also probably why they joined the Federation eventually--to serve the greater good. And dare I even bring up Spock again (yes, I know he's hardly the only Vulcan, but he's my favorite one). For a Vulcan to stand at a human commanding officer's right shoulder, in a perpetual role of support, even servant-leadership, even though that Vulcan does think his ways and his intellect are superior, is a clear demonstration that he is not an egotist.
Date: 29 May 2012 09:18 Title: Post 3
I agree that Vulcans are proud, but pride is not the same as egotism. And it's not THAT surprising that Vulcans don't renounce practices that obviously don't always work...they have extremely tight social control in Vulcan culture, simply through race-identification and the giving or withholding of approval. And I think we could argue that Spock did reject those practices, even as he hid inside them, by choosing Star Fleet over the Vulcan Science Academy.
Date: 29 May 2012 09:14 Title: Post 2
Good arguments here, too. Obviously Vulcans are deeply emotional and strongly controlled about it...on the surface that seems healthy (and I agree that humans could use a bit of that kind of control). But I too often see it (especially in the case of Spock, perhaps not the best representative) resulting in not just the control but the suppression of those feelings. Good insights. Reading on.
Date: 29 May 2012 09:08 Title: Post 1
This is a good start...I am interested in this divided character that individual Vulcans as well as Vulcan culture display. Reading more!
Date: 23 Sep 2011 22:13 Title: Post 1
I really enjoyed this 'civil' little discourse. It was an interesting spin on the ole McCoy/Spock verbal sparring and given the general thrust of the early Vulcan/Human relationship as depicted in ENT. One can almost retcon McCoy's attitude to be a left over from that earlier time when their were simmering animosities between the Vulcans and the humans. Again, I liked the approach to it here. I know in my ENT era fanfic project I've got a pair who display such combative and argumentative tendancies and it makes for fun writing at times.
Of course it can always be tricky writing good Vulcan and of course to write the human counterpoint without either character seeming racist or a caricature. I think you have done well to present fairly motivated by the argument persons in this debate and we did get a few interesting tidbits to mull over.
I think Nerys raised a good point in review about not including the v’tosh kotur in the argument. It seems a little like an easy option on that "reader's" part to dismiss the validity of the v’tosh kotur as forming part of the argument. In truth, the v’tosh kotur seem to represent the ideal middle ground, embracing emotions and their logic and be a symbol of compromise and understanding for both parties. It's an argument or line of thought I'd love to see explored in a fanfic sometime. Thanks for the generating of thoughts and ideas with your story.
Date: 23 Sep 2011 22:01 Title: Post 6
HA! Universally civil - if only people were. A neat way to finish off the discourse with a third party interjection who calls both respondants on their lines of arguments and their failures to tackle certain issues for example the Romulans and the v’tosh kotur. This was a fun and insane exercise. Well done for following it all the way through. Thank you.
Date: 23 Sep 2011 21:57 Title: Post 5
M. Anonymous has a tricky job trying to continue a line of argument with L.O. Surak - if they use an emotional argument they display the lack of restraint a Vulcan can master and so perhaps invalidate their argument - or at least so in the eyes of L.O. Surak. But trying to outfox a Vulcan with a logical argument seems to be a rather fruitless endeavour. Especially as the Vulcans can be quick to reinterpret what exactly is 'logical' to fit their own argument after all.
Date: 22 Jun 2010 19:54 Title: Post 6
This was a cool twist.
Author's Response: Thanks, and I'm very glad your enjoying the story, and the topic of argument. ;)
Date: 22 Jun 2010 19:50 Title: Post 2
Surak, huh? An on-line name, perhaps? And a logical rebuttal...
[Report This]Date: 22 Jun 2010 19:48 Title: Post 1
Interesting and insightful. Quite a sound argument you assembled there.
Date: 22 Jun 2010 02:14 Title: Post 6
"KEPT THE HUMANS IN LINE"???? Uh-oh, I have a feeling that's about to set M. Anonymous off BIG time. Let's hope he can keep his emotions in check while he takes down that idea of "Green Man's Burden." Because that's really what it smacks of--paternalism and racial superiority. (I just KNOW my rebel Cardassians would feel compelled to point out just how ugly it sounds, and give them a sharp warning as to what they are verging on.)
I also think it was dumb to suggest the v'tosh ka'tur are not fair game--especially if the majority of them are as well adjusted as this poster suggests. Their ability to live well as they is a fantastic counterexample to the Vulcan party line.
And I wonder, what race is this UniVereSallyCiviL?
Author's Response: you'll have to wait tosee what his identity may be. as for that line, i just had to throw it in there for M. Anonymous.
[Report This]Date: 21 Jun 2010 19:19 Title: Post 1
I am liking this. I read the novel version of TREK V and I find this subject matter ripe with possibilities!
Rob
Author's Response: Thanks! Glad you're enjoying it!
Date: 28 Feb 2010 01:24 Title: Post 5
M. Anonymous needs to watch himself...going up against a Vulcan, a human will be held to much higher standards, because his response is automatically assumed to be emotion and the Vulcan's response is automatically assumed to be logic. A Vulcan will be forgiven a lapse; a human will not be. (This is much like certain types of political debates here on Earth where one side is held to a different standard than the other, and an offense that would've forced one side to recant and apologize is received without batting an eye when dealt out by the other side.) I almost think he would do better by trying to out-Vulcan the Vulcan, since he's in a written venue and has time to step back and review his responses before he posts.
I think what would really shift the debate, now that it's gotten this emotional on both sides (though of course LO Surak would never be called on it the way M. Anonymous could be) is for a HEALTHY, WELL-ADJUSTED v'tosh ka'tur Vulcan to step into the debate and explain exactly why he/she felt that the Vulcan way was flawed. (Someone like United Trek's T'Ser...)
Author's Response: Yes, it is true that both people will be held to a different standard. but for L.O. Surak, as soon as he/she makes a misstep, and says something that can be taken as emotional, he/she would be called out about it without delay.
you think as i do! I actually WAS going to have someone step in. but you'll have to wait to see who it might be.
Date: 24 Feb 2010 21:27 Title: Post 4
Hee, hee. At this stage we see it is beginning to descend into a catfight between the two really. Have we ever seen the likes of this happen before ... roll eyes and say: 'oh no, never before'. Loved the idea and the notion behind this and the arguments you used for both sides.
Author's Response: Thanks for the reviews! I had always wondered why this was never addressed straightforward in Star Trek. They always seemed to get along so well on-screen, but that couldn't be right! How could two peoples so different, and who have nearly opposite philosphies get along so well? It didn't seem believable to me, and that's what I wanted to address. And when two people get into an argument about so deep a topic, its of course going to happen that their true colors will come out. Glad you're enjoying it! :)
Date: 24 Feb 2010 21:25 Title: Post 3
As I said in the previous rambling review, the waters muddy quickly when either side uses the other side's arsenal as it weapons to fling at their opponent. So here Anon sarcastically accuses Surak as being emotional and questions the validity of the answers given. Throwing Sybok into the equation is a hamfisted attempt to make an argument but still the poster seems to be making some deep charges that sting for cutting a certain degree close to the truth.
Date: 24 Feb 2010 21:21 Title: Post 2
A great response to the first open letter. Of course, one could argue that in responding, the Vulcan in question is in fact reacting emotionally. However, a Vulcan might dispute that point. They could say that they are responding as a matter of intellectual debate - maybe they enjoy winning arguments. I think the concept behind this is all very clever in itself. Alllowing the chance to debate the different sides and opinions on the issue of Vulcan nature/logic/way of life.
What really intrigues me about this little debate is that I have some complicated Vulcan characters myself who run afoul of their emotions because of other circumstances. And one of those characters has thrown the apparent elitist attitude of the Vulcans back in their face. So this is fascinating to see played out here. I've gradually heard more and more people dispute the validity of Vulcan claims and their option to control their emotions. All too often, it is to knock it and to protest that Vulcans were many of the charges M. Anon made. I like seeing the defence made here. It is blind indeed to let heated or biased emotions cloud argument for or against the issue. I guess the very nature of Vulcan lifestyle means it will forever draw down debate because it is either supported on a basis on intellect or decried on a basis of emotion. Surak here attempts to support it with logic and intellect here. However, a smart move in using the logic of Vulcan control to admit emotions play a part. This continues to be a fascinating read. Well done KobayashiMaru13.
Date: 24 Feb 2010 19:38 Title: Post 1
Ooh a fascinating little virtual debate you've got up and running with this instalment. I wonder how others will react to this 'posting'. A nice style to the writing that fits the meandering view of a person seeking to find a voice. They make many a good point too as they question the Vulcan ability to question Earth's bloody history and yet ignore the details of their own violent past. M. Anon hits home a few good scores although fails to offer too much concrete evidence in their own argument - but then people do tend to fail to notice that in their own self-justified views. Very interesting.
Date: 17 Feb 2010 06:35 Title: Post 3
This is a very, very interesting exchange to read--at once extremely uncomfortable because of the borderline racist assumptions that both of the writers on both sides of the debates are making...and also interesting because aside from ENT, we almost never saw the Vulcans really, REALLY put on the defensive.
(BTW, what about the other v'tosh ka'tur Vulcans besides Sybok? There were some in ENT, and could there be others?)
Author's Response: Well, I personnally figured thst there must be those who rejected the Vulcan Way, just as there are those who reject their native religion of Christianity,Judaism, Islam, etc (not that the Vulcan Way is a religion, but it is nearly the same kind of deal, so basically the same applies). As for Sybok, well, he was the first to pop into my head, and I figured he'd be the most publically known.
I admit, at first it WAS borderline racist, but it always bothered me that Trek always seemed to steer away from such things. But humans are humans, and Vulcans sometimes act like humans, so there must have been some element of it there.