Enterprise: Cogenitor - What'd you think? (spoiler)

[djheater]

I realize a lot of you hate Trek or at best are ambivalent, but for those fans out there, I'd like your opinion. I've never been so irritated with any TV show that I felt the need to post about it but there's a first time for everything.

I know some of you watched this, I have to tell you I'm disgusted at the ending. It flies in the face of virtually all previous Trek.

Archer has alluded to a respect for "human" rights regardless of species before, yet here he condemns an officer for protecting those rights, it's hypocritical. There is no justification for this response from the captain, we are left to surmise that he either felt the potential gain of trade (as alluded to by T'pol) was worth ignoring the condition of the individual or the fact that they were an androgynous sex made them sufficiently inhuman to protect. I just can't figure it out.
Archer makes a big point about the cogenitor not asking for help, but the right to fair treatment is not limited to those who ask for it, and I believe previous actions by Archer demonstrate this.

I think the writers left us a clue as to the intention in the choice of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" but I'm not familiar enough with the film to say what the intention was.

Anyway sorry to geek out, I just like the series and am disappointed that they would make an episode I basically have to ignore.

 

[Rilescat]

sounds like Voyager...I had to ignore the whole series.

 

[guyver01]

Archer's point about human rights were "They're not human" .. Trip was trying to force his belief onto a species whose culture was completely alien to him... trying to make them conform to his beliefs and not theirs...

think of it as when the "missionary's try to impose christianity on the non-christians"

Also.. don't forget, this is a time before the PRIME DIRECTIVE of non-interference in other species development, etc came into place.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: guyver01
Archer's point about human rights were "They're not human" .. Trip was trying to force his belief onto a species whose culture was completely alien to him... trying to make them conform to his beliefs and not theirs...

think of it as when the "missionary's try to impose christianity on the non-christians"

Also.. don't forget, this is a time before the PRIME DIRECTIVE of non-interference in other species development, etc came into place.

This is true, but Archer has done similar things in previous episodes.....that's the only thing that bothered me.

amish

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: guyver01
Archer's point about human rights were "They're not human" .. Trip was trying to force his belief onto a species whose culture was completely alien to him... trying to make them conform to his beliefs and not theirs...

think of it as when the "missionary's try to impose christianity on the non-christians"

Also.. don't forget, this is a time before the PRIME DIRECTIVE of non-interference in other species development, etc came into place.

As I said, you have to admit that Archer has "imposed" his belief's on other species before, Tripp discovers that the 'inhumane' treatment of the cogenitor is a condition of culture and not any inherent biological difference. What really gets me is that he brings the cogenitor great joy through his actions, yet this, and the feelings of the cogenitor are ignored, something I think is ver UN-Trek. The reasoning for this is never sufficiently explained.

To address the "missionary" analogy, I'd ask; Should a missionary step in to stop the enslavement of a member of another tribe" Tripp was not altering the cogenitor's religion, he was offering the cogenitor the ability to realize it's own potential.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: guyver01
Archer's point about human rights were "They're not human" .. Trip was trying to force his belief onto a species whose culture was completely alien to him... trying to make them conform to his beliefs and not theirs...

think of it as when the "missionary's try to impose christianity on the non-christians"

Also.. don't forget, this is a time before the PRIME DIRECTIVE of non-interference in other species development, etc came into place.

As I said, you have to admit that Archer has "imposed" his belief's on other species before, Tripp discovers that the 'inhumane' treatment of the cogenitor is a condition of culture and not any inherent biological difference. What really gets me is that he brings the cogenitor great joy through his actions, yet this, and the feelings of the cogenitor are ignored, something I think is ver UN-Trek. The reasoning for this is never sufficiently explained.

To address the "missionary" analogy, I'd ask; Should a missionary step in to stop the enslavement of a member of another tribe" Tripp was not altering the cogenitor's religion, he was offering the cogenitor the ability to realize it's own potential.

I think the correct action was taken, all-in-all. I just didn't understand why Archer was so pissed since he's done similar things.

amish

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Electric AmishI think the correct action was taken, all-in-all. I just didn't understand why Archer was so pissed since he's done similar things.

amish

I'm not really sure what correct action would be.... Ah, perhaps that's why the writers had the cogenitor kill herself? I'm not sure it would have been wrong to offer her sanctuary, I think the precedent has been set in previous episodes that there should have been at least some sort of recognition of Tripp's objection.
Archer expects ethical treatment from the Klingons but does not offer it to an asylum seeker? I don't know it's like the episode isn't over yet. I guess it's too much to hope that Tripp showing it the transporter will tie in somehow.

Amish, have you seen "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Care to comment on it?

 

[LordThing]

I partially believe that Archer was right. Trip needs a quick reality check to reign him in. He has, too often, just did what he felt was right and damn the consequences. I don't think that Archer was pissed in why trip did it...he was pissed at trip for doing it without thinking. I think it was more of a lesson in harshness to settle him down.

 

[Electric Amish]

Amish, have you seen "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Care to comment on it?

I have, but it's been awhile. Basically an alien comes to Earth trying to help us. Everyone's afraid and tries to kill him.

amish

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: guyver01
Archer's point about human rights were "They're not human" .. Trip was trying to force his belief onto a species whose culture was completely alien to him... trying to make them conform to his beliefs and not theirs...

think of it as when the "missionary's try to impose christianity on the non-christians"

Also.. don't forget, this is a time before the PRIME DIRECTIVE of non-interference in other species development, etc came into place.

This is true, but Archer has done similar things in previous episodes.....that's the only thing that bothered me.

amish

Actually that is what I liked. SUBTLETY unsuited for the typical sci-fi tv viewer.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Actually that is what I liked. SUBTLETY unsuited for the typical sci-fi tv viewer.

Explain.

There was nothing subtle about it. Archer freaked out in an unprecedented way. Everything we've seen up to this point of his character would indicate that he would side with Tripp on it. Writers should not be allowed to fundamentally change the nature of a character without explanation, and Archer never explains himself. Are they trying to say that T'Pol functions as the Chorus, telling us that Archer has decided that first-contacts and, essentially, trade are more important than morally correct action?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: djheater
I realize a lot of you hate Trek or at best are ambivalent, but for those fans out there, I'd like your opinion. I've never been so irritated with any TV show that I felt the need to post about it but there's a first time for everything.

I know some of you watched this, I have to tell you I'm disgusted at the ending. It flies in the face of virtually all previous Trek.

Archer has alluded to a respect for "human" rights regardless of species before, yet here he condemns an officer for protecting those rights, it's hypocritical. There is no justification for this response from the captain, we are left to surmise that he either felt the potential gain of trade (as alluded to by T'pol) was worth ignoring the condition of the individual or the fact that they were an androgynous sex made them sufficiently inhuman to protect. I just can't figure it out.
Archer makes a big point about the cogenitor not asking for help, but the right to fair treatment is not limited to those who ask for it, and I believe previous actions by Archer demonstrate this.

I think the writers left us a clue as to the intention in the choice of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" but I'm not familiar enough with the film to say what the intention was.

Anyway sorry to geek out, I just like the series and am disappointed that they would make an episode I basically have to ignore.

I was a bit disspointed with the whole episode, however, it was a precursor to the Prime Directive.

You're confusing what Archer's response would have been just the same way Tripp did - and Archer called him on that. The Cogenitor was part of the culture, it had the same potential as the others but it also had a purpose that no other had. Whenever Archer defends human rights for other races, he's defending the race as a whole or a group who are wrongly persecuted. The Cogenitor was a different circumstance, a third gender vital to the continuation of a race. As you can see at the end of the show when she/he/it killed itself, I believe this is probably the reason why the Cogenitors aren't given education or tasks beyond their vital role. In what only was a few days, the Cogenitor was instilled a seed of aspiration by another race with it's own culture, that lead to her self-destruction.

I think the flaw in Tripp's thinking, was that he could motivate this one Cogentor, of a gender that makes up 3% of the population, but what about the other 3%? He basically created an instant outcast. If he can spend his time rehabilitating this cogenitor into this line of thinking, shouldn't he be obligated to do the same for the others?

Look at the other star trek cultures where not everyone is equal. Klingons have family Houses, which form a hiearchial structure of honor. Bejorans have a religious structure that is highly respected. Vulcans are equal until they go into heat, then they bash each other like a bunch of rabid monkeys. The Cogenitor had a role, and Tripp convinved her she didn't. He was wrong.

 

[KokomoGST]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Amish, have you seen "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Care to comment on it?

I have, but it's been awhile. Basically an alien comes to Earth trying to help us. Everyone's afraid and tries to kill him.

The kicker is that the humanoid alien gives the people of Earth a choice... either live as the rest of the universe does under an irresistable force that maintains peace or be obliterated for your continued aggression.

The Prime Directive almost seems like a direct antithesis to that and the struggles that Archer has as well as others later with the Directive seem very much related to the choice presented by Klaatu (humanoid alien).

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

I was a bit disspointed with the whole episode, however, it was a precursor to the Prime Directive.

You're confusing what Archer's response would have been just the same way Tripp did - and Archer called him on that. The Cogenitor was part of the culture, it had the same potential as the others but it also had a purpose that no other had. Whenever Archer defends human rights for other races, he's defending the race as a whole or a group who are wrongly persecuted. The Cogenitor was a different circumstance, a third gender vital to the continuation of a race. As you can see at the end of the show when she/he/it killed itself, I believe this is probably the reason why the Cogenitors aren't given education or tasks beyond their vital role. In what only was a few days, the Cogenitor was instilled a seed of aspiration by another race with it's own culture, that lead to her self-destruction.

I think the flaw in Tripp's thinking, was that he could motivate this one Cogentor, of a gender that makes up 3% of the population, but what about the other 3%? He basically created an instant outcast. If he can spend his time rehabilitating this cogenitor into this line of thinking, shouldn't he be obligated to do the same for the others?

Look at the other star trek cultures where not everyone is equal. Klingons have family Houses, which form a hiearchial structure of honor. Bejorans have a religious structure that is highly respected. Vulcans are equal until they go into heat, then they bash each other like a bunch of rabid monkeys. The Cogenitor had a role, and Tripp convinved her she didn't. He was wrong.

I disagree with the assumption that Tripps actions would make him morally obligated to the rest of the cogenitors. After all we can not control the universe, we can only control our individual action. Tripp did what he felt was right based upon his human experience, the only experience he or anyone in his position, including Archer, could have called on. I would argue that if Archer or any one saw any Klingon regardless of social class being mistreated and whose rights were impinged, they would be compelled to voice an objection or intervene.

 

[djheater]

bump for afternoon...

 

[0roo0roo]

weird eps, but the first one in a while that didn't totally suck. and yes, trip acted a tad zealously.

 

[calpha]

i'm not a big trekkie ( I don't know the culture of Bejorans and Klingons like others here ) but that's the only episode i've ever watched that made me mad. I actually fast forwarded through the later scenes of tripp and the cogenitor. Well, that's not true....I'm still pisssed at TNG for the whole Tasha Yar (sp?) kill-off episode.

Archer was pissed because Tripp forced his view/opinion on the cogenitor. She didnt' ask for help, or lessons and he gave them on his own. He made the decision for the cogenitor, and that's what led to it's suicide.

All in all I thought it was a good episode. Enterprise is a wierd series for someone who loved TNG and the Original seris. I still pretend Voyager didnt exist.......

If the cogenitor had initally asked for help from Tripp, I have no doubt that Archer would have granted it assylum. But it didn't, and that's why he had to send it back to it's ship.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: calpha
i'm not a big trekkie ( I don't know the culture of Bejorans and Klingons like others here ) but that's the only episode i've ever watched that made me mad. I actually fast forwarded through the later scenes of tripp and the cogenitor. Well, that's not true....I'm still pisssed at TNG for the whole Tasha Yar (sp?) kill-off episode.

Archer was pissed because Tripp forced his view/opinion on the cogenitor. She didnt' ask for help, or lessons and he gave them on his own. He made the decision for the cogenitor, and that's what led to it's suicide.

All in all I thought it was a good episode. Enterprise is a wierd series for someone who loved TNG and the Original seris. I still pretend Voyager didnt exist.......

If the cogenitor had initally asked for help from Tripp, I have no doubt that Archer would have granted it assylum. But it didn't, and that's why he had to send it back to it's ship.

So do you agree with what I said before?

Are they trying to say that T'Pol functions as the Chorus, telling us that Archer has decided that first-contacts and, essentially, trade are more important than morally correct action?

In part the message of this series has been that morality and rights as sentients are a universal. If a wrong exists and we are not aware of it does that make it acceptable?
When Archer assisted in the escape of the Sulibon from the prison, did all the Sulibon he released ASK for his help? They were victims of the culture as well, yet Archer applies his moral compass to them, why not here?

 

[calpha]

my memory isn't as good as yours about the past episodes. I know the suibon episode you're talking about, but I don't know it in the detail that you do.

That being said.....I don't think there was a contrast in Archer in Sulibon vs Archer and the cogenitor. If the cogenitor was merely a slave, and a mistreated part of their culture, I think archer would have intervened. But the cogenitor exists for reproduction, and interfering in that would affect how they are able to reproduce.

If you take the reproduction out of the mix, then I think he would have offerred it assylum.

But, that's why the episode was pretty good....it left you wondering whether his motivations were simply trade related, or if he was influenced by the trigender of the species more. In thinking the ultimate influence was the trigender---I don't think archer contradicted his actions in earlier episodes.

<Dork Hat off>

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: calpha

<Dork Hat off>

Although I appear to be arguing against the episode, and I'm still shaky on it, I think I'm actually undecided about whether I like it or not.

Perhaps it will grow on me.

 

[iwearnosox]

Has it occured to you that you're all nerds?

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Has it occured to you that you're all nerds?

Yes. I'm proud to be one. Fvck you.

amish

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Has it occured to you that you're all nerds?

Yes. I'm proud to be one. Fvck you.

amish

Pretty angry for a nerd.

I never said it was a bad thing.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Has it occured to you that you're all nerds?

Yes. I'm proud to be one. Fvck you.

amish

I'm rather surprised I didn't get that reaction a lot earlier.

Has it occured to you iwearnosox you're opinion may not matter as much to others as it does to you. Add one more Fvck You to your scorecard.

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Has it occured to you that you're all nerds?

Yes. I'm proud to be one. Fvck you.

amish

I'm rather surprised I didn't get that reaction a lot earlier.

Has it occured to you iwearnosox you're opinion may not matter as much to others as it does to you. Add one more Fvck You to your scorecard.

That's your, Dilbert.

Thanks for the hostility, though. :heart: