Interesting that that’s how you interpret the prime directive. Uncontacted peoples are a case in which the prime directive would apply, but the prime directive applies also to contacted peoples.
Please reform your argument so that it makes sense as a response to what I said.
Sidenote: if you don’t understand the prime directive and don’t understand the question I am asking then you can also just not respond. You don’t need to engage in an argument built on a premise that you don’t know enough about to work within. That’s okay. It doesn’t make your argument less valid, just makes you unsuited for this specific conversation.
The interesting thing about a question is that while it asking you to think about the context of a fictional policy in a fictional world of aliens, the show was written by humans, for humans, about humans. If you also cannot wrap your head around that one then that is okay. You can choose not to engage with the question.
If a civilization has been exposed to advanced concepts, some engagement may be permitted.
Initial contact can occur with civilizations that are technologically advanced enough, even if they have not developed warp drive.”
Also,
“Ethical Considerations
The Prime Directive raises complex ethical questions about intervention and the consequences of non-interference. While it aims to prevent harm, it is often challenged by situations where intervention could save lives or prevent disasters. The directive is seen as a guideline rather than an absolute rule, allowing for flexibility based on the circumstances.”
It’s becoming clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Even if you watched the show, you’d know how often the crews interfered.
Contact is not intervention. Why are you interpreting what I am saying as cutting complete contact and forcing isolation? You and the person I originally replied to jumped to conclusions on questions I offered and assumed arguments I didn’t make, wouldn’t make, and wasn’t implying.
I ain’t continuing a discussion like that. But hey, wanna restart and try again? I’m open to it. But you’ll have to listen to me and I’ll promise to listen to you. Not the vague shapes in our head about each other filled with assumptions and guesswork from the I’m sure billion other online interactions we have had with similar people, but to listen to each other in the vacuum of this thread. Not assuming anything. You think I have an implication I am making, you can ask.
Maybe because afghans arent a fucking alien race unaware of the existence of other peoples
Interesting that that’s how you interpret the prime directive. Uncontacted peoples are a case in which the prime directive would apply, but the prime directive applies also to contacted peoples.
Please reform your argument so that it makes sense as a response to what I said.
Sidenote: if you don’t understand the prime directive and don’t understand the question I am asking then you can also just not respond. You don’t need to engage in an argument built on a premise that you don’t know enough about to work within. That’s okay. It doesn’t make your argument less valid, just makes you unsuited for this specific conversation.
The interesting thing about a question is that while it asking you to think about the context of a fictional policy in a fictional world of aliens, the show was written by humans, for humans, about humans. If you also cannot wrap your head around that one then that is okay. You can choose not to engage with the question.
"Exceptions
Also,
“Ethical Considerations
The Prime Directive raises complex ethical questions about intervention and the consequences of non-interference. While it aims to prevent harm, it is often challenged by situations where intervention could save lives or prevent disasters. The directive is seen as a guideline rather than an absolute rule, allowing for flexibility based on the circumstances.”
It’s becoming clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Even if you watched the show, you’d know how often the crews interfered.
Contact is not intervention. Why are you interpreting what I am saying as cutting complete contact and forcing isolation? You and the person I originally replied to jumped to conclusions on questions I offered and assumed arguments I didn’t make, wouldn’t make, and wasn’t implying.
I ain’t continuing a discussion like that. But hey, wanna restart and try again? I’m open to it. But you’ll have to listen to me and I’ll promise to listen to you. Not the vague shapes in our head about each other filled with assumptions and guesswork from the I’m sure billion other online interactions we have had with similar people, but to listen to each other in the vacuum of this thread. Not assuming anything. You think I have an implication I am making, you can ask.