@@migrivp2672 Orkoids aren't going away due to their asexual spore reproduction, the Elder have clung to life despite the catastrophe of Slaanesh, the Necrons still have a sizable tech advantage, the Tyranids haven't even shown their full might, and Chaos really isn't going anywhere either. I'm not denying the copious genocide, but the way other faction operate transform it into part of the eternal, grinding warfare among the stars
@@TheFiddleFaddle Seth McFarlane is the creator of Family Guy, American Dad, Bob's Burgers, and basically any raunchy animated tv show in America. He's also the voice of most of the characters. It just feels weird that this guy is the voice of reason.
@@yoshilovesyoshi Sure, none of which I enjoy, but I don't see any of that as making it unsettling for him to talk morality. Seth MacFarlane also personally funded the reboot of Cosmos. I thought there was some big controversy you were all talking about, not the shows he's created.
I like how reasonable the admiralty is in this show. A lot of times shows will only paint the highest ranks above the core protagonist group as either corrupt or incompetent. This is better. Plus in this scene they showcase the ideal of the military being subject to civilian authority and taking their direction from elected power on contentious issues instead of making unilateral decisions.
I wish they case either Sir Patrick Stewart or Jonathan Frakes as the Union's Chief of Admirals. That would've sent a shockwave among the 'Trek' fandom 😊
@@toddsmitts Nah. Even considering that. The "evil" admiral in this case is planning to immediately turn himself in and admit his full crimes. It's a nice break with the cliche that all admirals are evil. He just has beliefs out of alignment with the Union.
@@toddsmitts He didnt do it out of malice or evilness. He strongly believes they should just wipe out the Kaylons based on the data he currently has. Up to this point, Kaylon in general was outright against the Union.
Its no longer that simple, unfortunately. At that point, it becomes a matter simply and purely diluted down to survival. For all the Union knows, is that the Kaylon's cannot be reasoned with. Thus the Kaylon's are forcing them to commit genocide simply to survive. Does it make it good? No, but war - even a purely defensive one on the part of the Union - is never pretty. Its ugly, its nasty, but you have to do what you have to do to survive.
@@alienrenders It is, just with a self defense justification. The act and outcome stays the same, the decision making process though could be seen to have a different moral quality. It boils down to a war scenario where it is the enemy or me who can survive, but not both and the soldiers are told you are free of guilt as you just defended yourself and the people of your nation. Which ofcause often enough is also told to the enemy soldiers by their people. One other factor i suppose would come into play. When people are in life threatening situations and they are not given much of a choice, they are willing to risk more. That willingness is based on the survival instinct and pretty much washes away a lot of logical or moral implications in that moment. It doesn't free them though from them, just blurrs the moment so action can be taken without too much thought as time in critical life & death situations often is of the essence. From an evolutionary point that is all fine at first, only when things calm down and one would stop and think what just happened, the moral dilemma might become obvious, but too late then. Which is why thinking ahead of time is and trying to set oneself ground rules to follow in critical situations, may safe someone headachs afterwards. The show has some strange depictions of the Kalon i have to say. On the one hand most of them do not feel empathy or feelings and are said to be purely logical, that leads to the impression that they are machines, intelligent machines, but not necessarily with a consciousness. Which i rather find critical in judging this to be a genocide or not. If they are just machines, which mimic social behaviour, but can't feel regret for their actions, why should anyone else feel regret for actions against them? Then again if they can be seen as a living being, who has the right to make them go extinct? Look at all the species currently going extinct here on earth, mostly because of us. Further more with DNA modifications due to CRISPR9 now we are thinking it convenient to make some species go extinct like the Malaria transmitting mosquito, field mise and other "pests". Seems a bit quick and too final for something that took billions of years to evolve , just to snuff it out, doesn't it?
Yeah, season 3 is proper Star Trek (in all but name). Season 1 was a diamond in the rough, still leaning a lot on Seth MacFarlane style humor, 2 got its feet on the ground and 3 started running.
My god, officers and their superiors discussing a complicated and delicate situation in a mature, factual way... And the superiors not being assholes, or idiots, but actually listen to what their subordinates have to say... It reminds me of some TV shows of old, but I forgot...
Well, I agree to an extent (edit: and that extent is "almost all the way"). But the scene does still present them as somewhat slow. They should've already realised this was a complex moral issue. Not needed McFarlane to point it out to them.
This is the same moral dilemma faced by the crew of the Enterprise-D when they were deciding whether they wanted to implant a virus inside of Hugh which is capable of killing all the Borg drones, when they sent back him to return to the collective, knowing well that doing so meant they're committing a genocide against their number one enemy (TNG episode "I, Borg")
The situation with the Borg is definitely worse when you factor in that the Drones are essentially unwitting slaves that can be freed(not easily, but still). Wiping them out means you have to kill a lot of innocent people.
@@hagamapama Bit different tho, they didn't murder the Borg. They freed them. Which ended up being kind of a bad thing to be fair but definitely better than murder.
Y'know... they wouldn't actually NEED to employ an army of cybernetists to give every Kaylon the emotions upgrade. All they'd need do is link Timmus into the network hub and have him upload the software version of the upgrade to all of the Kaylon at once, possibly even adapting it to work on newer created Kaylons like Isaac in the process.
@@knightsoftheroundpeople2676 No no... It didn't work for Isaac because he was "second generation", for lack of a better term. It worked for Timmus because he was one of the original Kaylon, built by the original builders. His neural network is different to Isaac, thus why the implant didn't work for Isaac. If they offered the technology to the Kaylon, and they were able to build such a device that would work for both the originals and the second gen Kaylons... and/or turn it into a software update that could be released along the network... they could all have the upgrade.
The Kaylons essentially abandon their violent ways through logic NOT through compassion or emotional connection. This is a bit like how the Vulcans evolved out of their barbaric savage phase. They adopted strict logic as the ONLY means of avoiding self-destruction.
Jed Flanders Opinons other than yours a wrong. People who don't have your opinion aren't allowed to have it nor are they allowed to express it. Freedom screamer from the USA enjoying his plague and fallng life expectancy is falling life expectancy.
I love how this show always shows proper human and alien interactions along with strategic planning and story arcs, instead of just full on action all the time or everyone on board having some sort of love arc, and it takes itself seriously as a result too. Cannot wait for Season 4.
WTF? When I heard this show was more Star Trek than the ACTUAL new show, I was thinking "...yeah, internet memes, over exaggerations..." But it ACTUALLY is? Bless you people.
@@TazyBaby "I was shocked by how good it was, went into expecting a comedy like family guy" Family guy has some deep and interesting content...it is just mostly they don't bother with that and pander to the dumbness of the audience. It is very frustrating to watch for that reason.
@@archvaldor yeah thats exactly what I mean, the Orville is deep and interesting the whole way through. I didn’t realize Seth was that good of a storyteller
dude, the end of STar Trek Discovery's first season was literally the opposite of this very intelligent discussion in the Orville. fuck that show lol. SNW, Lower Decks, and Prodigy are pretty good though
for something that was supposed to be a parody of a classical show, it has suddenly become the true successor. While the show that was supposed to be the successor had become a joke
I really like the background scenery. The whole location in this scene looks like it's from Mass Effect on the Citadel plus Star Trek: TOS, except with bright gold and silver colors.
The depth of moral grey-ness is part of what made the Orville amazing. I can’t say I disagree with the reasoning behind using the weapon. They had complete proof of Kaylon’s intention to murder every living being in the galaxing, with scant proof of their ability or willingness to change course. It would be logical to use the weapon, and kill them all. Thankfully that argument didn’t win.
Same, i guess it proves that McFarlane and his team not only are Star Trek fans but also really understood the entire concept, something that the crew of actual star trek really REALLY lack
I heard that Seth actually wanted to make a serious show in homage to classic Star Trek. But the studio wouldn't let him because he's the ha ha family guy man and forced him to make it a comedy. Imagine what he would've made without the comedic restraints.
@@odlfmariner470 What? Lose most of the Crusades? Sack Constantinople, capital of the same Empire that originally called for the First Crusade, so badly that it never recovered and eventually fell to Mehmed the Conqueror?
“if we don’t eliminate the threat completely, they will just keep attacking us”, hmm… where have i heard that justification before in a horrible present day conflict?
The problem is they didn't include anyone from the sciences in this meeting. Claire for one would be able to help them understand on a scientific level how much of a profound moment Isaac had with emotions and how much it changed him.
Considering the Union Fleet operates as a Navy, I believe it is understood that higher ranking officers have a required understanding of sciences, same as with the Navy
It's a reminder that morality and ethics aren't a simple matter. When having to chose between being righteous and being alive, I'm pretty sure most won't pick the former. Of course, many won't be honest about it
Well, it's a fair point. Even if you're not gonna use it, may as well start building just in case the war heats up. Like, say, by one party starting construction on an I-win button. Oh look Turkey missiles like in the Cuban missile crisis.
This looks like Star Trek The Next Generation. I might check this out. So far Original Series, Next Generation, Voyager and Enterprise have followed this formula. Problem of the week, exploring ethics, morality, seeing new alien cultures etc. By the way Deep Space 9 is a great show but it does not feel like Star Trek to me. I judge it for what it is. Its own thing, which it excels at.
Haven't seen this series yet, but I've looked it up. Orville is different story from Star Trek, it's very similar in many, many ways, but it's not in the same universe - so to say.
@@ishtar0110 That is a good thing. Star Trek is hard to write for, because of its established lore. I would rather write for my own pseudo Star Trek Universe to tell my own stories, rather than navigate the pitfalls of the complex lore of the show.
I really don't understand why the newer Star Trek series can't imitate this look. It really does look like Star Trek. Nu Trek looks like generic science fiction action shows. I wonder what it is about this that makes it seem so familiar. More static camera angles? It seems more character focused.
This is the same moral dilemma faced by the crew of the Enterprise-D when they were deciding whether they wanted to implant a virus capable of killing all the Borg drones inside of Hugh when they sent him to return to the collective, knowing well that doing so basically meant they're committing a genocide against their number one enemy (TNG episode "I, Borg")
It's a no-brainer; the Kaylon want to kill all life, so it makes sense to destroy them first. Delaying while trying to reform them only gives the Kaylon more time to try to succeed in their plan. There's too much at stake to take a chance in the hope that efforts to reform them succeeds. Best thing is to take no chances and finish them off, without question.
"There's too much at stake to take a chance in the hope that efforts to reform them succeeds." Exactly. That is ALWAYS the argument that convinces ordinary people to suddenly commit mass murder.
The best answer is to develop the weapons into a targeted solution so that you can show an ability, and willingness, to fight back with overwhelming force. Hopefully that will allow diplomatic endeavors to be able to proceed. It's basically what occurred with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No one ever negotiates when all the other side brings is "please".
"Well, you do realize what we are talking about is genocide?" Yep. Best way to win a war. It guarantees you will never have to fight them again. Don't believe me? Ask the Carthaginians.
I love this show. Early on, it was definitely a bit too silly at times, but it has always had the heart and morals that are missing in today's Star Trek, but was the very core of those shows back in the day.
Mexico during the Yaqui Wars and Mayan pacification post independence? The Tsardom of Russia and the Soviet Union and modern Russian Federation? PR China ?
I do like how the Orville handles stuff like this - the Admirals have disagreements, and they defer to civilian authority - and the stance they take is the correct one in my opinion - show the Keylon that the weapon is effective, make it clear that we will use it but only if we have too, and demand they stop their crusade to wipe out organic life; and I like how the one admiral disagrees so hard he has the weapon stolen and handed over to the Unions' enemies because he believes (correctly) they'll use it to destroy the Keylon - he's not a bad person, he just thinks the risk of Keylon's is too extreme to risk giving them quarter. And then he STILL tried to return to face charges; like, he knows his people will call him (at minimum) a criminal, but he doesn't try and hide from the consequences of his actions. The Orville was clearly written by a team who watched shows like TNG and then probably BSG and worked well to marry the idealism of the federation with the imperfect humanity we have in the real world - not everyone agrees, and sometimes the Union messes up badly, but the Union will always course correct to its ideals and risk harm to themselves to try and spare others if it can be helped; and whilst I disagree with their stance on the non-interference in less advanced societies (similar to TNGs prime directive) they are shown to have reasons why they hold that position, and flexibly not to treat the rule with un-questionning dogma, so I respect the writer's POV much more than TNGs, where they just go 'but what if they turn out to be space-hitlers. No, better to let them all die of preventable natural disaster'. Side note: I do love TNG, apart from how the prime directive is treated in that series.
Here's a question with a war: Do you keep throwing bodies until the machine jams or do you pull the switch? If so, with the former, I'd like those that would to confront the question that they are continuously throwing waves of lives of their own soldiers--people with families and loved ones--to their doom by prolonging the conflict more than is absolutely necessary. The "nuke" is never the first resort; it is the last resort. Against an unrelenting foe that is knocking on your door and your men continuously being dragged out of their wood chipper in the name of an alleged "higher code of ethics". If we're talking about the cost of life, then, how many of your own are you willing to let die in the name of it. I use the word "your own", not "yours", because everyone here will probably hit the button on a nuke if they were confronted with the reality that a prolonged war would mean more casualties. So what do you do? Do you eliminate the threat and live with the guilt or do you keep turning that wood chipper and justify to the grieving loved ones that their deaths were necessary?
@@christianhofer5020 The question is what do you do? This is definitely based on Seth's own take on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (who he has never been shy of being critical of to the point he essentially alluded that the pilots should kill themselves in family guy) and the idea of using a bomb to end the conflict. You're fighting a war, resources are finite. Are your men expendable for the next four or five years of the operation? Your enemy has proven to be genocidal themselves (Since he is essentially equating the bomb in this instance with nuclear genocide). The Imperial Japanese, in that instance, are not stopping, they're slaughtering the Indo-Chinese populace on the Eastern stretch of Asia. So, again, what do you do? Keep writing letters saying how sorry you are or sign off on a sea of fire? What do you do? It's not a hard question. I'm just asking what would you do. Do you play Playstation all day? Do you just not care and resign because you don't want to make that decision? Do you go to the park and skateboard? What do you do? Simple: you do with what you can live with.
@@Sizdothyx I would do what I deem as necessary and appropriate. But I wouldn't take the ultimate weapon of mass destruction unless there is no hope for a peaceful solution. And there are always ways to discuss with reasonable people. And also to make them listen. So maybe Hiroshima was necessary but I don't think that Nagasaki was. And the keylon lost too many through the weapon but did accept that there is no alternative to peace. Press the button is the easiest way to solve a problem. But often it is the begin of a new one. The next race like the keylon won't hesitate with extermination of biologicals If they hear the story... You're question is really hard. What would you do? Considering your nearest and dearest. But I think that could just be a part of the answer. I would always try to negotiate first. No matter what. Except for imminent Life threat's.
@@christianhofer5020 Me? I'm Malaysian. I'd push the button. It wouldn't be my _first_ option, but I would. I don't have a significant fighting force to hold back the tide of Japanese soldiers or the Armada. Even if I had an army standing to hold back the tide, I'd lose within months (and did) barring a miracle, even the most capable of generals wouldn't be able to strategize against a region that's been surrounded from all sides with no hope of a cut-off. Negotiations are always the first go-to, but if you're negotiating deep into a conflict, that tells the other side two things: 1. You don't have enough to push them back should a break-down happen 2. You're buying time to achieve something Especially as a smaller country, I wouldn't be able to resist, as valorous and noble as the idea of it is. People love an underdog story, but stories are not real life. Real life has no adherence to a dictation or a logical procession. The most I could probably achieve with an opening negotiation with Imperial Japan would have been to willingly be annexed and play the stool. Just because you're open to negotiations doesn't mean that the _other side_ is, and just because the channels are open does not mean that both sides _want the same thing._ I would, however, _warn_ them, like how the Americans did. But could I live with pressing the button? Definitely. I'd rather be hated for keeping people alive than having to explain to those that the dead left behind that I valued the fairy tale of humanism more than I did the idea of graves not being filled. It's a hard decision to make for you because you don't want the accountability of it. Same way Seth McFarlane thinks that the Enola Gay pilots seem to wash their hands off it _despite_ them iterating over and over again that they did indeed do it _and_ were able to live with it because the alternative meant more losses for their side and another theater stretched thin. In a war, you don't think about the well-being of the other side; you think of yours. There's only one person I know who has said that they worry more for the aggressor than the victim, and that person is my father, who has a fucked up morality. I quote: "It is better to be robbed and let the robber get away with it because if you resist, it might hurt him." I won't draw first blood, but if you give me a choice between the annihilation of my race and nation and surviving with blood on my hands, I'd take the latter. The only people who complain about these sort of things are those who have never been backed into a corner and have to make that call. Seth McFarlane treats it like it's a gun that everyone's brandishing willy-nilly, when in truth it's a grenade that no one should ever wish that anyone else would be desperate enough to pull. That's how the question should have been framed: as a desperate option that was on the table but one that no one wanted to pull ... unless they _absolutely_ had to. McFarlane thinks everything is negotiable, but at the same time he'd shout down a Republican before he even agreed with a point that they'd make in public. That's the flaw of the Orville. Or maybe that's the flaw of the people watching this show making it more than it really is. That's a question I definitely can't answer.
@@Sizdothyx thank you for explaining your position so detailed. Of course there has to be the option to negotiate. And it has to be a real option. Not an illusion. What was agreed on in the end was that they travel with the weapon to keylon prime and let them make the choice. Stand down or be annihilated. Instead of just press the button. On the travel the button was pressed several times and destroyed some keylon vessels, so you could compare this with Hiroshima. Make an example and then go back to talking about peace. And I think both steps are not easy to make. At least not as easy as shown in any movie.
Ed Mercer: 'With all do respect, we're very being cavalier about this here aren't we, I mean you do realize we're talking about genocide here.' Me if I was a Admiral that was present there: 'To be blunt Captain I miss the part where that's my problem. While we debate ethics and consolidate our forces around the core worlds and colonies waiting for a Kaylon attack the Kaylon are free to attack any less technological developed civilization they may come across. 'Hands Ed a pad that details reports of world that have been rendered lifeless by the Kaylon.' These are just the world's we know of that have been wiped out by the Kaylon, both these worlds were just entering the industrial revolution and this one had only developed up to the cold war era. The only records of there existence, there culture now reside in the Union central archive. There are no right answers to this Ed. It's not if the Kaylon developed a defense against that weapons its when. It's not just the lives of Union citizens at stake in this war the Kaylon are a existential threat to all life in this galaxy and the next one after that.'
Exactly. All this moralizing doesn’t matter much if you’re dead. Do unto them first. Ed and his first officer also should’ve been court martialed and executed for their actions with that little sex change alien.
Its really retarted when shows try pushing for morals and shit when they are facing a world ending threat. They wouldn't have reach that height of their civilization if they too sussy about doing what's needed to be done.
"i miss the part where thats my problem" aka "I would feel ZERO guilt about killing BILLIONS of people because after all, DO UNTO THEM BEFORE THEY DO UNTO ME" ~THATS WHY YOU'D BE A HORRIBLE LEADER.
there is a REASON they are called "HARD DECISIONS" because they're supposed to fuckign RIP YOUR SOUL OPEN TO MAKE THEM... I'm not going to argue the MERITS OR MORALS of the actual weapon... the fact y'all so "YEAH SO FUGGIN WHAT" is what I take freaking offense to... that's how a MONSTER thinks
@@xxTheFlyingPigxx Worth? You'd let an entire species die because of some demented form of morality? What good are your morals if you're dead? Your opinion doesn't matter because you'd be dead and dead people don't have morals or arguments.
@@alienrenders If you wanna believe that go for it. However I firmly believe that ethics are not temporary -you either hold to them forever, or you might as well never bother with them at all. If you do believe genocide is wrong, then it is always wrong, even in self-defence. You can call me crazy all you like, but I'll take the moral high ground over survival any day.
@@xxTheFlyingPigxx That's a contradiction. If genocide is wrong, then you are morally obligated to stop those who are trying to commit it, otherwise you are no better than those trying to exterminate your species.
It's not really "genocide" if literally every single individual in that population, the Kaylon population, is an armed combatant. They are all valid military targets.
Genocide is exterminating a species. It doesn’t matter if every member of that species is an armed combatant, the end result of killing them is still genocide. The species is still dead.
@@steelrexer1062 You misunderstood my point. That's on me, I wasn't clear enough. My point was that even if it matches the technical definition of "genocide", it does not match the connotation that it has of being the mass scale murder of innocent civilians. Further, that since they are all military targets, the action would be justified even if it were technically genocide.
@@HighAdmiral I understood your point and I get the reasoning behind why the Union would probably be justified if they went into a war of extermination. I just meant that it would still be genocide as an end result if they wiped them out, armed combatants or no. It is still genocide, regardless of the justification, connotations not withstanding.
@@HighAdmiral what you are proposing is still a genocide against an armed species. justified or not, it doesnt change the definition. as Garak from Deep Space 9 once said to Worf, "dont tell me you'd object to a little genocide in the name of self defense!"
0:31 I mean, yes? Just because weighing one loss of life to another doesn’t make it any less of a genocide. The action is still the same, there’s just a moral imperative to it. It’s not like murder and self defence. On this scale, it’s still genocide, no matter how uncomfortable that word may make them
Morals are all well and good if you are alive to worry about them afterwords, however you should remember two things. 1. I've never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold. 2. "Now remember, things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is." The Outlaw Josie Wales
Season 1 was a mix of comedy and drama, and was initially marketed as a parody to draw in fans of Seth's other work, but by Season 2 they pretty much completely dropped the comedy angle. Most recent episodes of The Orville have fewer gags and lighthearted moments than even a standard TNG or Voyager episode and are played pretty much 100% straight these days, with maybe just a tiny bit of levity thrown in for the sake of character development.
Fuck civility. Were my people supposed to... sit down with our oppressors and what? Argue that we deserve to exist without their tyranny? All without getting justifiably upset at their evil? Dream. On. Civility is the means by which atrocities are perpetuated.
@@Tempestan Someone needs to do a deepfake of this scene where seth changes to Brain Griffin .. It will be a great challenge given one has to change a live character to an animated one
They are hardly at war in this series, would love to see a warhammer series, there was this insectoid species in some void space, sadly they didnt expand on this
Well as long as we're forcing our viewpoint on them I guess ... I'll let them live. But if we find any Xenomorph hivemind I get to wipe them out completely. Whether they have an Achilles heel or not, you owe me
I have no idea what this show is but if a literal robot species or whatever is tryna purge the galaxy of life then why is this man arguing trying to save the galaxy 😂
It's called the Orville, a Star Trek parody show that is arguably better than modern Star Trek(that's what a lot of ST fans say). As someone who doesn't watch ST I love this show from Season 1, it's only problem is it shifts tones in season 2 to be more serious rather than a parody. Right now it's on HULU and arguably one of the best sci fi shows 👍
It's the morality hight horse, they are okay with killing and torturing their citizens in order to preserve their morality. If that sounds self destructive for any society, that's because it is!!!
The Kaylon are a species of sentient robots enslaved to their creators. The kaylon are beings capable of feeling pain (until later) and are only lashing out to prevent their further enslavement. Watch the show
When the word "genocide" doesn't go far enough, you have a problem. I think the word would be "speciocide"; the killing of an entire species. Xenocide would only be the deaths of aliens, which while correct, doesn't fit this situation, as it's technically just one kill (in the same way that homicide is just one kill).
wow, look at that! adults discussing ethical dilemmas with each side bringing valuable points to explain their stand on this issue - just like old Star Trek did. Can't say the same about modern Star Trek where it's about randomly starting a war with Klingons because the main character "feels" like doing so...
"Should we really be considering such a drastic and, well, _murderous_ solution?"
"Who do you think we are, Starfleet?"
More like the Terran Empire or the Confederation of Earth 😉
General Order 24
Prime TOS
Unless captain insaneway infiltrated the planetary union
@@LGranthamsHeir hay a thing 40k got rights there is no dilemma about genocide if the answer is YES.
@@migrivp2672 Orkoids aren't going away due to their asexual spore reproduction, the Elder have clung to life despite the catastrophe of Slaanesh, the Necrons still have a sizable tech advantage, the Tyranids haven't even shown their full might, and Chaos really isn't going anywhere either. I'm not denying the copious genocide, but the way other faction operate transform it into part of the eternal, grinding warfare among the stars
There is something unsettling about being lectured in moral implications by Seth MacFarlane
I was thinking the exact same thing XD
Why?
@@TheFiddleFaddle Seth McFarlane is the creator of Family Guy, American Dad, Bob's Burgers, and basically any raunchy animated tv show in America. He's also the voice of most of the characters. It just feels weird that this guy is the voice of reason.
@@yoshilovesyoshi Sure, none of which I enjoy, but I don't see any of that as making it unsettling for him to talk morality. Seth MacFarlane also personally funded the reboot of Cosmos.
I thought there was some big controversy you were all talking about, not the shows he's created.
@yoshilovesyoshi he's also the guy who said epstein was basically a rapist on live TV way before they even investigated epstein legitimately
I like how reasonable the admiralty is in this show. A lot of times shows will only paint the highest ranks above the core protagonist group as either corrupt or incompetent. This is better. Plus in this scene they showcase the ideal of the military being subject to civilian authority and taking their direction from elected power on contentious issues instead of making unilateral decisions.
I guess you didn’t see the rest of the episode, huh?
I wish they case either Sir Patrick Stewart or Jonathan Frakes as the Union's Chief of Admirals. That would've sent a shockwave among the 'Trek' fandom 😊
@@toddsmitts Nah. Even considering that. The "evil" admiral in this case is planning to immediately turn himself in and admit his full crimes.
It's a nice break with the cliche that all admirals are evil. He just has beliefs out of alignment with the Union.
@@BlazingOwnager Can Ted Danson play an evil character? lol Even as a demon in The good place he turned good.
@@toddsmitts He didnt do it out of malice or evilness.
He strongly believes they should just wipe out the Kaylons based on the data he currently has. Up to this point, Kaylon in general was outright against the Union.
"Is it still genocide if the other guy is trying to do one too?"
"Yes!"
Actually, no.
Its no longer that simple, unfortunately. At that point, it becomes a matter simply and purely diluted down to survival. For all the Union knows, is that the Kaylon's cannot be reasoned with. Thus the Kaylon's are forcing them to commit genocide simply to survive. Does it make it good? No, but war - even a purely defensive one on the part of the Union - is never pretty. Its ugly, its nasty, but you have to do what you have to do to survive.
@@DarkAshenfall I said it was still genocide, not that it wasn't permissible in the extreme.
@@alienrenders It is, just with a self defense justification. The act and outcome stays the same, the decision making process though could be seen to have a different moral quality. It boils down to a war scenario where it is the enemy or me who can survive, but not both and the soldiers are told you are free of guilt as you just defended yourself and the people of your nation. Which ofcause often enough is also told to the enemy soldiers by their people.
One other factor i suppose would come into play. When people are in life threatening situations and they are not given much of a choice, they are willing to risk more. That willingness is based on the survival instinct and pretty much washes away a lot of logical or moral implications in that moment. It doesn't free them though from them, just blurrs the moment so action can be taken without too much thought as time in critical life & death situations often is of the essence. From an evolutionary point that is all fine at first, only when things calm down and one would stop and think what just happened, the moral dilemma might become obvious, but too late then. Which is why thinking ahead of time is and trying to set oneself ground rules to follow in critical situations, may safe someone headachs afterwards.
The show has some strange depictions of the Kalon i have to say. On the one hand most of them do not feel empathy or feelings and are said to be purely logical, that leads to the impression that they are machines, intelligent machines, but not necessarily with a consciousness. Which i rather find critical in judging this to be a genocide or not. If they are just machines, which mimic social behaviour, but can't feel regret for their actions, why should anyone else feel regret for actions against them?
Then again if they can be seen as a living being, who has the right to make them go extinct? Look at all the species currently going extinct here on earth, mostly because of us. Further more with DNA modifications due to CRISPR9 now we are thinking it convenient to make some species go extinct like the Malaria transmitting mosquito, field mise and other "pests". Seems a bit quick and too final for something that took billions of years to evolve , just to snuff it out, doesn't it?
That actress did a great job showing the optics cope of what they were saying. Yes, its self-defense but its 100% genocide.
Wow, people have been saying Orville is now Proper Trek reskinned.
I guess they were right.
Yeah...I think this is the scene that might actually get me to fully watch the show.
@@allyourpie4323
It is a really good show. I can vouch for it.
Yeah, season 3 is proper Star Trek (in all but name). Season 1 was a diamond in the rough, still leaning a lot on Seth MacFarlane style humor, 2 got its feet on the ground and 3 started running.
Galaxy Quest the best Star Trek movie.
@@NeSeeger
Agreed, but we're not talking about Galaxy Quest.
My god, officers and their superiors discussing a complicated and delicate situation in a mature, factual way... And the superiors not being assholes, or idiots, but actually listen to what their subordinates have to say... It reminds me of some TV shows of old, but I forgot...
Babylon 5?
@@swissarmyknight4306 Stargate SG-1?
@@enviritas9498 Star Trek: Deep Space 9?
_I mean, compared to TOS and TNG, the admiralcy in DS9 were saints._ #RossBestAdmiral
Well, I agree to an extent (edit: and that extent is "almost all the way"). But the scene does still present them as somewhat slow.
They should've already realised this was a complex moral issue. Not needed McFarlane to point it out to them.
@@MrDibara Admiral Layton not so much
“When faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable.” Cookie to whoever knows where that’s from.
“Stand on the ashes of a billion dead, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.”
-Dr Leonard Church
@@TheMinuteman Silence is your answer.
Javik?
A quote from the parody show "Red vs Blue", its mainly comedy but when it shows emotion it really does it well.
This is the same moral dilemma faced by the crew of the Enterprise-D when they were deciding whether they wanted to implant a virus inside of Hugh which is capable of killing all the Borg drones, when they sent back him to return to the collective, knowing well that doing so meant they're committing a genocide against their number one enemy (TNG episode "I, Borg")
And then they wound up doing the same thing anyway only the "virus" was a fully realized Borg individual.
The situation with the Borg is definitely worse when you factor in that the Drones are essentially unwitting slaves that can be freed(not easily, but still). Wiping them out means you have to kill a lot of innocent people.
@@hagamapama Bit different tho, they didn't murder the Borg. They freed them. Which ended up being kind of a bad thing to be fair but definitely better than murder.
@@spacebound1969 It eventually wound up a bonus to the fleet, somewhat.
Borg continued to kill trillions. Terrible decision.
Y'know... they wouldn't actually NEED to employ an army of cybernetists to give every Kaylon the emotions upgrade. All they'd need do is link Timmus into the network hub and have him upload the software version of the upgrade to all of the Kaylon at once, possibly even adapting it to work on newer created Kaylons like Isaac in the process.
The issue is that they still don't know how to make it permanent..
@@knightsoftheroundpeople2676 Wouldnt it be permanent for every kaylon created before the first war? It didnt work for issac because he came after.
@@JuggerTroll yeah but like there would be so Many kaylon produced after the makers were killed..
@@knightsoftheroundpeople2676 No no... It didn't work for Isaac because he was "second generation", for lack of a better term. It worked for Timmus because he was one of the original Kaylon, built by the original builders. His neural network is different to Isaac, thus why the implant didn't work for Isaac.
If they offered the technology to the Kaylon, and they were able to build such a device that would work for both the originals and the second gen Kaylons... and/or turn it into a software update that could be released along the network... they could all have the upgrade.
The Kaylons essentially abandon their violent ways through logic NOT through compassion or emotional connection. This is a bit like how the Vulcans evolved out of their barbaric savage phase. They adopted strict logic as the ONLY means of avoiding self-destruction.
Ted Danson done shockingly well in this role.
@Jed Flanders ...You're kidding right? This show is INCREDIBLE all around
@@jeremydale4548
I know right. The episode where Gordon was stuck in the past was such a good episode.
@Jed Flanders It's ok if you don't like it, but for me, this is a great show. I'll say a brilliant show since season 2, and that ok too
@@najadorel guys let's not feed the obvious troll
Jed Flanders
Opinons other than yours a wrong. People who don't have your opinion aren't allowed to have it nor are they allowed to express it.
Freedom screamer from the USA enjoying his plague and fallng life expectancy is falling life expectancy.
I love how this show always shows proper human and alien interactions along with strategic planning and story arcs, instead of just full on action all the time or everyone on board having some sort of love arc, and it takes itself seriously as a result too. Cannot wait for Season 4.
sadly there wont be a 4 seasoj
@@fluffypuffyboy586No fucking way
@@joevenespineli6389 the team wants a 4 season but they arent getting it funded. It didnt reach the expected revenue
@@fluffypuffyboy586 Damn it, was looking forward to it
@@joevenespineli6389 even if they someone are able to continue, you would probably still have to wait for 2-3 years for the release.
WTF? When I heard this show was more Star Trek than the ACTUAL new show, I was thinking "...yeah, internet memes, over exaggerations..." But it ACTUALLY is? Bless you people.
MacFarlane may like fart jokes, but he can be serious and thoughtful when he wants to lmao
I was shocked by how good it was, went into expecting a comedy like family guy but it’s honestly amazing
@@TazyBaby "I was shocked by how good it was, went into expecting a comedy like family guy" Family guy has some deep and interesting content...it is just mostly they don't bother with that and pander to the dumbness of the audience. It is very frustrating to watch for that reason.
@@archvaldor yeah thats exactly what I mean, the Orville is deep and interesting the whole way through. I didn’t realize Seth was that good of a storyteller
"Star Trek with comedy" was the goal they shot for when they started. I think they've landed pretty close to the mark.
I just hope for a season 4, this series is a breath of fresh air, every chapter has some impact
Orville is everything modern Start Trek shows should have been. Thank god for Seth MacFarlane.
dude, the end of STar Trek Discovery's first season was literally the opposite of this very intelligent discussion in the Orville. fuck that show lol.
SNW, Lower Decks, and Prodigy are pretty good though
except original
Star trek was to smooth too clean .
I like this Version more even if it's an Star trek parody
@@CUBETechie It's ironic that the parody is closer to the source material than the other shows
I just like the fact you can actually see what's going on in the scenes
for something that was supposed to be a parody of a classical show, it has suddenly become the true successor. While the show that was supposed to be the successor had become a joke
I really like the background scenery. The whole location in this scene looks like it's from Mass Effect on the Citadel plus Star Trek: TOS, except with bright gold and silver colors.
I like that we get to see more of Earth in The Orville, which is something they generally avoided doing in earlier Star Trek series.
The Orville is more like “real Star Trek” than the actual Star Trek franchise is now
"This would be genocide..."
"Ideally, yes."
All I can think while watching this is that they're in the bad place.
All i can think about is where’s firestorm.
Finally a Good Place reference
The depth of moral grey-ness is part of what made the Orville amazing. I can’t say I disagree with the reasoning behind using the weapon. They had complete proof of Kaylon’s intention to murder every living being in the galaxing, with scant proof of their ability or willingness to change course. It would be logical to use the weapon, and kill them all. Thankfully that argument didn’t win.
I'm often critical of this show, but this segment is better than almost anything produced by official Star Trek in the last decade and a half.
It boggles my mind how the hell did Orville out-Star-Trek Star Trek(Dis)??
Same, i guess it proves that McFarlane and his team not only are Star Trek fans but also really understood the entire concept, something that the crew of actual star trek really REALLY lack
It helps when you have three Star Trek veterans behind the scenes while making your Star Trek pastiche.
CBS/Paramount checked their sense of wonder at the door. Seth did not.
I heard that Seth actually wanted to make a serious show in homage to classic Star Trek. But the studio wouldn't let him because he's the ha ha family guy man and forced him to make it a comedy. Imagine what he would've made without the comedic restraints.
Simple, The Orville is optimistic about space, Discovery isn't
This is reminiscent of the debate that Picard had with regard to the Borg and using Hugh as a weapon.
Inquistion: "What you call genocide we call Tuesday."
i love this show. the twists are one thing but the acting during this arc was superb.
“You realize what we are talking about is genocide?”
Me: “Good. I was worried my point was getting across. So! Let’s get cracking!”
Least edgy Crusader fanboy.
@@thenablade858 The Crusaders did what they had to do.
@@odlfmariner470 What? Lose most of the Crusades? Sack Constantinople, capital of the same Empire that originally called for the First Crusade, so badly that it never recovered and eventually fell to Mehmed the Conqueror?
This is why season 3 was so good. It really did a good job of talking about different issues, while not hitting you over the head with it. So good.
“if we don’t eliminate the threat completely, they will just keep attacking us”, hmm… where have i heard that justification before in a horrible present day conflict?
Lol
I can't believe Blake and Isaac are getting along so well lol
They had a moment of reflection.
Who’s Blake?
@@Slopmaster Ensign Blake. The woman who hated Isaac
@@hannahbaker6617 it’s Burke, but maybe Blake is a cousin 😀
@@Slopmaster Maybe Typo lol
I'm gonna say it! Kelly Hu is looking fantastic. Still has that sexy voice and aged like fine wine.
yeah she is....something
The problem is they didn't include anyone from the sciences in this meeting.
Claire for one would be able to help them understand on a scientific level how much of a profound moment Isaac had with emotions and how much it changed him.
They all had a clear and strong understanding of it already.
Considering the Union Fleet operates as a Navy, I believe it is understood that higher ranking officers have a required understanding of sciences, same as with the Navy
Holy shit Michael from The Good Place is the starfleet admiral in this show? I’m watching now.
Yes, we should definitely consider the implication of destroying the Borg, I mean the Kailon.
The timing is uncanny.
Eren Yaeger: Yes I am fully aware
The ending sucks the Alliance was shit.
Except Eren started genociding because of his childish fantasies
He did It for himself
"Committing genocide to avoid another genocide merely ensures no one is left alive."
- Padok Wiks _Mass Effect 3_
"Lol, civilians. Lmao."
-Kharn, the Betrayer, Y420 M41, probably
It's a reminder that morality and ethics aren't a simple matter.
When having to chose between being righteous and being alive, I'm pretty sure most won't pick the former.
Of course, many won't be honest about it
It's sad that people seem to be unable to enjoy one thing without tearing another thing down.
Lmao the last dude just did a "let's take this offline"d a genocide discussion.
Well, it's a fair point. Even if you're not gonna use it, may as well start building just in case the war heats up. Like, say, by one party starting construction on an I-win button. Oh look Turkey missiles like in the Cuban missile crisis.
This looks like Star Trek The Next Generation. I might check this out.
So far Original Series, Next Generation, Voyager and Enterprise have followed this formula. Problem of the week, exploring ethics, morality, seeing new alien cultures etc.
By the way Deep Space 9 is a great show but it does not feel like Star Trek to me. I judge it for what it is. Its own thing, which it excels at.
Haven't seen this series yet, but I've looked it up. Orville is different story from Star Trek, it's very similar in many, many ways, but it's not in the same universe - so to say.
@@ishtar0110 That is a good thing. Star Trek is hard to write for, because of its established lore. I would rather write for my own pseudo Star Trek Universe to tell my own stories, rather than navigate the pitfalls of the complex lore of the show.
I really don't understand why the newer Star Trek series can't imitate this look. It really does look like Star Trek. Nu Trek looks like generic science fiction action shows.
I wonder what it is about this that makes it seem so familiar. More static camera angles? It seems more character focused.
@@planguy9575 It reminds me of how Die Hard knock offs feel more like a Die Hard film than the Die Hard sequels.
This is the same moral dilemma faced by the crew of the Enterprise-D when they were deciding whether they wanted to implant a virus capable of killing all the Borg drones inside of Hugh when they sent him to return to the collective, knowing well that doing so basically meant they're committing a genocide against their number one enemy (TNG episode "I, Borg")
The middle east conflict comes to mind
It's a no-brainer; the Kaylon want to kill all life, so it makes sense to destroy them first. Delaying while trying to reform them only gives the Kaylon more time to try to succeed in their plan. There's too much at stake to take a chance in the hope that efforts to reform them succeeds. Best thing is to take no chances and finish them off, without question.
"There's too much at stake to take a chance in the hope that efforts to reform them succeeds."
Exactly. That is ALWAYS the argument that convinces ordinary people to suddenly commit mass murder.
The best answer is to develop the weapons into a targeted solution so that you can show an ability, and willingness, to fight back with overwhelming force. Hopefully that will allow diplomatic endeavors to be able to proceed. It's basically what occurred with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No one ever negotiates when all the other side brings is "please".
@@chaosgyro Except it wont work with Robots.
@@JackhammerJesus give an example please. In this context the Kaylon are literally genocidal robots.
@@alvin4100 Strongly depends on their programming.
Man. This scene is probably not aging the greatest right now
Empathy is not required to be a good person.
There's a reason they're called "human rights"
"[snip] If you could only hear yourselves... 'human rights'! Why, the very name is racist. The Federation is no more than a homo sapiens-only club."
@@EVAUnit4A - You just quoted a line from one of my favorite Star Trek movies.
@@TheSignOfZeta YEY.
Parody is at its best when it takes itself seriously.
Just because you don't have a better option doesn't mean you shouldn't feel bad about it
I’m going to rewatch the whole series because it’s one of the best sci-fi series to date!
"Well, you do realize what we are talking about is genocide?"
Yep. Best way to win a war. It guarantees you will never have to fight them again.
Don't believe me? Ask the Carthaginians.
The Salt must Flow!
best =/= most efficient.
Okay dammit, I'm checking this show out
You should start with S1 but it's tonally different from later seasons and more humorous 👍😅
@@haiqal5333 it's like all the characters went through reverse flanderization
It really is great sci fi
@@haiqal5333 "it's an anti-banana ray. really interesting, we need no longer fear the banana".
wait.... there were more seasons of this...... i beeen missin out
2 of 3 Planerary Union admirals will survive the Kaylon-Planetary Union-Krill-Moclan War. 2/3 odds are not that bad.
According to Meatloaf that is.
well, the war's not over yet - we'll see what season 4 (if it comes to pass) has to say about that
It seem Natayahu took the wrong notes from this show.
I love this show. Early on, it was definitely a bit too silly at times, but it has always had the heart and morals that are missing in today's Star Trek, but was the very core of those shows back in the day.
"Well, you do realize what we are talking about is genocide?"
"Who do you think we are, United States of America in 1900s and early 2000s?"
Mexico during the Yaqui Wars and Mayan pacification post independence? The Tsardom of Russia and the Soviet Union and modern Russian Federation? PR China ?
I do like how the Orville handles stuff like this - the Admirals have disagreements, and they defer to civilian authority - and the stance they take is the correct one in my opinion - show the Keylon that the weapon is effective, make it clear that we will use it but only if we have too, and demand they stop their crusade to wipe out organic life; and I like how the one admiral disagrees so hard he has the weapon stolen and handed over to the Unions' enemies because he believes (correctly) they'll use it to destroy the Keylon - he's not a bad person, he just thinks the risk of Keylon's is too extreme to risk giving them quarter. And then he STILL tried to return to face charges; like, he knows his people will call him (at minimum) a criminal, but he doesn't try and hide from the consequences of his actions.
The Orville was clearly written by a team who watched shows like TNG and then probably BSG and worked well to marry the idealism of the federation with the imperfect humanity we have in the real world - not everyone agrees, and sometimes the Union messes up badly, but the Union will always course correct to its ideals and risk harm to themselves to try and spare others if it can be helped; and whilst I disagree with their stance on the non-interference in less advanced societies (similar to TNGs prime directive) they are shown to have reasons why they hold that position, and flexibly not to treat the rule with un-questionning dogma, so I respect the writer's POV much more than TNGs, where they just go 'but what if they turn out to be space-hitlers. No, better to let them all die of preventable natural disaster'. Side note: I do love TNG, apart from how the prime directive is treated in that series.
Here's a question with a war:
Do you keep throwing bodies until the machine jams or do you pull the switch? If so, with the former, I'd like those that would to confront the question that they are continuously throwing waves of lives of their own soldiers--people with families and loved ones--to their doom by prolonging the conflict more than is absolutely necessary. The "nuke" is never the first resort; it is the last resort. Against an unrelenting foe that is knocking on your door and your men continuously being dragged out of their wood chipper in the name of an alleged "higher code of ethics". If we're talking about the cost of life, then, how many of your own are you willing to let die in the name of it.
I use the word "your own", not "yours", because everyone here will probably hit the button on a nuke if they were confronted with the reality that a prolonged war would mean more casualties.
So what do you do?
Do you eliminate the threat and live with the guilt or do you keep turning that wood chipper and justify to the grieving loved ones that their deaths were necessary?
The question is never that easy as you can articulate the question. And the answer was mostly wrong.
@@christianhofer5020 The question is what do you do?
This is definitely based on Seth's own take on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (who he has never been shy of being critical of to the point he essentially alluded that the pilots should kill themselves in family guy) and the idea of using a bomb to end the conflict. You're fighting a war, resources are finite. Are your men expendable for the next four or five years of the operation? Your enemy has proven to be genocidal themselves (Since he is essentially equating the bomb in this instance with nuclear genocide). The Imperial Japanese, in that instance, are not stopping, they're slaughtering the Indo-Chinese populace on the Eastern stretch of Asia.
So, again, what do you do? Keep writing letters saying how sorry you are or sign off on a sea of fire?
What do you do?
It's not a hard question. I'm just asking what would you do. Do you play Playstation all day? Do you just not care and resign because you don't want to make that decision? Do you go to the park and skateboard? What do you do?
Simple: you do with what you can live with.
@@Sizdothyx I would do what I deem as necessary and appropriate. But I wouldn't take the ultimate weapon of mass destruction unless there is no hope for a peaceful solution. And there are always ways to discuss with reasonable people. And also to make them listen. So maybe Hiroshima was necessary but I don't think that Nagasaki was. And the keylon lost too many through the weapon but did accept that there is no alternative to peace. Press the button is the easiest way to solve a problem. But often it is the begin of a new one. The next race like the keylon won't hesitate with extermination of biologicals If they hear the story... You're question is really hard. What would you do? Considering your nearest and dearest. But I think that could just be a part of the answer. I would always try to negotiate first. No matter what. Except for imminent Life threat's.
@@christianhofer5020 Me? I'm Malaysian. I'd push the button. It wouldn't be my _first_ option, but I would.
I don't have a significant fighting force to hold back the tide of Japanese soldiers or the Armada. Even if I had an army standing to hold back the tide, I'd lose within months (and did) barring a miracle, even the most capable of generals wouldn't be able to strategize against a region that's been surrounded from all sides with no hope of a cut-off. Negotiations are always the first go-to, but if you're negotiating deep into a conflict, that tells the other side two things:
1. You don't have enough to push them back should a break-down happen
2. You're buying time to achieve something
Especially as a smaller country, I wouldn't be able to resist, as valorous and noble as the idea of it is. People love an underdog story, but stories are not real life. Real life has no adherence to a dictation or a logical procession. The most I could probably achieve with an opening negotiation with Imperial Japan would have been to willingly be annexed and play the stool. Just because you're open to negotiations doesn't mean that the _other side_ is, and just because the channels are open does not mean that both sides _want the same thing._
I would, however, _warn_ them, like how the Americans did.
But could I live with pressing the button? Definitely. I'd rather be hated for keeping people alive than having to explain to those that the dead left behind that I valued the fairy tale of humanism more than I did the idea of graves not being filled. It's a hard decision to make for you because you don't want the accountability of it. Same way Seth McFarlane thinks that the Enola Gay pilots seem to wash their hands off it _despite_ them iterating over and over again that they did indeed do it _and_ were able to live with it because the alternative meant more losses for their side and another theater stretched thin. In a war, you don't think about the well-being of the other side; you think of yours. There's only one person I know who has said that they worry more for the aggressor than the victim, and that person is my father, who has a fucked up morality. I quote:
"It is better to be robbed and let the robber get away with it because if you resist, it might hurt him."
I won't draw first blood, but if you give me a choice between the annihilation of my race and nation and surviving with blood on my hands, I'd take the latter.
The only people who complain about these sort of things are those who have never been backed into a corner and have to make that call. Seth McFarlane treats it like it's a gun that everyone's brandishing willy-nilly, when in truth it's a grenade that no one should ever wish that anyone else would be desperate enough to pull. That's how the question should have been framed: as a desperate option that was on the table but one that no one wanted to pull ... unless they _absolutely_ had to. McFarlane thinks everything is negotiable, but at the same time he'd shout down a Republican before he even agreed with a point that they'd make in public. That's the flaw of the Orville.
Or maybe that's the flaw of the people watching this show making it more than it really is. That's a question I definitely can't answer.
@@Sizdothyx thank you for explaining your position so detailed. Of course there has to be the option to negotiate. And it has to be a real option. Not an illusion. What was agreed on in the end was that they travel with the weapon to keylon prime and let them make the choice. Stand down or be annihilated. Instead of just press the button. On the travel the button was pressed several times and destroyed some keylon vessels, so you could compare this with Hiroshima. Make an example and then go back to talking about peace. And I think both steps are not easy to make. At least not as easy as shown in any movie.
Just casually talking with a 6000 foot fire squid
God, I love this new Star Strek!
Good to see Stein getting more work
Ed Mercer: 'With all do respect, we're very being cavalier about this here aren't we, I mean you do realize we're talking about genocide here.'
Me if I was a Admiral that was present there: 'To be blunt Captain I miss the part where that's my problem. While we debate ethics and consolidate our forces around the core worlds and colonies waiting for a Kaylon attack the Kaylon are free to attack any less technological developed civilization they may come across.
'Hands Ed a pad that details reports of world that have been rendered lifeless by the Kaylon.'
These are just the world's we know of that have been wiped out by the Kaylon, both these worlds were just entering the industrial revolution and this one had only developed up to the cold war era. The only records of there existence, there culture now reside in the Union central archive. There are no right answers to this Ed. It's not if the Kaylon developed a defense against that weapons its when. It's not just the lives of Union citizens at stake in this war the Kaylon are a existential threat to all life in this galaxy and the next one after that.'
Exactly. All this moralizing doesn’t matter much if you’re dead. Do unto them first. Ed and his first officer also should’ve been court martialed and executed for their actions with that little sex change alien.
Its really retarted when shows try pushing for morals and shit when they are facing a world ending threat. They wouldn't have reach that height of their civilization if they too sussy about doing what's needed to be done.
"i miss the part where thats my problem"
aka "I would feel ZERO guilt about killing BILLIONS of people because after all, DO UNTO THEM BEFORE THEY DO UNTO ME"
~THATS WHY YOU'D BE A HORRIBLE LEADER.
there is a REASON they are called "HARD DECISIONS"
because they're supposed to fuckign RIP YOUR SOUL OPEN TO MAKE THEM...
I'm not going to argue the MERITS OR MORALS of the actual weapon... the fact y'all so "YEAH SO FUGGIN WHAT" is what I take freaking offense to... that's how a MONSTER thinks
Yes. Its Genocide. And Charlie is a monster for being fully on board.
1:10 Well that's easy Micheal, just get Chidi to teach them.
Oh... I get it now!
This is the bad place!
So Brian has Seth's normal voice....
If your statement starts as "Is it really genocide...?" it's very likely you shouldn't be entertaining the idea at all.
Why not? Your survival depends on it.
@@alienrenders Then your survival is not worth it
@@xxTheFlyingPigxx Worth? You'd let an entire species die because of some demented form of morality? What good are your morals if you're dead? Your opinion doesn't matter because you'd be dead and dead people don't have morals or arguments.
@@alienrenders If you wanna believe that go for it. However I firmly believe that ethics are not temporary -you either hold to them forever, or you might as well never bother with them at all. If you do believe genocide is wrong, then it is always wrong, even in self-defence. You can call me crazy all you like, but I'll take the moral high ground over survival any day.
@@xxTheFlyingPigxx That's a contradiction. If genocide is wrong, then you are morally obligated to stop those who are trying to commit it, otherwise you are no better than those trying to exterminate your species.
“At random. Dispassionate. Rich and poor alike.”
It's not really "genocide" if literally every single individual in that population, the Kaylon population, is an armed combatant. They are all valid military targets.
Genocide is exterminating a species. It doesn’t matter if every member of that species is an armed combatant, the end result of killing them is still genocide. The species is still dead.
@@steelrexer1062 You misunderstood my point. That's on me, I wasn't clear enough.
My point was that even if it matches the technical definition of "genocide", it does not match the connotation that it has of being the mass scale murder of innocent civilians.
Further, that since they are all military targets, the action would be justified even if it were technically genocide.
@@HighAdmiral I understood your point and I get the reasoning behind why the Union would probably be justified if they went into a war of extermination. I just meant that it would still be genocide as an end result if they wiped them out, armed combatants or no. It is still genocide, regardless of the justification, connotations not withstanding.
@@HighAdmiral what you are proposing is still a genocide against an armed species. justified or not, it doesnt change the definition. as Garak from Deep Space 9 once said to Worf, "dont tell me you'd object to a little genocide in the name of self defense!"
It still is genocide, by definition even if the target was a society like Sparta during the Greek Age or Japan in WW2.
0:31 I mean, yes? Just because weighing one loss of life to another doesn’t make it any less of a genocide. The action is still the same, there’s just a moral imperative to it. It’s not like murder and self defence. On this scale, it’s still genocide, no matter how uncomfortable that word may make them
Morals are all well and good if you are alive to worry about them afterwords, however you should remember two things.
1. I've never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold.
2. "Now remember, things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is." The Outlaw Josie Wales
Stellaris players would answer "so what?", and start singing Sutton's Xenophobia.
> What did you do to your creators, ?
She figured out this was the bad place pretty quickly.
Yall remember that time when the star trek parody was better than the new star trek?
How the fuck is this more star trek than star trek.
POV: Mossad speaking to IDF generals
You are clueless.
@@oleggold whatever you say man 😁
Seeing this clip right after watching The Good Place really made me wonder if the Architect was down with some genocide.
I still can't understand what exactly about this show is a comedy/parody. It's just great
Season 1 was a mix of comedy and drama, and was initially marketed as a parody to draw in fans of Seth's other work, but by Season 2 they pretty much completely dropped the comedy angle. Most recent episodes of The Orville have fewer gags and lighthearted moments than even a standard TNG or Voyager episode and are played pretty much 100% straight these days, with maybe just a tiny bit of levity thrown in for the sake of character development.
@@bobsnow6242 right! so true
I feel like The Orville isn't a parody of Star Trek, but more an hommage to Star Trek, with MacFarlane's signature style of comedy mixed in.
@@Martell364 If only he treated family guy with the same amount of respect.
@@christianali5431 Some say he did that because he wanted the show to end. Althouth I heard that from 56th hand, so I don't truly know.
I LOVE how they expose opposing views with civility... that is currently so countercultural!
Fuck civility. Were my people supposed to... sit down with our oppressors and what? Argue that we deserve to exist without their tyranny? All without getting justifiably upset at their evil? Dream. On.
Civility is the means by which atrocities are perpetuated.
"I am incapable of emotionally responding to my own rapidly approaching Genocide."
Such a civilized discussion
Seth sounds like Brian Griffin both in the way he sounds and speaks !!
*waits for the realization to hit*
You know he voices him right.
@@nicoleackerman205 Yes I know and of all the characters that he has voiced in this scene he is literally like Brain imo
@@Tempestan Someone needs to do a deepfake of this scene where seth changes to Brain Griffin .. It will be a great challenge given one has to change a live character to an animated one
@@biggestgamelibrary4025 That does sound good.
The Emperor of Mankind approves
Suffer not the AI, the mutant, the xenos and the heretic to live.
They are hardly at war in this series, would love to see a warhammer series, there was this insectoid species in some void space, sadly they didnt expand on this
No good argument has ever started with "And is it really genocide if...".
I would LOVE a 4th season (and more).
Well as long as we're forcing our viewpoint on them I guess ... I'll let them live.
But if we find any Xenomorph hivemind I get to wipe them out completely. Whether they have an Achilles heel or not, you owe me
Guilty until proven innocent is what I heard.
Uh- What’s Dr. Martin doing here?! Did he fake his death only to become a villian? Firestorm would be very disappointed in you Gray. 😮😢
He's not a villian in this series.
i could swear i've seen this in the news lately.
Dear God I love this man.
This has come back into being wildly relevant
still hope the orville will go on, if not otherwise than as animated series at least
This show was so damn good
I have no idea what this show is but if a literal robot species or whatever is tryna purge the galaxy of life then why is this man arguing trying to save the galaxy 😂
It's called the Orville, a Star Trek parody show that is arguably better than modern Star Trek(that's what a lot of ST fans say). As someone who doesn't watch ST I love this show from Season 1, it's only problem is it shifts tones in season 2 to be more serious rather than a parody. Right now it's on HULU and arguably one of the best sci fi shows 👍
It's the morality hight horse, they are okay with killing and torturing their citizens in order to preserve their morality. If that sounds self destructive for any society, that's because it is!!!
The Kaylon are a species of sentient robots enslaved to their creators. The kaylon are beings capable of feeling pain (until later) and are only lashing out to prevent their further enslavement. Watch the show
@@thefatherinthecave943
The equivelant to killing people if someone accidently hit you.
think you might have missed the point of the scene
I think xenocide is more suitable word for destruction of an entire species
When the word "genocide" doesn't go far enough, you have a problem.
I think the word would be "speciocide"; the killing of an entire species. Xenocide would only be the deaths of aliens, which while correct, doesn't fit this situation, as it's technically just one kill (in the same way that homicide is just one kill).
Such an underrated show tbh
What are Firestorm and Michael the angel doing in discount Star Trek
I have no idea what this is, but two random ladies, the guy from The Good Place and family guy’s creator
There are three ladies in this scene...
Its a okeish Star Trek type of a tv show. Not bad.
@@davidguthary8147 yeah ok, and another guy and a robot
@@matthiasheppe okay
@@alexforce9 whats it called?
wow, look at that! adults discussing ethical dilemmas with each side bringing valuable points to explain their stand on this issue - just like old Star Trek did. Can't say the same about modern Star Trek where it's about randomly starting a war with Klingons because the main character "feels" like doing so...
So this is the conversation after I built my star eaters in stellaris
Well, that was... a reasonable way of discussing the situation.