'Justice' (110) General Discussion

[Misfits]

I never said that. Recall that most of the so-called civilians are actually brilliant scientists. 'Smartest' applies to them.

However, you said that Col. Young should choose the ones most adapt to survive on the planet.

Well, it just happens to be that all the military personnel probably had survival training, they're the most fit, they know how to work better as a unit, etc....

On a barren planet, why would you need an astrophysicist? or somebody whose fluent in ancient language, or rocket science, etc....

[Deevil]

My advice is that you should go back and watch everything again.

Even if I watched it again right now, I still wouldn't see Jack the way you would.

I don't think there is any way Jack would condone doing what you think he would.

[Yusagi]

However, you said that Col. Young should choose the ones most adapt to survive on the planet.

Well, it just happens to be that all the military personnel probably had survival training, they're the most fit, they know how to work better as a unit, etc....

On a barren planet, why would you need an astrophysicist? or somebody whose fluent in ancient language, or rocket science, etc....

I also said someone with a hope of some day getting OFF the planet, or even finding a way home. All the same, even if it were mostly military. There's 80 people, and only 17 survivors. Its not about being fair, its about being smart. If 40 people have nothing to offer, then only 40 people are going to be considered. The situation demands nothing less than brutal efficiency.

[Misfits]

As to I. However, Rush attacked him indirectly he knew full well, and I Believe he said himself, that nothing would happen to Young. All he wanted was him out of command. Even in the trial, he justified Young's proposed actions.

Direct or indirect doesn't matter. It matters is that he attacked.
You can either respond or step down.

He used the justification to illustrate why Col. Young would have a motive.

With all due respect, and in all fairness, to my knowledge...you are not a Colonel, nor are you leading a desperate group of people with virtually absolute power.

No I'm not a Colonel, and with all due respect to you, I doubt that you're a Colonel either.

However, I have been in position of a leader for a group trying to achieve a goal.

As for the hard decisions, yeah, I had to make them for the good of the group, and when I didn't, I saw how it affected the morale of the group when we were not able to achieve the goal.

I also saw the cancerous effect one individual can have on the whole group if they get too full of themselves.

Under such situation, you have to cut them out. PERIOD

Otherwise, the group might as quit right then and there because you end up spinning very fast on the spot, without going anywhere.

This is the reason why I tend to be harsher in my opinion.

[Misfits]

Just because he's nearly lost control, doesn't mean he'd approve others doing it. I don't recall him hunting down and beating Kinsey up. I also don't remember him marooning anyone for framing him. He was sloppy about his sidearm at home, and his son died because of it. Do you think he'd approve of Young letting a loaded gun lie out around kids?

Just sayin.

No, just pointing a gun to him and threatening to shoot him.
As well as threatening to destry his career if he came after him.
For a politician, that's the ultimate threat.

[Misfits]

He was sloppy about his sidearm at home, and his son died because of it. Do you think he'd approve of Young letting a loaded gun lie out around kids?

Just sayin.

Wait a minute. Jack did that. Col. Young never let a loaded gun lie around kids.

[Misfits]

Even if I watched it again right now, I still wouldn't see Jack the way you would.

I don't think there is any way Jack would condone doing what you think he would.

Start with Stargate the original movie, and all the seasons of SG-1, and then come back and say that.

[Yusagi]

Direct or indirect doesn't matter. It matters is that he attacked.
You can either respond or step down.

He used the justification to illustrate why Col. Young would have a motive.

When you're playing with lives, it means everything. It wasn't a slap on the wrist, it was--at the least--damning the man to an empty life on a barren planet billions of lightyears away from home and anything he cares(d) about.

One man should not decide that, especially without telling anyone, so that he can act without repercussions.

No I'm not a Colonel, and with all due respect to you, I doubt that you're a Colonel either.

However, I have been in position of a leader for a group trying to achieve a goal.

As for the hard decisions, yeah, I had to make them for the good of the group, and when I didn't, I saw how it affected the morale of the group when we were not able to achieve the goal.

I also saw the cancerous effect one individual can have on the whole group if they get too full of themselves.

Under such situation, you have to cut them out. PERIOD

Otherwise, the group might as quit right then and there because you end up spinning very fast on the spot, without going anywhere.

This is the reason why I tend to be harsher in my opinion.

I've been in a leadership position as well, many times. But what I meant is that what's okay for a normal civilian is NOT okay for someone in a leadership position. They're meant to be the model example of whatever they're enforcing. They're meant to protect and to help the ones they lead. In a position like that, the crew need to believe they're safer with Young in charge, because he's looking out for them. Not that if they step out of line he'll beat them bloody, and possibly kick them off the ship without giving them the chance to even say goodbye.

Young is not in an autocratic position, as you've said multiple times. If he wants to play the angle that he's in charge because people want him in charge, he'd better play by the rules. He cannot play judge jury and executioner all at once to anyone. It's no better than using the military to point guns at the crew, if he's going to be the only one who decides what happens to the 'guilty'.

[Misfits]

I also said someone with a hope of some day getting OFF the planet, or even finding a way home. All the same, even if it were mostly military. There's 80 people, and only 17 survivors. Its not about being fair, its about being smart. If 40 people have nothing to offer, then only 40 people are going to be considered. The situation demands nothing less than brutal efficiency.

I respectfully, disagree.

The best laid plans of men and mice....

:-)

[Yusagi]

No, just pointing a gun to him and threatening to shoot him.
As well as threatening to destry his career if he came after him.
For a politician, that's the ultimate threat.

Yet. He did not beat him up, did he?

Wait a minute. Jack did that. Col. Young never let a loaded gun lie around kids.

No. Again, I used a more black/white example. Jack did that, and you can BET he wouldn't approve of anyone else doing it. So, just because he does something, especially in the heat of the moment, does not mean he would approve of someone else doing it.

[Deevil]

Start with Stargate the original movie, and all the seasons of SG-1, and then come back and say that.

How about I start and finish by reiterating what I said before.

I don't think there is any way Jack would condone doing what you think he would. Actually, I know he wouldn't.

[Yusagi]

I respectfully, disagree.

The best laid plans of men and mice....

:-)

Oft go awry. Yet, if you aim for nothing, you'll most likely hit it.

It's true, even making the 15 people, they could die, but it's less of a chance than throwing together 15 random ones who may or may not have any qualifications at all.

[Saquist]

I've mentione this before in another thread, to my knowledge, Telford is actually in authority over him, even though they're the same rank.

If they're the same rank it stands to who's in a position of command.
That would Young not Telford.

This is where I disagree with you.

If this was the Atlantis Expedition, yeah, I would agree.
Those people, military and civilians volunteered for the mission and knew what they were getting into.

These people, currently on Destiny didn't sign up for this. That's why, IMO,the lottery was the best decision for this particular instance.

I can't agree.
You give those people the best chance to live. Wray was right.

[Misfits]

When you're playing with lives, it means everything. It wasn't a slap on the wrist, it was--at the least--damning the man to an empty life on a barren planet billions of lightyears away from home and anything he cares(d) about.

Exactly. It was Dr. Rush's actions that led directly to a comatose Dr. Franklyn.
Dr. Rush should have thought about how Col. Young would respond to his actions before framing Col. Young. He didn't. He reasoned it out and justified to himself that he's right in what he's doing, and that he's indispensable.
Col. Young beat him up and illustrated to him, physically, that he was mistaken. And then he asked simply, "Are we done?"
Dr. Rush replied "we'll never be done."
It was Col. Young's way of saying that Dr. Rush that he crossed a line that he won't tolerate.
Dr. Rush, thinking he's indispensable, was even more defiant.
Col. Young, by marooning Dr. Rush on the planet, basically replied, no, you're not indispensable.

I've been in a leadership position as well, many times. But what I meant is that what's okay for a normal civilian is NOT okay for someone in a leadership position. They're meant to be the model example of whatever they're enforcing. They're meant to protect and to help the ones they lead. In a position like that, the crew need to believe they're safer with Young in charge, because he's looking out for them. Not that if they step out of line he'll beat them bloody, and possibly kick them off the ship without giving them the chance to even say goodbye.

Young is not in an autocratic position, as you've said multiple times. If he wants to play the angle that he's in charge because people want him in charge, he'd better play by the rules. He cannot play judge jury and executioner all at once to anyone. It's no better than using the military to point guns at the crew, if he's going to be the only one who decides what happens to the 'guilty'.

I respectfully disagree.

You lead because you have the support of the group. If you believe you don't have the support, you step down. And if you have the support, then you do what you believe is in the best interest of the group. Your group can decide if you went too far or not. But, at the end of the day, as the leader, it is your decision.

Tribunals and committees sound reasonable, but when dealing with a small group, it's a recipe for disaster.

When a persons mischief outweighs his contribution to the group, it's time for the person to go. PERIOD Your failure to see it or eliminate the person will disqualify you from leading the group any further.

[Misfits]

Yet. He did not beat him up, did he?

What he did was far worse than a beating

No. Again, I used a more black/white example. Jack did that, and you can BET he wouldn't approve of anyone else doing it. So, just because he does something, especially in the heat of the moment, does not mean he would approve of someone else doing it.

Leaving a gun laying around kids was an accident.

Instead, threatening a Senator would be something Jack would NOT approve of. Same with Gen. Hammond. However, in the context of the situation, Gen. Hammond supported his actions. And that is my point. Any action by itself, if it falls outside of the military code would be frowned upon and not sanctioned.
However, in the context of a particular situation, it would be acceptable.