this post was submitted on 10 May 2026
206 points (99.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

39476 readers
1951 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the Lord of the Rings fandom there's a persistent debate whether balrogs, or Durin's Bane specifically, have wings. The text in Fellowship is ambiguous whether what it is describing are literal wings or something else wing-like.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AbsolutelyNotSpez@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

Star Trek (Voyager): Was it murder to split Tuvix back into Tuvok and Neelix?

I've got a long and complex possible solution to offer regarding this ethical clusterfuck, and I'm willing to elaborate if someone's interested to hear it.

Edit (possible solution): Voyager's database should include the Enterprise D's information regarding Riker's duplication incident. While Voyager's crew already found a way to separate Tuvix, they could've searched for a possibility to repeat that process and then split back the copy Tuvix a few milliseconds into the original Tuvok and Neelix before said copy became self-aware.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

They should have just kept replicating Tuvix with the transporter and using him as fuel.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

They used a transporter, so yes.

Every use of a transporter where someone is disassembled is murder, or possibly suicide.

[–] starik@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago

Yes, they could have just printed out a new copy of Tuvok and Neelix, and left Tuvix alone. The restriction that you can’t just make copies never made sense. Are there souls in Star Trek? Is the soul the thing that is actually be “transported” into a new body substrate?

[–] LoveRainbow@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

The Riker split depended on a plant on that one particular planet. Maybe it cannot be replicated.

Fully embracing that technology would have loads of chaotic outcomes...maybe they forbade it or something? Ripe for abuse...the ability to make infinite free clones or people...

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

they did it again LTD. anyways, janeway practically groomed 7 of 9, not in a sexual way but trying to mold her into a daughter she never had.

[–] gigastasio@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 day ago

That’s what makes it a good story though - an ethical dilemma with no clear “right” answer.

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The longest and most complex solutions are usually right (yes, please share).

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

The trench from my bed to my toilet is three meters but I can whizz without getting up anymore

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Two characters got merged into one completely new character the had traits of both, but was their own person. Decision was made to forcibly (against the new character's wishes) undo the accident and restore the two people. In so doing the new character no longer existed.

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 2 points 19 hours ago

Too bad, new organism, we want our selves back- what? Deal w/i

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes ive seen Voyager lol, I meant their solution

Thanks for trying tho

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lol should have remembered this was Lemmy.

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

I'll have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large diet coke (I'm watching my figure).

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Yes and she was right to do it. Except maybe she should have made a backup so she could have done it again