I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but this merits immediate attention. If you're going to say that we don't actually know what North Korea is like, then what's the point of comparing it to Star Trek? Or, do you have inside scoop on North Korea or something?
I know the general political system which is apparent. You refer to specifics such as people happiness which has been known to be manipulated both ways. E.g USA posting videos about sad individuals only and NK posting happy pictures only. Both NK and USA though agree about the underlying system and don't hide it.
Use some critical thinking please.
If the only thing that you know about North Korea is the "general political system," then how can you make comparisons to Star Trek on anything more specific than that, the "general political system"? This is what I meant earlier when I suggested that you have picked some real but superficial similarities, and are focusing on those to the exclusion of everything else.
So without more specific evidence, the ideology is really doing the heavy lifting here, you know?
I was actually extremely generic in regards to my comparison. Please point where I refer to specifics.
My whole argument has been that your comparison is far too general, that you've picked some superficial similarities and then extrapolated from those to the implications that your ideological positioning recommends. As @lexiconical and I have both argued, when you get to the finer grained details, your comparison breaks down. So when you say "Yeah, I was totally being super general, I don't have any details," I totally agree that that's true, but that also makes your argument pretty weak. I mean, if all we have are "extremely generic," "general political situation" comparisons, in which you quite proudly refuse to discuss specifics, then what are you really able to say? You said quite clearly above, when I pushed you for a more detailed, more nuanced comparison, that they were "exact. same." You are waaaaaaaayyyyyy overstating this argument. You're making claims that you just don't really have evidence for. You've refused to acknowledge that we can know any specifics about North Korea, and you deflect or disregard any empirical challenges to your assessment of the Star Trek universe. So you have nothing here except the most general comparison--which I get is sufficient for you, but that's because your ideological positions can do the heavy lifting here, filling in all the blanks that you refuse to fill with empirical evidence. Since I do not share your ideological positions, I find your argument superficial. I'm glad that by proudly touting your disregard of details, you've confirmed that.
I brought you exact definitions from dictionaries and you still try to find a new angle? Just admit defeat already :)
Military + exploration + defense go hand in hand in Star Trek. Everyone falls under the military.
Except from the exploration part..everything else is the same in NK.
Since you are apparently incapable of seeing in any depth greater than the most superficial definitions, I don't see any reason to admit any kind of defeat. Your analysis here was shallow, but I guess it's as deep as you can go, so I suppose we're done.
There is no need for depth it its pointless my friend. You know, senseless rhetorics and sophisms don't really cut it.