No, it is sad that you cannot accept that people respond differently to different things. That two different viewpoints can exist and both be wrong and both be correct to varying degrees simultaneously. That one man's trash is another man's treasure. There is no "fact" in metaphor and story, only interpretation. It is not objective science. Rather ironically given the thread, you're acting as if you're the ayatollah of metaphor and that we should all just get in line and bow to your viewpoint.

What (I presume) you see in the quote:

- We have a rule not to interfere in *primitive* cultures.

- It is sometimes acceptable to break this rule when I feel it is morally right to do so.

When you read the quote, your emphasis is on the primitive. To you, the prime directive as a metaphor can only stretch to cover that. However, other people can take this advice and apply it in a more abstract way to many different areas of life. For example:

- We have a rule not to interfere in other cultures.

- We have rule not to interfere in other parts of the business.

- I have a rule not to interfere in other people’s affairs.

For example, the latter could form part of Kant’s Axe Murderer dilemma. You may think it is unacceptable to lie, but when faced with an axe murderer at the door looking for someone they intend to murder, you may choose to lie to save the intended victim. You may or may not class this as interference. You may go further and ring the police at which point I think you are interfering by most people's definition. Even though we are now talking about axe murderers and are very far away from primitive alien cultures, there is still a link between the two scenarios regarding rules around interference and when it is morally right to do so.

You could almost see this as a percentage scale, where 100% would be if a future space ship captain was debating whether to interfere in a primitive culture and 0% being do I want to get a bacon roll for breakfast tomorrow (e.g zero relevance). In this case, yes, your point about the amazonian tribe IS more relevant as it ticks more similarity boxes. Maybe it would score something like a 90% on the similarity scale. However, “we have a rule not to interfere in other cultures” is, in my mind, not too many percentage points off, maybe say 85%. To you it may be much less, say 30%. That’s fine, we are allowed to have different viewpoints.

The one thing I would say is that I personally feel that if you take a restrictive view of stories (which is what I would consider only allowing yourself to consider the prime directive relevant to primitive cultures) you are cutting off a lot of the richness of story telling. Writers want us to take their stories, be they set in the past, present and future, and relate it to our lives and current events. If you don’t do that, then what even is the point in taking the time to read them? Do you even feel a connection to the story? Do you feel it has enriched your life in any way? Are you really watching Star Trek in case you one day have to make an ethical decision on whether to interfere with an Amazonian tribe or do you feel that there are lessons within it that can be applied to more mundane and ordinary existences?