Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Really? Then why does everyone insist you are wrong. You still have yet to actually present anything believeable.
ummm, i presented, if you had payed attention, that all of the points YOU people made were irrivant, and hersay. making there STILL a contridiction in the movies about the age/ full scale wars in the republic.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
In response to when you said "thats what I call smart?" which was a meaningless insult that was not needed. You started the hostility, where it was never given before hand on my part.
To act as moral apostle you should posess a higher moral standart than the people you want to instruct.
Unfortunately, as i said, if i do, you wont understand it. not unless you study symbolic logic equations.
Oh. Great. "<Outside> = Inside" is realy hard to understand, isn't it ? Being "specialized" in arguments you should be able to convince people while keeping the "working process" for yourself or put it into a form people can understand.
its in the movies, the "character" has no bounds on the comment. as it was written by lucas. Making it Canon. character attributes are irrelevant. Sio's comment holds as much weight as anyone in the SW universe. him being a politician is irrelevant.
Do you want to make me laugh ? To show you what kind of logic you are using: A completely insane person in a movie points to a chair saying "This is a table". Now in your "logic" table = chair is "canon" for the movie.
Anakin to the Jedi Council: "I'm more powerful than any of you.". Canon ? How he's getting defeated by Obi-Wan later ?
hearsay, he could just well have been one the greatest historians in the republic equally has he may know nothing about history. it was never mentioned that he was bad at history nor good at it, both points are equally vaild.all hearsay, and opinion. No fact. Making this point irrelevant.
You probably should just go and think about what "Devils Advocate" or "Advocatus Diaboli" actualy means.
"what does the term "full scale war" mean ?"well since the clone wars and the rebellion constitutes a "full scale war" then it would mean the entire republic is at war, not just a specific group. as know other examples are given, the clone wars and the rebellion is therefore, in canon, the definition of a full scale war. Since there are no other examples.
Now that is your own oppinion because there is no definition of the term "full scale war" within the movies.
it could have just been the Jedi vs. the Sith. no full scale war needed. hearsay? yes. but since not mentioned, both a full scale war and just a small battle between the jedi/ sith are equally valid, making this point also irrelevant.
And now your mixing your own oppinion with assumptions just to be able to keep your own point of view. The Jedi are the Republics "army" in TPM times so Jedi vs. Sith would also mean "full scale war" as all military forces of the Republic would have been involved.
because the Sith are more dangerous then any war. a war was never implied by anyone in the movies, except by you just now. Making this point irrelevant.
Oh yes. The Sith were "extinct" (!) because of natural selection...
selfownage? interesting since all the points you just gave are irrelevant and mostly hearsay.
...in your own oppinion.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
no no, ive expeted the EU responce. I had expeced to be wrong about it.but were arguing about the Canon responce at the moment.
If you want to argue the Canon response, Anomaly, here is not the place. All you will receive in the EU answer, which is most likely the only answer in this situation.
Originally posted by Nai Fohl
To act as moral apostle you should posess a higher moral standart than the people you want to instruct.
yes, quite right. as i have been doing for the past while here.
Oh. Great. "<Outside> = Inside" is realy hard to understand, isn't it ? Being "specialized" in arguments you should be able to convince people while keeping the "working process" for yourself or put it into a form people can understand..
no, not really. id have to explain all the equations first.
Do you want to make me laugh ? To show you what kind of logic you are using: A completely insane person in a movie points to a chair saying "This is a table". Now in your "logic" table = chair is "canon" for the movie..
yes, its canon that the crazy person in the movie thought it was a table.
Anakin to the Jedi Council: "I'm more powerful than any of you.". Canon ? How he's getting defeated by Obi-Wan later ?.
yes its canon that Anakin thought he was the strongest. because thats what he said.
.
You probably should just go and think about what "Devils Advocate" or "Advocatus Diaboli" actualy means..
haha! yes good job! its called the socratic method.
i REALLY dont care at this point. im just here to prove that you also have no basis for argument.
I like to argue, thats what I do. as i told you.
Now that is your own oppinion because there is no definition of the term "full scale war" within the movies..
no, not actually. there are 2 "full scale wars" in Canon, the clone wars (as refered to by bibble \"there hasn't been a full scale war..."/, constitute a full scale war) so therefore:
anything equal to the clone wars (which is a civial war) would therefore be a "full scale war" and since the rebellion is a civial war, it fits this definition.
And now your mixing your own oppinion with assumptions just to be able to keep your own point of view. The Jedi are the Republics "army" in TPM times so Jedi vs. Sith would also mean "full scale war" as all military forces of the Republic would have been involved..
the jedi ARE the republics army eh?
"you must realise there arnt enough jedi...were keepers of the peace, not soldiers"
they are not the army, they are basically police officers.
i said the jedi vs the sith. not the jedi and the republic vs the sith.
Oh yes. The Sith were "extinct" (!) because of natural selection....
this makes no sense at all, in a war between the jedi and sith (as i said) if the sith lost, then the jedi killed them. hearsay. yes, but as my point was first that
"both a full scale war and just a small battle between the jedi/ sith are equally valid, making this point also irrelevant."
...in your own oppinion.
no, in fact
yep, it is, i love it.
i have been slowly forcing this into real argumentation if you didnt notice 🙂
and to most people this kinda argumentation seems stupid.
when in fact its the core of arguments, haha, great stuff.
good practice this is. i come here to see how normal conversational argumention is used. so that i may spot flaws etc. very good practice indeed.
but in actual truth, we are far off topic at the moment.
and I have already said that i agree, including EU there is no problem.
and thank you to Nai Fohl for pointing this out, even if he felt it nessasary to insult me while doing it.
and i use this quote as a closing to the actual topic (though i will continue to argue about the off topic we are discussing right now)
it is.
"People find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right."
whats too great?
oh and Rex, herasay DOES imply hearsay, that was my point.
that neither of us has any proof, and that i could say anything to contridict his points and they would both be equally vaild. making that point useless.
so we must go with what proof we DO have, which is the quotes in the movies.
u know what i mean?
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
yes, its canon that the crazy person in the movie thought it was a table.yes its canon that Anakin thought he was the strongest. because thats what he said.
Now. Take that two statements. Take a look of the statement from Sio Bibble. Conclusion: It is canon that Sio Bibble thinks that there was no "full scale war" from the formation of the Republic on while it's not canon that there realy was no "full scale war" from the formation of the Republic. Case closed. You have sucessfully annihilated the "continuity problem" yourself.
haha! yes good job! its called the socratic method.
No. The socratic method means "being sceptical" while "Advocatus Diaboli" referes to "total denial".
the jedi ARE the republics army eh?
"you must realise there arnt enough jedi...were keepers of the peace, not soldiers"
they are not the army, they are basically police officers.
i said the jedi vs the sith. not the jedi and the republic vs the sith.
a)
Denying the Ruusan Reformation as a fact would mean the Jedi were under the command of the Senate since the formation of the Republic. Now. They can not enter a war against somebody without the Senate giving them the command to do so. Meaning: If there was a war between Jedi and Sith it must have been a war between Republic and Sith.
b)
The Jedi are the only "armed forces" under the command of the Republic. That's why they needed the clone army. Again Jedi vs. Sith = Republic vs Sith = "full scale war".
no, in fact
I'm just getting bored argueing with somebody that seems to have no idea what he is talking about and also seems to argue just for the reason to argue.
Now. Take that two statements. Take a look of the statement from Sio Bibble. Conclusion: It is canon that Sio Bibble thinks that there was no "full scale war" from the formation of the Republic on while it's not canon that there realy was no "full scale war" from the formation of the Republic. Case closed. You have sucessfully annihilated the "continuity problem" yourself.
i dont fully understand what you are trying to say here. please rephrase this.
No. The socratic method means "being sceptical" while "Advocatus Diaboli" referes to "total denial".
haha! no, the socratic method is not to be sceptical, unfortunatly. that is the laymens definition of it. but is not what it really is. (i dont know if u noticed this, but im a philosophy major, that majors in argument aka. logic) is using others argumentation against them to prove them wrong. meaning, i do not pretend to know that i know somehting, but you believe to think you know something, so i ask you questions pretaning to what you think you know in order to prove to you that in fact you dont know that you know what you think you know, even though i knew from the start that you didnt know what though you did. get it?
its a very annoying argumentitive form, because you (the user of the socratic method) have no stance in the argument other then the fact that you know you dont know, and the point is to prove to the other person they know as much as you do, which is nothing.
simple really. anyways, thats what the socratic method is, just so you know.
a)
Denying the Ruusan Reformation as a fact would mean the Jedi were under the command of the Senate since the formation of the Republic. Now. They can not enter a war against somebody without the Senate giving them the command to do so. Meaning: If there was a war between Jedi and Sith it must have been a war between Republic and Sith.
i already said a bunch of times, im not refuting the EU. im not refuting the "ruusan reformation" no where did i say i was, perhaps you should read my posts again.
I HAVE ALREADY SAID "OK, INCLUDING THE EU THERE IS NO PROBLEM, HOWEVER, WITHIN THE MOVIES THEMSELVES THERE IS ONE."
do you understand that?
im not arguing about EU to you, im arguing about the canon material. and i have been for the past day now, and i made that clear long ago.
b)
The Jedi are the only "armed forces" under the command of the Republic. That's why they needed the clone army. Again Jedi vs. Sith = Republic vs Sith = "full scale war".
wrong, the jedi act under the influence of the senate, but, if the sith were fighting the jedi (in a sort of cult war, i should have made that more clear, im sorry) then the republic would not be involved and the jedi could kill the sith directly. therefore destroying the sith. as it says in the movies. this is hearsay, as i said a bout 10 posts back, but what you said (that there was a war) is also hearsay, and therefore, neither of us is wright or wrong, so this point is irrelavent. seeing as we both have equal arguments on events that might (but there is no proff) had happened.
I'm just getting bored argueing with somebody that seems to have no idea what he is talking about and also seems to argue just for the reason to argue.
yes, i am arguing for a) the sake of practice for my papers and work and 2) because you are implying you know something that is not said or related too in the movies.
(please note that if you have not understood, this is the canon material, not including EU)
no no, ive expeted the EU responce. I had expeced to be wrong about it.but were arguing about the Canon responce at the moment.
and rex you said this:
If you want to argue the Canon response, Anomaly, here is not the place. All you will receive in the EU answer, which is most likely the only answer in this situation
THANK GOD!!! someone was actually paying attention to what i was saying.
this is exactly what i've been saying for a long time now.
in the movies there is a problem, EU apparently solves this problem, but it is not solved in the movies themselves.
haha! you are all so wrapped up in the fact that you thought i was against EU in this one you wernt even paying attention to what i was saying.
hahahaha! you people are hilarious. Rex, it would seem is the ONLY person to realise that i said this long ago, that i said that EU was the answer to it, but it however did not solve the canon movies. (because EU has no effect on the movies) if however you take the movies and EU as a whole, it workes!
did you people not realise thats what i was saying for a long long time now?
or did ur bias towards me influence you to read somehting that was not there? i dunno, you tell me
i had been playing with this all day now...
you didnt even notice i was WITH EU on this one! hahaha, read more closely next time people...hhahaah
and with that i say...
thank you and goodnight
*laughs walking away*
....I love messing with people heads....
hahaha
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
yes, I lose the EU argument, but not the Canon argument.I had expected to be corrected with the EU. as I dont read EU.
I had come here to get the correct information and argue it as i saw fit. which incedently i was corrected (read my post, i had siad many times correct me if i was wrong)
however, i went from the official info i had, 2 formations of the republic, and the movies. which contridicted. i had been unaware of the other 2 books or whatever. (since i dont read EU)
and yet, you still find it nessassary to jump all over me? why i ask? i dont know...
maybe your as smart as i thought you were.
Thats your problem pal. You expected to be right about EU when you dont know anythung about it, and like a whimp you try to pull out the "canon" card. Oh I hate that word, its the most irelivant word.