Originally posted by Ianus
Yeah, but I have little else to do since business is sporadic.
I know, but it just seems funny to me sometimes that we all argue over things that do not exist. Its like my hatred for Lolth. I hate Lolth but then I get pissed at myself for hating something that doesn't exist. Its all fantasy, but sometimes it seems like I get way to sucked in.
That'd be correct if my quotes had a thing to do with Kun's power, Illustrious. They didn't.They were about Sadow's ship, how the ship itself was powerful and how it was the reason the user can rip the cores from stars.
And this can be held against Sadow how?
Short answer: It can't.
Good, we're getting somewhere. Since his powers, obviously, are not on that level and he hasn't had the opportunity to display more of his personal strength, then it is rather hard to gauge, isn't it?Ergo, we can't necessarily say that he'd curbstomp character X, because we don't know. We cannot say that he and the rest of the ancient Sith are more powerful than all later Jedi, much less all later Force users, especially since the quote doesn't read that way.
How does this equal this?
No, a lesser force user can replicate his on-panel feats, indicating he's not necessarily as powerful as we believe.And I remind you Aleema had nothing of Sadow's when she used illusions on his level.
First off? A lesser force user using his techonlogy replicating his feats does not mean any thing. I've been attacking that logic of yours the entire argument.
You still haven't covered up.
The statement is amorphous because it reads, "later Jedi." Not "all later Jedi" or "later Force users" or "all later Force users."For all we know, it could be speaking of Jedi of the Ruusan era. It is certainly not, however, speaking of the Sith or Dark Jedi.
Don't twist the statement, it should be very clear what "later Jedi" means. It means Jedi who came later.
Arguing that it "certainly" doesn't mean Sith or Dark Jedi is a fallacy, there is no credible reason to believe that. Besides the fact you don't even have the comics, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I point out, to counter, that Nadd and Kun grew exponentially more powerful when they stopped being Jedi. You can't even prove the quote applies to Jedi of either Nadd or Kun's era, much less Nadd or Kun once they are no longer Jedi.
So Nadd and Kun weren't Jedi that came later?
I have not done so, but I have argued that Sadow is not a demigod Force user, and that he would not necessarily curbstomp Nadd, Kun, or DE Sidious, etc. Those battles would be up in the air, because we have no on-panel evidence to show Naga's superiority.
We have logic dictating this. You haven't proved against it.
I've not argued that they are false for the second time, Illustrious. Read what I wrote.
You don't follow them. Ergo, you think they're false. It's simple as that.
Yes, it is. Saying Kun is the darkest power in the galaxy is definitive. Saying the Ancient Sith's power is titanic in comparison to unknown "later Jedi" is definitive, but not universal. It does not use all, and it only refers to Jedi.
No it isn't. Darkest is subjective, it's an opinion. Most powerful is not so much, it indicates the single most powerful individual of that time.
What's your point? She did so while he was overcome with grief and not resisting anything. That plus the fact that Ulic is never shown to have learned Sith magic.And you haven't denied that Aleema's a relative weakling.
Wonderful. You take into account circumstance selectively.
Once again, you've shown to be the most biased poster on here. Aleema knew how to operate the ship, he was taught Sith Magic necessary for using the ship, and he had Naga Sadow's technology. None of that is even close to being on par with Sadow for making the technology and magic necessary in the first place.
No, he is an unknown that displays less feats of personal power. I'm inclined to think he's weaker, but that doesn't make it true. What is true is that the fight would be up in the air, because we don't know.
Again. False.
You have offered nothing logical in belief of Kun being more powerful. In fact, logic contradicts you.
I'd like some specific quotes, please. Does it refer to, for example, Ragnos' power being "titanic in comparison to later Jedi?"
No, but it says that for Sadow.
This is where you're wrong. Logic cannot dictate the opposite here, because none of the quotes read that they're superior to all that came after them. As well, the on-panel evidence gives us no indication that they'd be able to best everyone that came after them.
I'm not using the quote as my logical basis. Read the post.
The mere fact that Ulic is never shown using Sith magic (Indeed, the most he does with regard to Force powers is choke a man in the War Room on Coruscant). As well, we can logically assume that since Ulic was running a war effort and shacking up with Aleema while Exar was studying Sith magic and honing his Force powers in the interval between DLotS and TSW, Exar has grown more powerful.
No. You can assume Exar has grown more powerful. Where's your on-panel proof? Again, nonexistant by your own standards for proving points.
I've stated that because we've repeatedly assumed that the Ancient Sith batted stars around on their own power. That's false. We've also assumed that they'd be able to curbstomp literally anyone (save maybe Nihilus) that comes from either another faction or another time period. That is false, not even your quotes indicate that, as I've expressed above.
When do my quotes indicate that they won't batter later generations? In fact, the quote indicates they are superior to Later generations of Jedi, and that the Sith plundered from their shares of knowledge indicate more than enough logic for them being superior.
How is it "first order logic" to assume that because the narration reads that their power is titanic in comparison to "later Jedi," they must be more powerful than every Jedi that came after, as well as every Sith and other miscellaneous Force user?So because the Ancients are described as being "immensely powerful" then they can slap around anyone not so lucky to be described that way? Nonsense. Narration is not the end-all gauge of power. Sidious in the PT and OT is powerful himself, and he doesn't have any amulets. You're assuming that because the Ancient Sith are described as being immensely powerful, which is subjective and not comparative language, then they automatically win. That is not the case. It is possible that Kun or DE Sidious and the like could simply have more Force potential.
There's no evidence to indicate that, but "absence of proof isn't proof of absence" as you like to claim.
Yes, you are allowed to claim that Kun or DE Sidious have more Force Potential. That is a possibility, but you do not have logic supporting that.
Yes, he's at the top of the Ancients. It's questionable whether the Golden Age was the peak of the Sith's power, I'd argue that Palpatine's New Order was. Yes, he was the most powerful of the most powerful, of the Ancient Sith. The use of the Dark Lord of the Sith indicates that others like Naga and Ludo were also Dark Lords, but Ragnos himself held the official title. Kressh and Sadow certainly didn't call themselves merely Sith. They were Lords of the Sith.
There were multiple Sith Lords, the Dark Lord of the Sith was supreme, basic hierarchy.
Again, what you argue is irrelevant. Stop bringing you into the discussion. You're grasping straws with that argument. There's no reason to even assume Palpatine could clean Ragnos' boots.
As stated before, there's no comparative language used in this description regarding him or the other ancients to those that came before or after them. Ergo, it is possible that those Force users could have beaten Ragnos, because we have nothing to indicate his superiority or inferiority. It is up in the air.
The comparitive language is there. You just choose to either discount it, say it's temporally inaccurate, or "amorphous." Personally, I don't find "later Jedi" that hard to comprehend, nor do I find "the most powerful of the most powerful."
I'm not sure why you like to read comparisons into these descriptions. They aren't there. You seem to want to believe that they are.
When did I say this? Good job taking things out of context.
For the third time, I've never said he was lying. I have pointed out that he uses subjective language. We wouldn't be having this debate if he came out and said something like, "The Ancient Sith were the pinnacle of Force use. Their power was unmatched by any that came before or after them."
For the last time, regardless of subjective language, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the author's statement to be invalid. Apparently you know nothing about literature.
The on-panel evidence lasts all of a page, Illustrious. We cannot know for certain who would come out on top if their battle had gone uninterrupted. However, I'm inclined to believe Exar would, because of his knowledge of Sith magic.
Again, your belief is irrelevant. The on-panel evidence does not show Exar winning. By your OWN standards, he does not.
I'm just pointing this out to tell you to be consistent with your own logic.
Wow.
Screw going point by point. You're getting more ridiculous.
Until you develop some level of uniformity with your points, you can stop bothering. You haven't done anything except get more fallacious with each passing post.
I like how you totally ignored this:
"The point is that in a crossover versus fight, the evidence does not speak for itself. You must tie in logic into your supposition.
How is Kun's force powers stronger than Sadow? How is Kun using one ancient amulet stronger than Sadow who had several? How is Kun who looted from Sadow suddenly more knowledgeable in the ways of Sith Magic than Sadow? How is Kun who learned to use some of Sadow's technology indicate he is more powerful than Sadow? How is Kun who commands the degenerate creations of Sadow (Massassi) more powerful than Sadow?
You have to prove these points to be the contrary. Because logic dictates just the opposite. See?"
Don't have an answer?
That above is logic. The logic is supported by the text (aka "godlike," "immense," and "titanic."😉.
Burden of proof (I hope you know what that is) is on you.
Stop selectively quoting and taking me out of context. Answer my entire debate or STFU.
Originally posted by IKC
No, I question whether that was the height of their power. Certainly it was the height of their civilization. But during Palpatine's New Order, the Sith had more power (not Force power) than they ever had before. That is the meaning of my statement.
You questioning it is irrelevant. They make it perfectly clear that was the peak of their imperial power and civilization. They make it perfectly clear that Ragnos, the most powerful of the ancient Sith, had brought about a golden age.
For an empire based upon using the Dark Side to become more powerful, that should be a clear inference.
They were about Sadow's ship, how the ship itself was powerful and how it was the reason the user can rip the cores from stars.
You act as though the ship manifests its own energy, and that Sadow found it in space and has no scope of its abilities.
No, a lesser force user can replicate his on-panel feats, indicating he's not necessarily as powerful as we believe.
By this logic Mace Windu must be weaker than Obi-Wan Kenobi, since Kenobi easily absorbed Dooku's lightning with his saber, but Mace buckled under Sidious' similar assault.
And I remind you Aleema had nothing of Sadow's when she used illusions on his level.
Incorrect. She learned through Nadd, who himself had plundered artifacts and learned from Sadow. And Sadow's illusions trumped hers anyday, being more ffective and more numerous, nearly breaking the back of Republic and jedi forces on Coruscant despite being 90% of the attacking force.
The statement is amorphous because it reads, "later Jedi." Not "all later Jedi" or "later Force users" or "all later Force users."
Arguing semantics? So all later jedi isn't implied? So it must be talking about four weak jedi sometime down the road, since the term "later jedi" is too vague for the likes of IKC?
For all we know, it could be speaking of Jedi of the Ruusan era. It is certainly not, however, speaking of the Sith or Dark Jedi
IKC, do you even have the quote in front of you? You should be able to infer what it's talking about if you did.
I point out, to counter, that Nadd and Kun grew exponentially more powerful when they stopped being Jedi. You can't even prove the quote applies to Jedi of either Nadd or Kun's era, much less Nadd or Kun once they are no longer Jedi.
You can't disprove it, either. You don't even have the quote before you, do you?
Yes, it is. Saying Kun is the darkest power in the galaxy is definitive. Saying the Ancient Sith's power is titanic in comparison to unknown "later Jedi" is definitive, but not universal. It does not use all, and it only refers to Jedi.
Definitive? Kun being the darkest power in the galaxy is precise and explicit? Did he on-panel challenge and defeat all comers? Technically, he didn't beat Ulic on-panel. But you would like to infer that he could, based on absence of information about Ulic knowing Sith magics. Considering that Ulic CAN use the dark side of the Force and indeed is a Force and lightsaber prodigy, why are you saying he would lose due to the apparently lack of knowledge of something (Sith magics) which I've never seen anyone successfully specify? Sith magics could be rituals. How do rituals help Kun in combat?
What's your point? She did so while he was overcome with grief and not resisting anything. That plus the fact that Ulic is never shown to have learned Sith magic.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The Krath had Sith teachings. And besides, Sith magics aren't definitive enough to use as a reason as to why Kun would beat Ulic. They DID stalemate on panel.
The mere fact that Ulic is never shown using Sith magic (Indeed, the most he does with regard to Force powers is choke a man in the War Room on Coruscant). As well, we can logically assume that since Ulic was running a war effort and shacking up with Aleema while Exar was studying Sith magic and honing his Force powers in the interval between DLotS and TSW, Exar has grown more powerful.
More powerful? Name the instances in which Kun has beaten opponents in combat due to Sith magics.
Yes, he's at the top of the Ancients. It's questionable whether the Golden Age was the peak of the Sith's power, I'd argue that Palpatine's New Order was. Yes, he was the most powerful of the most powerful, of the Ancient Sith. The use of the Dark Lord of the Sith indicates that others like Naga and Ludo were also Dark Lords, but Ragnos himself held the official title. Kressh and Sadow certainly didn't call themselves merely Sith. They were Lords of the Sith.
The Golden Era of the Sith is NOT subjective to IKC, but to the will of Lucasfilm. They did authorize and release the Golden Age of the Sith comics. I doubt they were just bullshitting us all when they did that.
And the emphasis in the Dark Lord of the Sith was the narrator's own, IKC.
For the third time, I've never said he was lying. I have pointed out that he uses subjective language. We wouldn't be having this debate if he came out and said something like, "The Ancient Sith were the pinnacle of Force use. Their power was unmatched by any that came before or after them."
Darkest power in the galaxy is NOT subjective, but numerous mentions of "godlike", "titanic", and otherwise is, according to you? What a bunch of shit.
And this can be held against Sadow how?
It is held against his Force power, but it increases estimations of his genius at invention or creating Sith magic. However, these would not directly aid him during a fight.
First off? A lesser force user using his techonlogy replicating his feats does not mean any thing. I've been attacking that logic of yours the entire argument.
Exactly how doesn't it mean anything? It shows that his Force power was not at the root of these feats. It doesn't make Sadow a lesser being, it only shows that he's less likely to win in any given battle.
Don't twist the statement, it should be very clear what "later Jedi" means. It means Jedi who came later.
Yes, but it doesn't say which. It doesn't even quantify it for us with a "most." The best we can interpret it to be is "some." This is not a statement you can twist to mean what you want it to mean.
Arguing that it "certainly" doesn't mean Sith or Dark Jedi is a fallacy, there is no credible reason to believe that. Besides the fact you don't even have the comics, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Point one: Bullshit. It says Jedi. To say it means Sith and Dark Jedi as well is evidence of your own fanboyism.
Point two: I've been calling on you for the past week to give me evidence. You provided the quote, Illustrious. It doesn't prove what you want it to.
So Nadd and Kun weren't Jedi that came later?
They weren't Jedi for long, were they? Furthermore, there's no proof that they were the "later Jedi" meant in the quote.
We have logic dictating this. You haven't proved against it.
No you don't because you have no proof. Not even from your quotes. They don't read that the Ancients were the pinnacle of Force use, or anything similar.
How is it logical to assume that because they were stronger than a vague "later Jedi" then they must be stronger than all later Jedi as well as force-users who are not Jedi?
You don't follow them. Ergo, you think they're false. It's simple as that.
Wrong, I don't follow what you think they mean. You think they're absolute proof of the superiority of the Ancient Sith over all other Force users. I don't. The quotes do not state such.
No it isn't. Darkest is subjective, it's an opinion. Most powerful is not so much, it indicates the single most powerful individual of that time.
I hope you understand that it read, "the (as in, definite article) darkest (read: there is none darker) power in the galaxy..." Please, tell me how that's not definitive.
And I've never argued that Ragnos wasn't the most powerful individual of his time.
Wonderful. You take into account circumstance selectively.Once again, you've shown to be the most biased poster on here. Aleema knew how to operate the ship, he was taught Sith Magic necessary for using the ship, and he had Naga Sadow's technology. None of that is even close to being on par with Sadow for making the technology and magic necessary in the first place.
I've never stated that Naga was worthless just because it was his creations that enabled him to perform these feats. I have always given him credit for having created them. What I am trying to bring down to earth are our estimations of his, and by extension the rest of the Ancients, Force power. That's all.
Aleema Keto is a she, by the way.
You have offered nothing logical in belief of Kun being more powerful. In fact, logic contradicts you.
As I've stated, it is my opinion that Kun is more powerful, but it is not definitive fact.
Logic, however, does not contradict me. There is nothing to indicate that Kun or anyone like him is weaker than any of the Ancient Sith, especially nothing you've quoted so far. I call on you for evidence once again.
No, but it says that for Sadow.
So if I understand you correctly, it reads in essence that Sadow's power is "titanic in comparison to later Jedi?"
I'm not using the quote as my logical basis. Read the post.
I've answered the same laundry-list in the other thread.
No. You can assume Exar has grown more powerful. Where's your on-panel proof? Again, nonexistant by your own standards for proving points.
My on-panel proof? I just thought of it.
In DLotS, Exar Kun was unable to beat Vodo Baas in a fair duel. In TSW, he was able to slap Vodo around like an initiate. As well, he was able to kill a Jedi Master comparable to Vodo in Force power with a wave of his hand.
He grew more powerful, on-panel and narrative evidence dictates it.
When do my quotes indicate that they won't batter later generations? In fact, the quote indicates they are superior to Later generations of Jedi, and that the Sith plundered from their shares of knowledge indicate more than enough logic for them being superior.
It does not read which later generations they are superior to, much less gives us a number, Illustrious. Not "many," "some," or "all." There's no logic, then, in believing that they'd curbstomp Force user X unless we can clearly prove their superiority with evidence.
And you seem to forget that Force potential plays a great role in what a Force user's power is.
Yes, you are allowed to claim that Kun or DE Sidious have more Force Potential. That is a possibility, but you do not have logic supporting that.
I threw out the possibility that they may have more Force potential, read more carefully. I didn't claim it. This entire debate started about the Ancient Sith. Exar Kun was dragged in as the best example, in my opinion, of a Force user who may be able to best them.
There were multiple Sith Lords, the Dark Lord of the Sith was supreme, basic hierarchy.
This is, essentially, what I wrote.
There's no reason to even assume Palpatine could clean Ragnos' boots.
And there's no reason to assume Ragnos could spit on DE Sidious.
The comparitive language is there. You just choose to either discount it, say it's temporally inaccurate, or "amorphous." Personally, I don't find "later Jedi" that hard to comprehend, nor do I find "the most powerful of the most powerful."
Temporal impossibilities are another argument, Illustrious. Try and keep them straight.
I've not discounted the language, but I've pointed out it is not specific, nor is it universal. "Later Jedi" does mean "Jedi that came later," but which? Is it most of them? All? The quote doesn't answer this. As well, since it reads "Jedi" it doesn't apply to non-Jedi Force users. To argue that it does indicates bias.
When did I say this? Good job taking things out of context.
This is what you're doing by assuming that "later Jedi" means "all later Force users." It doesn't.
For the last time, regardless of subjective language, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the author's statement to be invalid. Apparently you know nothing about literature.
For the last time,
I have never said the quote was false.
However, I have pointed out that it is vague and as such doesn't prove their superiority over specific individuals. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, I've made this argument throughout the entire post.
Again, your belief is irrelevant. The on-panel evidence does not show Exar winning. By your OWN standards, he does not.
Nonsense, I just showed you clear, on-panel improvement above.
I like how you totally ignored this:etc.
Stop selectively quoting and taking me out of context. Answer my entire debate or STFU.
Again, I answered the same laundry list in the other thread.
You questioning it is irrelevant. They make it perfectly clear that was the peak of their imperial power and civilization. They make it perfectly clear that Ragnos, the most powerful of the ancient Sith, had brought about a golden age.
How could the Golden Age have been the peak of their imperial power? Palpatine's New Order easily was many times the size, wealth, and military strength of the old Sith Empire. I'm stating that, for the Sith as an organization, conditions were better in many ways under the New Order than the Golden Age.
I don't dispute that the Golden Age was the height of their civilization. Power, though, I question.
Ianus:
You act as though the ship manifests its own energy, and that Sadow found it in space and has no scope of its abilities.
Nonsense. As I've stated above, I've always given Sadow credit for having invented it. This does not, however, necessarily make him an uberly powerful Force user.
By this logic Mace Windu must be weaker than Obi-Wan Kenobi, since Kenobi easily absorbed Dooku's lightning with his saber, but Mace buckled under Sidious' similar assault.
Nevermind that the feats aren't really being replicated, since Dooku is inferior to Sidious, Obi-Wan was further away, and Sidious used two hands.
Incorrect. She learned through Nadd, who himself had plundered artifacts and learned from Sadow. And Sadow's illusions trumped hers anyday, being more ffective and more numerous, nearly breaking the back of Republic and jedi forces on Coruscant despite being 90% of the attacking force.
My meaning was she had no artifacts of Sadow's to use when she performed her illusions (especially his meditation sphere).
So creating illusions of giant space creatures that literally grapple your enemy's capital ships as well as illusions of starfighters to harass the enemy is not on that level? DLotS doesn't give us hard numbers, the quote reads, "Many ships are illusory... but many more are real!" Emphasis theirs.
Arguing semantics? So all later jedi isn't implied? So it must be talking about four weak jedi sometime down the road, since the term "later jedi" is too vague for the likes of IKC?
It isn't implied. If it were meant, it would've been stated. It could very well be speaking of what you mentioned, though that is unlikely.
IKC, do you even have the quote in front of you? You should be able to infer what it's talking about if you did.
Illustrious has been kind enough to quote it for us, Ianus.
You can't disprove it, either.
So of course, the correct thing is to assume the positive? Ridiculous.
Yes, please ask me to prove negatives. That's logically viable.
Definitive? Kun being the darkest power in the galaxy is precise and explicit? Did he on-panel challenge and defeat all comers? Technically, he didn't beat Ulic on-panel. But you would like to infer that he could, based on absence of information about Ulic knowing Sith magics.
That's what it reads. See above for elaboration.
Sith magics could be rituals. How do rituals help Kun in combat?
Except they aren't. Kun literally blasts Aleema Keto away with a beam of energy, saying "Nadd only taught you the beginnings of Sith power, woman."
And besides, Sith magics aren't definitive enough to use as a reason as to why Kun would beat Ulic. They DID stalemate on panel.
In lightsaber combat, they may have. They were interrupted, however.
More powerful? Name the instances in which Kun has beaten opponents in combat due to Sith magics.
1) Aleema Keto, blasted her away with a beam of energy.
2) Odan-Urr, shot his hand forth and the Jedi Master fell to the ground and died.
3) It's unknown how Kun broke through Vodo's staff. Either he physically broke through it or he may have used magic to disable it.
The Golden Era of the Sith is NOT subjective to IKC, but to the will of Lucasfilm. They did authorize and release the Golden Age of the Sith comics. I doubt they were just bullshitting us all when they did that.
Yes, and? I never said it wasn't the height of their civilization. That tends to be what a Golden Age is.
And the emphasis in the Dark Lord of the Sith was the narrator's own, IKC.
When did I deny this?
Darkest power in the galaxy is NOT subjective, but numerous mentions of "godlike", "titanic", and otherwise is, according to you? What a bunch of shit.
How disappointing. I'll repeat: The is the definite article, darkest means there is none darker.
Godlike and titanic? Since when are godlike and titanic definitive? They do not translate to "most powerful" and "largest."
It is held against his Force power, but it increases estimations of his genius at invention or creating Sith magic. However, these would not directly aid him during a fight.
Would he walk into the fight naked?
What exactly are you attempting to prove?
Exactly how doesn't it mean anything? It shows that his Force power was not at the root of these feats. It doesn't make Sadow a lesser being, it only shows that he's less likely to win in any given battle.
Again, illogical conclusion. If I wanted to be a stickler, I'd say blowing up a star or creating an army of illusions wasn't going to help him in a 1 on 1 fight either.
Yes, but it doesn't say which. It doesn't even quantify it for us with a "most." The best we can interpret it to be is "some." This is not a statement you can twist to mean what you want it to mean.
You are the one twisting it to be what you want it to mean.
It never gives a modifier for later Jedi. From a literary standpoint, it heavily implies all later Jedi. Do not twist it because it screws up your argument.
Point one: Bullshit. It says Jedi. To say it means Sith and Dark Jedi as well is evidence of your own fanboyism.Point two: I've been calling on you for the past week to give me evidence. You provided the quote, Illustrious. It doesn't prove what you want it to.
Were these Dark Jedi or later Sith never at one point Jedi?
No, you are the one being a fanboy. Everything that doesn't support Kun's argument isn't conclusive or is "amorphous." Yet something like "darkest person in the galaxy" is definitive. Please.
They weren't Jedi for long, were they? Furthermore, there's no proof that they were the "later Jedi" meant in the quote.
Did it ever name a timeframe?
The short answer: No. Literary quotes are a positive unless modified. Dude, you suck at reading comics.
No you don't because you have no proof. Not even from your quotes. They don't read that the Ancients were the pinnacle of Force use, or anything similar.How is it logical to assume that because they were stronger than a vague "later Jedi" then they must be stronger than all later Jedi as well as force-users who are not Jedi?
You missed the logic again. You dodged it once again.
How is it logical if you twist around the params for anything?
You haven't conceded a single point, you've just decided it's necessary for you to bend everything to IKC's interpretation.
So I can say "darkest person in the galaxy" only indicates to a few "persons" in the Republic space of the galaxy. That means it's not even definitive that Kun was the baddest mofo, right?
Wrong, I don't follow what you think they mean. You think they're absolute proof of the superiority of the Ancient Sith over all other Force users. I don't. The quotes do not state such.
When you have quotes + logic in favor of the ancient Sith. You have contextless on-panel feats and your fanboy reasoning. GG.
I hope you understand that it read, "the (as in, definite article) darkest (read: there is none darker) power in the galaxy..." Please, tell me how that's not definitive.And I've never argued that Ragnos wasn't the most powerful individual of his time.
If I wanted to be like IKC's annoying arse, I could state it really only says "the darkest human race individual in Republic Space." There could well be darker individuals of other races, or they could be beyond the outer rim.
Funny, if you won't bother conceding valid points, this debate doesn't need to continue.
I've never stated that Naga was worthless just because it was his creations that enabled him to perform these feats. I have always given him credit for having created them. What I am trying to bring down to earth are our estimations of his, and by extension the rest of the Ancients, Force power. That's all.Aleema Keto is a she, by the way.
And you're not doing a good job, because you are attempting to assume the very lowest possible interpretation of their power and apply it as fact.
Is that logical? No.
Yeah, Aleema is a she, typo.
So if I understand you correctly, it reads in essence that Sadow's power is "titanic in comparison to later Jedi?"
Clear as day.
I've answered the same laundry-list in the other thread.
With worthless assumptions such as "well Kun has more force potential."
Where does it state Kun has more force potential? You can't attempt to slap away logic with bullshit reasoning, sorry.
My on-panel proof? I just thought of it.In DLotS, Exar Kun was unable to beat Vodo Baas in a fair duel. In TSW, he was able to slap Vodo around like an initiate. As well, he was able to kill a Jedi Master comparable to Vodo in Force power with a wave of his hand.
He grew more powerful, on-panel and narrative evidence dictates it.
The on-panel evidence shows Ulic growing stronger too, what makes you believe he grew stronger than Ulic? He has never demonstrated on-panel evidence that he's greater than Ulic.
If I wanted to be like IKC, I'd say you can't prove he is.
I threw out the possibility that they may have more Force potential, read more carefully. I didn't claim it. This entire debate started about the Ancient Sith. Exar Kun was dragged in as the best example, in my opinion, of a Force user who may be able to best them.
The possibility does not supercede the DEFINITIVE first order logic. Nadd and Kun definitively (your word) looted from the Sith Empire, they would naturally not have all, or be as proficient, as the leaders of the Sith Empire with their powers.
You arguing it's a "possibility" might as well be me saying there's a possibility that it rains outside. Irrelevant. There's also a possibility the ancient Sith had more force potential making the scales more lopsided. Without proof, the best you can hope for is a wash.
Fact.
And there's no reason to assume Ragnos could spit on DE Sidious.
There's no reason to assume the unquestioned leader, and clear most powerful of the golden Age of the Sith Empire would beat a later individual who scrounged for Sadow's amulet?
Don't forget that Sadow was under Ragnos' boot the entire time.
Temporal impossibilities are another argument, Illustrious. Try and keep them straight.I've not discounted the language, but I've pointed out it is not specific, nor is it universal. "Later Jedi" does mean "Jedi that came later," but which? Is it most of them? All? The quote doesn't answer this. As well, since it reads "Jedi" it doesn't apply to non-Jedi Force users. To argue that it does indicates bias.
No it doesn't.
If I say a particularly individual "eats like a pig." Is it logical to assume he eats a lot? Is it logical to assume he eats rather messily, or is not all that picky?
Yes. Because there is no modifier on a positive statement.
There is no modifier on the positive statement "later Jedi." The meaning all later Jedi is implied. To say it only refers to a few specific later Jedi is being truly biased.
Wow, do you want me to give you an English lesson too?
And it's also not a temporal impossibility that Sadow was titanic compared to all later Jedi. And I hope you know both the denotation and connotation of "titanic."
This is what you're doing by assuming that "later Jedi" means "all later Force users." It doesn't.
See above, your English comprehension blows.
If this quote was applied to Kun, you would not be arguing the point.
For the last time,I have never said the quote was false.
However, I have pointed out that it is vague and as such doesn't prove their superiority over specific individuals. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, I've made this argument throughout the entire post.
And the whole point is that it does.
Tell me, where the hell does it have a modifer for "later Jedi."
If you point it out to me, I'll concede it doesn't indicate all later Jedi. There is no modifier, it is a positive statement. Ergo it is absolute. English is your friend.
Nonsense, I just showed you clear, on-panel improvement above.
It still doesn't indicate he can beat Ulic. Now does it. Where's your on-panel evidence he beats Ulic?
Again, I answered the same laundry list in the other thread.
Again, with bullshit assumptions and speculation. Not viable. Next.
How could the Golden Age have been the peak of their imperial power? Palpatine's New Order easily was many times the size, wealth, and military strength of the old Sith Empire. I'm stating that, for the Sith as an organization, conditions were better in many ways under the New Order than the Golden Age.I don't dispute that the Golden Age was the height of their civilization. Power, though, I question.
How does political power indicate their power as individual force users?
How does one particular man who adopted the ideology of the Sith have more imperial power than the Sith Empire at their peak?
All of these feats are irrelevant in a fight. The point being made of the Golden Age is that it is the peak of their civilization, it is the peak of each individuals power and is the peak of the collective empire. If you want to argue this, you will need to go to the Golden Age and point it out.
The bottom line is you haven't established anything. You've attempted to discredit positive narration without any other modifier.
That screams bullshit ten times over. You can't even submit when you have your argument shredded. You can't even submit when logic indicates Sadow is superior to Kun, but instead you make up BS excuses for your inherent fanboyism such as "Well Kun may have had more force potential" or "Kun was able to master the Sith magics more than Sadow."
What a load of crap. Where in context does it mention that? It doesn't. Plain and simple, you have no argument besides attempting to twist around semantics that have no other modifier, and are ergo absolute. Sit down and next.