Originally posted by quanchi112
Is that canon or fanfic ?
Obviously if it were fanfiction he wouldn't have mentioned it. But yeah, the Sun Crusher is probably up there as far as superweapons go. It's small, as maneuverable as a starship, nearly indestructible (Turbolaser fire couldn't scratch it, it was destroyed by being thrown into a black hole iirc) and has the power to fire torpedoes that causes stars to go nova.
Originally posted by NewGuy01EU isn't canon anymore and I don't recall this. I haven't seen all of Star Wars rebels yet so it could be in there I guess.
Obviously if it were fanfiction he wouldn't have mentioned it. But yeah, the Sun Crusher is probably up there as far as superweapons go. It's small, as maneuverable as a starship, nearly indestructible (Turbolaser fire couldn't scratch it, it was destroyed by being thrown into a black hole iirc) and has the power to fire torpedoes that causes stars to go nova.
@Dave:
I know you don't like when people use "political correctness" as a measure for the validity of an argument. And in some cases, I agree; there are politically dangerous topics that nonetheless deserve a full hearing. But I hope that you can agree that there are some argumentative tactics that deserve to be shouted down because they are dishonest and deliberately hurtful. For example, let's look at this gem from Legend:
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So when is INCEST being legalized?
Now, I am perfectly capable of giving a careful, point by point discussion about how a gay relationship is different from an incestuous one. There are a number of factors ranging from psychological health to opportunity for abuse that distinguish incestuous relationships. The same can be said for other negative practices that are often brought up like pedophilia or bestiality. From a purely argument-based standpoint those are really very weak tactics for the anti-gay marriage crowd to use.
However, there is a rhetorical edge to these comparisons that is as profoundly emotion-based as the criteria of "political correctness" itself. Specifically, the anti-gay partisan who throws around these comparisons does so without using much page space. The insinuation that gay people are pedophiles, or engage in bestiality, or incest, is enough to tie the idea to those practices in the minds of the crowd. The proponent of gay rights can certainly counter the argument, but it is more difficult to counter an insinuation. To help prevent anti-gay arguments use these kind of emotional appeals, it is critical that the response also use emotional appeals. One of the most powerful such appeals is a reference to propriety. So lambasting an argument as being not-politically-correct is (usually) not done because it cannot be defeated rationally, but because it is using a sort of rhetorical poison that doesn't rely on argumentation. Politically incorrect terms are like dirty-bombs that spread filth even when their delivery is off-target.
I know you don't like when people use "political correctness" as a measure for the validity of an argument. And in some cases, I agree; there are politically dangerous topics that nonetheless deserve a full hearing. But I hope that you can agree that there are some argumentative tactics that deserve to be shouted down because they are dishonest and deliberately hurtful. For example, let's look at this gem from Legend:
Now, I am perfectly capable of giving a careful, point by point discussion about how a gay relationship is different from an incestuous one. There are a number of factors ranging from psychological health to opportunity for abuse that distinguish incestuous relationships. The same can be said for other negative practices that are often brought up like pedophilia or bestiality. From a purely argument-based standpoint those are really very weak tactics for the anti-gay marriage crowd to use.
It's used to elicit an emotional reaction, which is a tactic mostly used by the left and which I really dislike. Emotional arguments should not be used under any circumstance because they are usually devoid of logic. We are on the same page here. However, I would like to add my concern as to what happens with polygamy and marriage of multiple partners. Did we define marriage from "one man to one woman" to "two consenting adults"? And if so, is the next step "any number of consenting adults"? I mean that may seem like a slippery slope argument but I think it has some validity to it.
I would concede that this might be a concern ONLY if marriage was purely a social status symbol. Currently, however, marriage is a bundle of legal and financial and practical privileges that go above and beyond the social component. And while it is certainly true that civli partnerships address many of these concerns, civil partnerships lack the institutional force of a marriage contract.
So, for example, my partner's mom once asked if he was ever going to propose to me. At only 2 years that is really ridiculously early, right? Well, "it's only a civil union" she said. This seems to show that a marriage without the title is given a lesser amount of respect, which I imagine could carry over into immediate decisions under pressure made by doctors (for example).
I'm interested to see where polygamy ends up, too. That seems like a situation where the legal need for a contract is a little murkier. It might be the leverage point that convinces the government to get out of relationship contracts altogether and replace the legal side with a more flexible contract provision for joining any number (or gender) of people.
I agree with most of your point but the last one. I (and others who were originally opposed to same sex marriage) have conceded that the definition of marriage has changed from one man and woman woman to two people. I am not however, willing to concede that marriage should be redefined between any number of partners in love. That really is watering down the concept of marriage and I really do believe in the symbol of marriage. That MAY sounds ignorant but I would disagree. But this ruling did leave the door open to addressing this issue down the line.
No I don't think that is ignorant. Marriage in the social sense pretty much restricts itself to two people. The line I just used is basically a jab at people who want the gov out of marriage entirely (in order to protect churches). In that scenario, the legal benefits might be extended to multiple parties
I guess I just don't see why a couple would try to strong arm a church into performing a ceremony that's unwanted.
But I do think that legal protections for gay marriage stops well short of giving legal leverage against cake makers and gazebo receptions. So we'll find out how much hard (legal) power can do, and hope that the rest can be respectfully handled by soft (social) pressure as social norms change.