Dooku: The Image of Grey

I find your definition of "pure evil" to be a bit... ridiculous. Are you insinuating that, to be "pure evil", they must be stupid?

Pure evil, I view, as an impossibility. There can be no evil that threatens without it being compromised with a virtue. Pure evil would be a joke; composed entirely of cowardice, hatred at all things, hatred of itself, inability to act out laziness and sloth etc.,

Palpatine isn't evil because he is intelligent?

Isn't evil?

Sorry Jess, but I'd ask you look at what I actually typed. I said that Palpatine is evil, just that he isn't "pure evil."

Original quote by me:

Don't get me wrong, they are both evil, very much so actually, but not "pure evil," since they possess at least some traits looked high upon by society.

He values education, a trait undoubtedly looked upon by society. There is persistence in his actions, he's patient and to an extent, diligent in his devotion to the darkside.

A pure evil being would not possess any of those traits, since evil by definition is anything "causing ruin, injury, or pain." Last time I checked, patience, diligence, devotion, and persistence don't exactly fit the bill.

Simply because they possess traits that are considered "good" or "positive" by society means jack shit, especially when they use those "good" traits for evil ends.

Maybe, but that does not diminish the traits themselves. They are considered "good" and "desirable" in any individual.

Palpatine has his own abundance of vices, but he can't be considered a "pure incarnation of evil", because such a thing does not possess any virtue.

Pure evil, I view, as an impossibility. There can be no evil that threatens without it being compromised with a virtue. Pure evil would be a joke; composed entirely of cowardice, hatred at all things, hatred of itself, inability to act out laziness and sloth. It would be self destructive, to an extent.

Please. Palpatine was self-destructive, and an argument could be made that all Sith are that way. His arrogance led to his demise and the collapse of the Galactic Empire; in fact, his own actions led to his ruin moreso than any other person - Luke and Anakin included.

Isn't evil?

Sorry Jess, but I'd ask you look at what I actually typed. I said that Palpatine is evil, just that he isn't "pure evil."

And you're making a very poor argument for it.

He values education, a trait undoubtedly looked upon by society. There is persistence in his actions, he's patient and to an extent, diligent in his devotion to the darkside.

This is ridiculous, Zephiel. Simply because he bears traits that would be considered "good" or "productive" in a good person doesn't mean that he isn't pure evil.

A pure evil being would not possess any of those traits, since evil by definition is anything "causing ruin, injury, or pain." Last time I checked, patience, diligence, devotion, and persistence do not exactly fit the bill.

Palpatine used those so-called "good" traits to murder billions, engineer two wars, destroy an ancient order of peace-keeping Force users, conquere the greatest government in history, and initiate a totalitarian regime that oppressed the denizens of the galaxy for two decades.

Last time I checked, that would fit the bill for "pure evil".

Maybe, but that does not diminish that the traits themselves are bad. They are considered "good" and "desirable" in any individual.

That's stupid. I doubt any of Palpatine's enemies thought: "Hey, he's intelligent. That's good." Palpatine's intelligence and so on were assets that would earn him fear or respect but certainly not feelings of admiration from any sane person.

Palpatine has his own abundance of vices, but he can't be considered a "pure incarnation of evil", because such a thing does not possess any virtue.

In your opinion. Realistically, it makes no difference if someone of "pure evil" possesses any "virtues". If they use those virtues for evil ends, then it is more perverse.

Please. Palpatine was self-destructive, and an argument could be made that all Sith are that way. His arrogance led to his demise and the collapse of the Galactic Empire; in fact, his own actions led to his ruin moreso than any other person - Luke and Anakin included.

I removed self destructive because it wasn't really the right word I was looking for. More like, pure evil would not be able to spread itself because it does not have the required bravery to defy what is good. It is too scared, too lazy etc.,

And really, you're avoiding the point.

If he possessed no virtue (diligence, patience, ambition), how would he be able to construct a galactic empire in the first place?

Through reason alone, do you really believe a pure evil being, one that has no virtue whatsoever (omitting perserverance, and hard work), could possibly construct an empire? They would be a wreck, unable to get up out of fear and sloth. As I said, in order for evil to be threatening, it would have to be compromised by a virtue. Otherwise it would be a joke; unable to act due to sloth, fear, jealousy.

And you're making a very poor argument for it.

A poor argument is whatever you can't find a proper rebuttal for, eh Gideon? What type of pipe dream are you living in?

This is ridiculous, Zephiel. Simply because he bears traits that would be considered "good" or "productive" in a good person doesn't mean that he isn't pure evil.

Wrong. That he bears traits that are productive would make it an impossibility for him to be "pure evil."

Definition of pure: "Complete; utter: pure folly."

Definition of evil: Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful

I don't have to argue with your insipid notions since the definitions of the words which you use to describe Palpatine speak for themselves. Pure implies "complete; utter" whereas evil represents "morally wrong, causing ruin, injury, or pain."

Palpatine is not utterly devoid of his share of virtues. Dilegence, patience, and devotion are good traits, hence he cannot be considered pure evil, under the definition of what evil currently is.

Get. It. Through. Your. Head.

Palpatine used those so-called "good" traits to murder billions, engineer two wars, destroy an ancient order of peace-keeping Force users, conquere the greatest government in history, and initiate a totalitarian regime that oppressed the denizens of the galaxy for two decades.

And how would he conquer the government if he possessed no ability to recognize his goals through perseverance, and ambition. That he did all those things automatically excludes him from what the English language defines as "pure evil."

That Palpatine did kill thousands of people highlights that he is evil, very much so, but not that he is "pure evil."

That's stupid. I doubt any of Palpatine's enemies thought: "Hey, he's intelligent. That's good."Palpatine's intelligence and so on were assets that would earn him fear or respect but certainly not feelings of admiration from any sane person.

No because his virtues are by and far hidden by his vices. There's obviously much to despise about Palpatine, that masks whatever little virtue that he possesses. Nevertheless, that universal virtue still exists.

In your opinion. Realistically, it makes no difference if someone of "pure evil" possesses any "virtues". If they use those virtues for evil ends, then it is more perverse.

Oh yes, they are evil. But the "pure evil" being that you think Palpatine is can't be attributed for under what the definition of "pure" and "evil" are in the current English language.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Now while Lucas did not paint the portrait that well in the movies, we learn very well in the EU that Dooku is not "evil" in the Sith tradition. He's not a Palpatine...but he's not a Yoda, either. I felt he was portrayed and explored the best out of most any character in the Era. A character who can be argued to be virtuous and noble by one person and despicable and evil by another is my kind of character.

In fact, let's discuss this point. What do you think Dooku as? Good? Evil? What proof do you have of either?

Very good. There are more greys than Dooku though.

I have no idea why you people are overanalyzing a simple concept. Sidious was THE personification of evil, ok? There were some such as the ancient sith, Nadd, and Kun, that came close, but Sidious defines evil. Dooku does NOT.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
[B] THE personification of evil, ok?

Under the strict English definition of "pure" and "evil"? You'd be hard pressed to argue that, dude.

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
Count Dooku wasn't evil, he genuinely felt that what he was doing was for the good of The Galaxy, and while he had to do a few bad things on the way, he did feel remorse for the bad things he had to do, so no, he wasn't evil.

Are you ****ing stupid? Dooku happily had people slaughtered by the millions and made Grievous solely to take the fall for it

Originally posted by zephiel7
Under the strict English definition of "pure" and "evil"? You'd be hard pressed to argue that, dude.

You're overanalyzing dude. If Sidious wasn't the epitome of pure evil, I don't know any fictional character that was. Unless you want to start arguing world leaders.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You're overanalyzing dude. If Sidious wasn't the epitome of pure evil, I don't know any fictional character that was. Unless you want to start arguing world leaders.

Satan is probably the closest.

Even that is somewhat contradicting, due to his "courage" (or maybe stupidity is more the word for it) to defy God.

EDIT: I was also, in no way implying God is fictional btw.

Satan, as evil as he is, adheres to certain standards, I believe. Sidious has no such standards. He kills without mercy or thought.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Satan, as evil as he is, adheres to certain standards, I believe. Sidious has no such standards. He kills without mercy or thought.

Well in traditional Judeo-Christian belief, isn't Lucifer/Satan the cause of all things "dark and nasty?" I suppose, if that were true, in SW, he IS the closest thing to a living breathing darkside.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Are you ****ing stupid? Dooku happily had people slaughtered by the millions and made Grievous solely to take the fall for it

What part of 'the end justifies the means' don't you get?

Originally posted by zephiel7
Well in traditional Judeo-Christian belief, isn't Lucifer/Satan the cause of all things "dark and nasty?" I suppose, if that were true, in SW, he IS the closest thing to a living breathing darkside.

That's more of a Christian belief because Satan doesn't exactly exist in Judaism, or at least not in the way that you think. In Judaism Satan is just another angel and servant of god, mixed with Demons, or in Judaism they are referred to as the "Ayin Harrah", or evil inclinations. Anyways, Sidious is basically Satan in the SW universe.

Ends justifying means isn't what we call being good or noble. If the ends are peace and you start happily butchering planets' worth of populations to attain it? Congrats, you're evil.

Palpatine wanted to bring peace and end corruption. Going to argue he's not evil?

I removed self destructive because it wasn't really the right word I was looking for. More like, pure evil would not be able to spread itself because it does not have the required bravery to defy what is good. It is too scared, too lazy etc.,

I believe that someone [you, just in case you miss the implications] has become entrenched in subjectivity. You do not define "what is a good trait" and what isn't and expect others to adhere to it. I am of the perception that decisions and how people use their talents or virtues defines their character. Simply because someone is intelligent or because someone is patient doesn't mean that they are any bit "good". If that is your belief, then you're welcome to it, but do not expect to tell me that I am wrong, because you have no evidence to support a "moral debate" and pass off your conclusion as fact.

If he possessed no virtue (diligence, patience, ambition), how would he be able to construct a galactic empire in the first place?

Are you an idiot, Zephiel [that's a rhetorical question, by the way]? I have not denied for a second that Sidious didn't possess your so-called "virtues". I simply am arguing that that, in no way, makes him "good" or even slightly so.

Through reason alone, do you really believe a pure evil being, one that has no virtue whatsoever (omitting perserverance, and hard work), could possibly construct an empire? They would be a wreck, unable to get up out of fear and sloth. As I said, in order for evil to be threatening, it would have to be compromised by a virtue. Otherwise it would be a joke; unable to act due to sloth, fear, jealousy

Since when has it been a fact that "pure evil" is virtueless? I consider virtues to be honesty and integrity - things that, when people truly possess - cannot be used in evil methods. You consider "perseverance" and "patience" to be virtues, I don't. Not in the manner that you consider them to be.

A poor argument is whatever you can't find a proper rebuttal for, eh Gideon? What type of pipe dream are you living in?

No, Zephiel, a "poor argument" is anything that you type.

Wrong. That he bears traits that are productive would make it an impossibility for him to be "pure evil."

No, you are wrong. He possesses traits that can be productive [and by "productive", I mean for positive ends]. Sidious himself never used his intelligence, patience, or "dilligence" to better society or the galaxy. He did it for selfish, murderous, maniacal reasons.

Definition of pure: "Complete; utter: pure folly."

Definition of evil: Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful

Glad to know you've learned two new words, Zephiel. I suppose your lexicon now surpasses twelve words?

I don't have to argue with your insipid notions since the definitions of the words which you use to describe Palpatine speak for themselves. Pure implies "complete; utter" whereas evil represents "morally wrong, causing ruin, injury, or pain."

And you can be "completely morally wrong" or "causing complete pain or injury", considering how Palpatine's actions didn't spur a bit of productivity or positivity. All that occured from it was an influx in the mortality rate, another war, and more lives scarred.

Palpatine is not utterly devoid of his share of virtues. Dilegence, patience, and devotion are good traits, hence he cannot be considered pure evil, under the definition of what evil currently is.

Again, when has "pure evil" been defined as evil without traits, talents, or your so-called "virtues"?

Get. It. Through. Your. Head.

Get. Your. Head. Out. Of. Your. Ass.

And how would he conquer the government if he possessed no ability to recognize his goals through perseverance, and ambition. That he did all those things automatically excludes him from what the English language defines as "pure evil."

No, it doesn't. Palpatine possessed remarkable skill that he directed towards selfish, evil ends. Using your logic, he took what was "pure" (patience, ambition, ect) and used them for evil ends. If taking something "good" and completely destroying it and using it against what they were meant to be used for (which Sidious was skilled at doing) isn't a more perverse sign of evil, then I simply suppose "evil" doesn't exist in the Wonderfully Stupid World of Zephiel.

That Palpatine did kill thousands of people highlights that he is evil, very much so, but not that he is "pure evil."

Try indirectly causing the deaths of billions (in Alderaan alone), through his policies. Not even begin to tabulating his direct actions. Palpatine's manipulations did nothing but scar people.

No because his virtues are by and far hidden by his vices. There's obviously much to despise about Palpatine, that masks whatever little virtue that he possesses. Nevertheless, that universal virtue still exists.

He used his talents - which society has deemed to be potentially positive - (calling them virtues, I conclude is a stretch) for evil ends. He is pure evil. He utilized what ever "positive" nature was in him and completely manhandled it for selfish purposes. That isn't good. That is the absence of virtue.

Zephiel, by your logic, Hitler, who was described as a genius and an incredible speaker beyond his time, was somehow good?

Zephiel: Everything you've listed is just a neutral trait...intelligence, patience, dilligence...they're tools to be used.

Precisely, you two. Simply because one is "highly intelligent" or "highly patient" doesn't mean that they have a bit of "good-ness" (stupid word, I know, but nothing that encompasses the whole thing), in the same way that someone who isn't highly intelligent or isn't highly patient isn't "evil".

Intelligence and patience are traits that, when used properly and positively, bear proper and positive results. Palpatine did not use his vast intellect or patience in a proper, positive manner. He used them for selfish and destructive means - and the fact that Palpatine could have used these traits to yield positive results does not detract from the horrors that he orchestrated and the crimes he committed.

Simply because someone is intelligent or because someone is patient doesn't mean that they are any bit "good".

What you sadly are incapable of grasping is I am not arguing out of a sense of perceptions, but on what the words actually mean. You referred to Sidious as pure evil, and as per strict semantics exuding your romantic notions that is simply not true.

Are you an idiot, Zephiel [that's a rhetorical question, by the way]? I have not denied for a second that Sidious didn't possess your so-called "virtues".

Your insipid and moronic posts seem to imply that he did not.

I simply am arguing that that, in no way, makes him "good" or even slightly so.

Insomuch as he possesses such a quality, a quality that is not immoral or "Morally bad or wrong; wicked," he cannot be pure evil. Someone pure evil, "consisting of nothing but evil" would possess only evil qualities.

Since when has it been a fact that "pure evil" is virtueless?

The words "pure" and "evil" (you know, the meaning for absence of virtue) make it rather self evident....dumbass.

I consider virtues to be honesty and integrity - things that, when people truly possess - cannot be used in evil methods. You consider "perseverance" and "patience" to be virtues, I don't. Not in the manner that you consider them to be.

Nevertheless, something that is "pure evil" doesn't possess anything except those qualities that are evil. That is how the words were defined. If you had any bit of sense in that sadly lacking brain, perhaps you would understand the meaning and prevent this idiotic charade of yours from continuing.

No, Zephiel, a "poor argument" is anything that you type.

Coming from a complete simpleton like you, who avoids the point and cannot understand the definition of two simple words in the english language, I'm only glad that you don't consider my arguments cogent.

No, you are wrong. He possesses traits that can be productive [and by "productive", I mean for positive ends]. Sidious himself never used his intelligence, patience, or "dilligence" to better society or the galaxy. He did it for selfish, murderous, maniacal reasons.
I'm a complete and utter idiot

Well lets see Gideon. Is Sidious slothful? No he is not, he created the Galactic Empire, therefore such a vice is absent in him.

But wait, Sloth is a sin, an evil trait. Sidious does not possess such a vice. Therefore, he cannot be "pure evil," since he does not possess every single sin (vice). Pure means completely and utterly, therefore he lacks the capacity to be "pure evil."

It appears folks, that Gideon sadly was not able to pass fifth grade. Do yourself a favour, Gids, and repeat elementary school. Maybe you can at least get a basic understanding of the two words.

Glad to know you've learned two new words, Zephiel. I suppose your lexicon now surpasses twelve words?

No, I just typed it out so even a person of your rather poor reasoning abilities can comprehend their definitions.

Again, when has "pure evil" been defined as evil without traits, talents, or your so-called "virtues"?

Since the two words were defined that way! Pure "evil" implies that Sidious would also be slothful. The epitome of sloth [pure], actually. As per the definition of evil, a morally wrong act, sloth is included. In fact, its a capital sin! Does Sidious possess it? No Gideon, therefore, - I hope your sad reasoning abilities can pick this up - Sidious is not pure evil.

Get. Your. Head. Out. Of. Your. Ass.

Exactly what I would expect an imbecile like yourself to say. Did I not make it clear that I was arguing as per the definition of the two words. Sidious is evil, but it would be wrong as per semantics to state he is "pure evil."

No, it doesn't. Palpatine possessed remarkable skill that he directed towards selfish, evil ends. Using your logic, he took what was "pure" (patience, ambition, ect) and used them for evil ends. If taking something "good" and completely destroying it and using it against what they were meant to be used for (which Sidious was skilled at doing) isn't a more perverse sign of evil

Time and time you've proven your idiocy.

It's effective evil, you moron. Its using a virtue in order to propagate itself. It isn't "pure evil," because pure evil would include an amoral trait such a sloth, by it's very definition. You missed it the first time I typed it. You're not exactly the brightest lightbulb around, are you?

Try indirectly causing the deaths of billions (in Alderaan alone), through his policies. Not even begin to tabulating his direct actions. Palpatine's manipulations did nothing but scar people.

That makes him evil, but that cannot make him pure evil. There was obviously a sense of courage that he had in order to fight against the entirety of the Jedi order. If he were dominated, say by the seven capital sins (we'll use the catholic basis for classifying an immoral act), one of his evil vices would not even enable him to act. Hell, if he were the absence of all that is good, he would not have the courage to act.

He used his talents - which society has deemed to be potentially positive - (calling them virtues, I conclude is a stretch) for evil ends. He is pure evil.

I don't care about your definitions. I am arguing out of a literal interpretation of what the words "pure" and "evil" mean. It seems you failed to notice that (although I wouldn't be surprised why, you don't seem to always have the best reading comprehension.)

What a joke

Has this philosophical debate upset you, Zephiel? I seem to recall you crucifying me for bashing SW_LeGenD, a few weeks to go, citing people ["assholes", actually] like me as "the reason you left KMC". I find it oh-so-ironic that you engage in similar actions when provoked or when upset. How hypocritical of you.

What a way to go from "hollier-than-thou" to "just-as-bad", lmao.

What you sadly are incapable of grasping is I am not arguing out of a sense of perceptions, but on what the words actually mean. You referred to Sidious as pure evil, and as per strict semantics exuding your romantic notions that is simply not true.

The words themselves have multiple [that means more than one, by the way] definitions. In this particular context, I am arguing that Sidious is "pure" (completely) "evil" (bad), and based on the accurate representation that the Star Wars mythos has provided for us, he is.

Your insipid and moronic posts seem to imply that he did not.

You comment on my intelligence, and then base half of your argument on an implication? Just so we're clear, this is an Internet forum: where statements are misread and misconceived by the very minute. Don't base a conclusion off of an "implication", Zephiel. Next time, ask for further clarity, and you shall receive it. It'll spare you from looking like a dumbass.

Insomuch as he possesses such a quality, a quality that is not immoral or "Morally bad or wrong; wicked," he cannot be pure evil. Someone pure evil, "consisting of nothing but evil" would possess only evil qualities.

You and I differ of opinion. I do not cite "qualities" in themselves as good or evil, with the exception of a few (honesty, ect). Intelligence is a quality that can be utilized for both good and evil ends. It is the manner in which they are used that defines them. Or have you never heard of the age-old parable that it is our decisions and choices that define us as people?

The words "pure" and "evil" (you know, the meaning for absence of virtue) make it rather self evident....dumbass.

That's funny. My Dictionary and Dictionary.com don't have "absence of virtue" as a definition listed for evil.

Nevertheless, something that is "pure evil" doesn't possess anything except those qualities that are evil. That is how the words were defined. If you had any bit of sense in that sadly lacking brain, perhaps you would understand the meaning and prevent this idiotic charade of yours from continuing.

Just so we're clear, this "sadly lacking brain" is considered to be the mind behind some of the best arguments on this forum. It's funny how, save for a handful of times, your name never crops up on the "best debater list". Qualities such as "intelligence" cannot be defined as innately good or evil.

Well lets see Gideon. Is Sidious slothful? No he is not, he created the Galactic Empire, therefore such a vice is absent in him.

Actually, one could make an argument that Sidious exhibited sloth in his lack of regard for the Rebellion until after the first Death Star was destroyed - and, by then, of course - they became a major threat to his reign. So, no, Zephiel, "sloth" is not absent about him.

But wait, Sloth is a sin, an evil trait. Sidious does not possess such a vice. Therefore, he cannot be "pure evil," since he does not possess every single sin (vice). Pure means completely and utterly, therefore he lacks the capacity to be "pure evil."

It appears folks, that Gideon sadly was not able to pass fifth grade. Do yourself a favour, Gids, and repeat elementary school. Maybe you can at least get a basic understanding of the two words.

Well, considering how I am only 15-years-old, and yet - regarded as a more capable debater than yourself - I'd say I'm doing rather well.

No, I just typed it out so even a person of your rather poor reasoning abilities can comprehend their definitions.

Excuses, excuses, Zephiel... they say that honesty is the best policy.

Since the two words were defined that way! Pure "evil" implies that Sidious would also be slothful. The epitome of sloth [pure], actually. As per the definition of evil, a morally wrong act, sloth is included. In fact, its a capital sin! Does Sidious possess it? No Gideon, therefore, - I hope your sad reasoning abilities can pick this up - Sidious is not pure evil.

...Except that Sidious has exhibited "sloth" before. In fact, I could make an argument that he has exhibited all of the seven deadly sins.

Exactly what I would expect an imbecile like yourself to say. Did I not make it clear that I was arguing as per the definition of the two words. Sidious is evil, but it would be wrong as per semantics to state he is "pure evil."

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Time and time you've proven your idiocy.

Perhaps, but, as I have stated before, it would seem that the general "public" seems to regard that I've proven my intellect more than anything...

It's effective evil, you moron. Its using a virtue in order to propagate itself. It isn't "pure evil," because pure evil would include an amoral trait such a sloth, by it's very definition. You missed it the first time I typed it. You're not exactly the brightest lightbulb around, are you?

Sidious has exhibited sloth before. He is pure evil.

That makes him evil, but that cannot make him pure evil. There was obviously a sense of courage that he had in order to fight against the entirety of the Jedi order. If he were dominated, say by the seven capital sins (we'll use the catholic basis for classifying an immoral act), one of his evil vices would not even enable him to act. Hell, if he were the absence of all that is good, he would not have the courage to act.

Qualities such as "intelligence and courage" are not, necessarily, "good" things. It depends on the manner in which they are used, and Sidious used potentially positive traits to yield destructive results.

I don't care about your definitions. I am arguing out of a literal interpretation of what the words "pure" and "evil" mean. It seems you failed to notice that (although I wouldn't be surprised why, you don't seem to always have the best reading comprehension.)

Your insults slash and tear at my very soul, Zephiel.

What a joke

This is precisely what I think of, when I see you debate, Zephiel.