Dooku: The Image of Grey

as 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.

No Gideon, because unlike Legend, you decided to provoke. There are such things as uncalled and called for insults. When your being an ass, be prepared to be treated like one.

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.

Perhaps you should read what we are discussing before entering and deciding to throw what I consider "flame bait." If you don't want to be considered an idiot, then stop acting like a tool and calling what other people assert as being 'ridiculous" or "stupid". You will provoke a response.

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 I do not cite "qualities" in themselves as good or evil, with the exception of a few (honesty, ect).

When is sloth good? Envy? Would something that displays hard work be considered "pure evil." To state that something is pure evil despite exhibiting something that is contrary to sloth (hence the not pure part coming in), is to twist the very definition of "pure."

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

You see, that would be the definition for pure evil. Evil is "morally bad/wrong." Pure evil is " completely, 100% morally bad, wrong." If a specific metaphysical characteristic is morally wrong, it means all virtue is absent from it. Therefore pure evil would be the absence of of any form of virtue and possessing all vice. Something that is "purely morally wrong" - so to speak - implies that it is absent of virtue - "0% morals/virtue."

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".

Well lets see. You post, how many times? 3885, ZOMG, you got like da no life. Me, I have posted on this forum 1560 times. It seems you have a little less than 3 times as many posts as me. If I wanted to make a name for myself and beat you in whatever argument, I would. I however, have a life to attend to, you see.

Qualities such as "intelligence" cannot be defined as innately good or evil.

A "pure evil" villain likely does not possess intelligence because they are too "slothful" to think.

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.

Maybe he is slothful, and yes, that means he has a vice which contributes to the outlook that he is evil. But pure would mean he is "utterly and completely" slothful, aka, "all the time." If he is "pure evil," he is the epitome of what sloth is and therefore exemplifies that vice all the time. He doesn't, as should be evident how he created the Empire in the first place.

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.

Funny. I don't seem to recall any argument where you've actually outdebated me. Bullshit much? And the fact that you would be considered a "better debater" is probably attributed to the very fact that you have posted on these forums at least twice as much.

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

I was being honest. You were being an idiot.

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

Ah, that's the thing. He has exhibited it, so that would imply that he is evil. He is not pure evil, because in order to be pure evil he would have to be the epitome of sloth. He would not be able to move because such a vice compels him not to. He would have to be the epitome of cowardice or the complete absence of "courage(or even foolhardiness)." He, of course, is not.

Sidious has exhibited sloth before. He is pure evil.

Last I checked, Sidious was not "utterly slothful," what a "completely evil" being should be. Therefore, he cannot be defined as "pure evil."

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 kow whether this is your opinon or what, but honestly, even a preschooler, regards courage as something moral; its good. Courage, also known as fortitude, is the ability to confront fear, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation. It can be divided into "physical courage" — in face of physical pain, hardship, and threat of death — and "moral courage" — in the face of shame, scandal, and discouragement. as per Catholics. In fact, it's a cardinal virtue.

Sidious was displaying a virtue that enabled him to propagate vice. If he were absent of such a virtue (immoral--> one of the definitions of evil, "pure evil"😉 then he would not be able to propagate his vices since he would be too afraid to do so. He would nevertheless be hateful, and bitter, but he would be a pitiful joke. He's an effective form of evil, that occasionally comprimises vice for virtue in order to spread more vice.

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

This coming from the guy who didn't bother to look up the definition of "pure" or "evil" before entering. Keep going under the delusion that you are a good debater.

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

No man. But he was certainly hard working to get what he wanted, and yes he was an evil, evil, - did I mention evil?- man. Just not of the "pure" variety.

Anyways, I have my exam week coming up soon, so I am off to study. If anyone is so inclined, we can continue this pointless charade after.

No Gideon, because unlike Legend, you decided to provoke. There are such things as uncalled and called for insults. When your being an ass, be prepared to be treated like one.

This doesn't excuse anything, Zephiel. Supposedly, you are both older and more mature than myself. Assuming that I did provoke you, and one could easily argue that you also initiated provocation, you have failed to express your collosal maturity. In fact, you have made the most insults on this thread, bar none. Really. Don't piss and moan about people being an "*******" if you're going to turn around and act like one yourself. That's when you become a hypocrite and where you fail to act more mature than an adolescent such as myself. Really, dude. Outstanding.

Perhaps you should read what we are discussing before entering and deciding to throw what I consider "flame bait." If you don't want to be considered an idiot, then stop acting like a tool and calling what other people assert as being 'ridiculous" or "stupid". You will provoke a response.

Calling your argument ridiculous warrants a full post of flame with an occasional rebuttal? Notice how I didn't call you stupid, Zephiel, but rather your argument. Not until you provoked me. You like to take the moral high ground in most cases, as shown with LeGenD, but in this case? You're in quicksand. My advice would be to omit the insults from further posts (including the response to this) and you won't have to deal with my remarks.

When is sloth good? Envy? Would something that displays hard work be considered "pure evil." To state that something is pure evil despite exhibiting something that is contrary to sloth (hence the not pure part coming in), is to twist the very definition of "pure."

I never said that exhibiting "sloth" was good. I never said exhibiting "envy" was good. I said that qualities such as intelligence (which I consider to be mental or psychological moreso than "personality"😉 could not be labeled "good" or "bad" unless they are used for positive or negative purposes.

You see, that would be the definition for pure evil. Evil is "morally bad/wrong." Pure evil is " completely, 100% morally bad, wrong." If a specific metaphysical characteristic is morally wrong, it means all virtue is absent from it. Therefore pure evil would be the absence of of any form of virtue and possessing all vice. Something that is "purely morally wrong" - so to speak - implies that it is absent of virtue - "0% morals/virtue."

This all comes down to the fact that you and I express different opinions on what is "good" and what is "bad". You label certain qualities such as intelligence and patience to be automatically good, whereas I believe that they are only "good" when used in a positive manner.

Well lets see. You post, how many times? 3885, ZOMG, you got like da no life. Me, I have posted on this forum 1560 times. It seems you have a little less than 3 times as many posts as me. If I wanted to make a name for myself and beat you in whatever argument, I would. I however, have a life to attend to, you see

Let's compare: I'm a 15-year-old kid in high school. You're a post-high-schooler (am I right?) with college courses with an adult life. I have no such restraints on my schedule, yet. However, assuming that I have no life is - quite frankly - beyond your comprehension. You don't know me. In addition, I would personally say that I have a very strong social life. Furthermore, I assume that Ushgarak and REX (who have made far more posts than I have) also have no life? What about Darth Sexy or Lightsnake? Or, in fact, have you made a stupid assertion in an attempt to insult me? Pick your words carefully.

A "pure evil" villain likely does not possess intelligence because they are too "slothful" to think.

Nothing indicates that "sloth" - even from a pure villain - would encompass thoughts. To be quite technical, if one lacks thoughts, one has no mental capacity. One is virtually dead. Palpatine was quite alive.

Maybe he is slothful, and yes, that means he has a vice which contributes to the outlook that he is evil. But pure would mean he is "utterly and completely" slothful, aka, "all the time." If he is "pure evil," he is the epitome of what sloth is and therefore exemplifies that vice all the time. He doesn't, as should be evident how he created the Empire in the first place.

In addition, Palpatine didn't run the Empire by himself. He had dozens of aids and advisors, Vader, and so-forth. He gave them the latitude to act in horrific, horrendous, and extremely excessive ways to ensure that the Empire remained dominant. Tarkin's destruction of Alderaan comes to mind.

Funny. I don't seem to recall any argument where you've actually outdebated me. Bullshit much? And the fact that you would be considered a "better debater" is probably attributed to the very fact that you have posted on these forums at least twice as much.

Well, also to be quite technical, you coming to the conclusion that I haven't outdebated you is about the same as me coming to the conclusion that you haven't outdebated me. We're human, you don't have any authority or superiority over me, or I over you, so it really amounts to "jack shit" if you think I haven't outdebated you. The fact remains that, apparently, others have thought so.

That's not even getting into your posts on EoD. The point is, Zephiel, that you're not as respected as you'd like to think. And, here, certainly not above me. Now, perhaps you're right, and you are better, and the only reason I'm thought to be "superior" is due to my stronger activity. I didn't argue that. I basically commited a cardinal sin of debating and successfully appealed to the majority, which was my intent.

I was being honest. You were being an idiot.

Again, you telling me that I'm an idiot is the same as me saying that you are an idiot. If you expect me to adhere to it, you'd better get in touch with God and get his opinion on it.

Ah, that's the thing. He has exhibited it, so that would imply that he is evil. He is not pure evil, because in order to be pure evil he would have to be the epitome of sloth. He would not be able to move because such a vice compels him not to. He would have to be the epitome of cowardice or the complete absence of "courage(or even foolhardiness)." He, of course, is not.

We can debate this all the time. One could interpret it that "pure evil" is simply someone or something that exhibits all evil or is capable of all evil things.

Last I checked, Sidious was not "utterly slothful," what a "completely evil" being should be. Therefore, he cannot be defined as "pure evil."

Again, it depends on how you interpret it. Pure evil implies that he or she is completely evil. Not in "a complete state of all the facets of evil".

I don't kow whether this is your opinon or what, but honestly, even a preschooler, regards courage as something moral; its good. Courage, also known as fortitude, is the ability to confront fear, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation. It can be divided into "physical courage" — in face of physical pain, hardship, and threat of death — and "moral courage" — in the face of shame, scandal, and discouragement. as per Catholics. In fact, it's a cardinal virtue.

Bravery can be a tool for evil purposes. If a brave person is evil, that means that they use the trait itself for destructive ends, which - in turn - defies the "morality" of the thing itself. Making it, thus, evil.

Sidious was displaying a virtue that enabled him to propagate vice. If he were absent of such a virtue (immoral--> one of the definitions of evil, "pure evil"😉 then he would not be able to propagate his vices since he would be too afraid to do so. He would nevertheless be hateful, and bitter, but he would be a pitiful joke. He's an effective form of evil, that occasionally comprimises vice for virtue in order to spread more vice.

He uses these so-called "virtues" (again, I don't know why you bother to call them that) for destructive, evil ends, and at the end of the long, vicious cycle, makes the things themselves evil. At least in his case. Thus, yes, he is a creature of pure evil.

This coming from the guy who didn't bother to look up the definition of "pure" or "evil" before entering. Keep going under the delusion that you are a good debater.

Right. Actually, I never said that I was. I said that others considered me as much; I assume that you simply thought that I implied that I was a good debater. You're making a habit of misreading my statements into implications of my superiority. And, as I've said before, "there are multiple definitions of pure and evil", thus proving that I have successfully defined both.

Anyways, you responded about the Christian religion (and specifically mentioned Catholicism, I think). One of the first things that a Christian is indoctrinated in is that God - an all-powerful entity of "pure good" - is a jealous God. Jealousy/envy is a sin, is it not? Are we to assume, then, that since God possesses an attribute that "society looks down upon" or is a "bad quality" that he is not pure good?

I hardly think so.

Originally posted by Gideon
Now, perhaps you're right, and you are better, and the only reason I'm thought to be "superior" is due to my stronger activity.

I really don't see how that's necessarily true. While the number of posts you make does play a substantial role (in that if you don't display your "skill", how will anyone know you actually have any?), it really isn't a defining reason for the rankings most of the members use.

For example, I'm named as being one of the best debaters ever whenever there's a discussion about it, or a list being made. And, I've always been noted as above you, zephiel, yet I only have 500 more posts (and back when there was a huge classification of all the then current debaters, I had even less; plus, a number of my replies are attributed in the RP forum).

Another example would be IKC, who's actually made slightly less posts than you, was still placed above you, and others who've made (not so) countless more.

Although, like Gideon said, it's appeal to the majority, ergo it doesn't account for much, but it does say something about the possibility of such.

Oh, I think there is (at the very, very least) a definite positibility that Zephiel is better than myself. To be quite honest, he has me beaten on the current issue regarding Jacen Solo. I have found only one or two passages that would be of assistance (but one is really good), and I find myself waiting for further evidence to reveal itself.

My only concern with him is that he's a bit of a hypocrite.

In my opinion, you're the best. You're selective, but the best.

Originally posted by Gideon
You're selective, but the best.

Thanks, but what do you mean by "selective"?

Sorry, my computer was being a little whore. What I mean by selective is that you don't argue on every other thread; you pick certain ones. The only pattern I've detected is that you bring your presence to threads with an overabundance of stupidity. But that's a working theory.

Anyways, I'm getting off for a bit (and then probably heading to bed). But if you've got more questions, I'll probably be on MSN for another hour or so. But that should answer it sufficiently. 😛

Originally posted by Lightsnake
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.

Not really. If, in one's perspective, it is the only/best way to achieve a greater good, then why not? And please, stop with this 'happily' bs, Dooku quite clearly felt remorse for all the bad things he had done, which is made quite clear in Dark Rendezvous (his own private intimate thoughts).

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

Did we watch the same movies? Palpatine wanted power, and to bully The Galaxy into becoming his own personal playground. Really, what are you talking about, where the hell is it indicated that he genuinely wanted peace or the end of corruption? There's also the fact that Palpatine took pleasure in doing all the bad things he did. Dooku didn't.

Edit - For the record, I rate Zephiel, he's the fourth best debater currently here imho, and I'm pretty good at judging things like that.

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
Edit - For the record, I rate Zephiel, he's the fourth best debater currently here imho, and I'm pretty good at judging things like that.

Who's the third, second, and first then, CAC?

I'll tell you if you tell me what CAC stands for.

😆

Somehow I knew you would say something like that.

CAC = Create-A-Character. It's just a video game term for games where you can create, and fully customize your character (well, obviously -- the name is self explainatory). I was using it in reference to the fact "Apollo Cloud" is a name you've used on some Star Wars RPs.

Fine, don't tell me then, be like that. Anyways, the list goes a little something like this:

1. Advent Killed Commies. 😂 (jk, I know you're not IKC, I'll stop doing that now)

2. AcStyles.

3. Gideon.

Edit - Lol ok, just saw that post, seems I need to learn to refresh more.

This doesn't excuse anything, Zephiel. Supposedly, you are both older and more mature than myself. Assuming that I did provoke you, and one could easily argue that you also initiated provocation, you have failed to express your collosal maturity. In fact, you have made the most insults on this thread, bar none. Really. Don't piss and moan about people being an "*******" if you're going to turn around and act like one yourself. That's when you become a hypocrite and where you fail to act more mature than an adolescent such as myself. Really, dude. Outstanding.

No dude, I admit that I acted out this time...I am in a bit of stress and wasting time isn't really the right way to rectify the probelm. It just seems, Jessiah, among everyone in these forums, you have a personal vendetta against everything I do. Your a bright guy and I would assume thre is a reason for your reputation, but I get the impression you really dont like me. You can empathize why I would not like a person that does not really like me, no?

And really, I am not that much older than you. I'm 18. I'm generally pleasant, ask anyone on this thread. Hell, PM Lightsnake right now, he'll guarantee that I'm nice guy. We disagree on plenty of points, but we can understand each others differences in views and see the logic behind why we think or do what we do.

Calling your argument ridiculous warrants a full post of flame with an occasional rebuttal? Notice how I didn't call you stupid, Zephiel, but rather your argument. Not until you provoked me. You like to take the moral high ground in most cases, as shown with LeGenD, but in this case? You're in quicksand. My advice would be to omit the insults from further posts (including the response to this) and you won't have to deal with my remarks.

Duly noted.

I never said that exhibiting "sloth" was good. I never said exhibiting "envy" was good. I said that qualities such as intelligence (which I consider to be mental or psychological moreso than "personality"😉 could not be labeled "good" or "bad" unless they are used for positive or negative purposes.

I respect your opinon. But I am of the opinion that intelligence is trait that can only be present in an individual due to an absence of sloth.

Let's compare: I'm a 15-year-old kid in high school. You're a post-high-schooler (am I right?) with college courses with an adult life. I have no such restraints on my schedule, yet. However, assuming that I have no life is - quite frankly - beyond your comprehension. You don't know me. In addition, I would personally say that I have a very strong social life. Furthermore, I assume that Ushgarak and REX (who have made far more posts than I have) also have no life? What about Darth Sexy or Lightsnake? Or, in fact, have you made a stupid assertion in an attempt to insult me? Pick your words carefully.

Again, my initial post was unbecoming. I apologize.

About Rex and all the others, they have been here for a long time, and Sexy and Lightsnake seem to make a lot of short posts (usually bashing the hell out of each other).

In Grade 10 I was all about "playing games/on the internet 50%" of the time, so I can see where you are coming from though. I just recently got involved with message boards in my graduating year, so I haven't really been able to show up all the time.

Nothing indicates that "sloth" - even from a pure villain - would encompass thoughts.

Sloth implies "aversion to work." Nothing defines sloth as purely relegated to physical work, it could very much be "aversion to mental work," which doesn't really fit the bill, as Palpatine was always thinking. Always.

To be quite technical, if one lacks thoughts, one has no mental capacity. One is virtually dead. Palpatine was quite alive.

Which is one of the reasons why I think "pure evil" is an absurd notion. They would be a joke; they'd be a lazy ass pile of filth that could do nothing but hate and be envious.

In addition, Palpatine didn't run the Empire by himself. He had dozens of aids and advisors, Vader, and so-forth. He gave them the latitude to act in horrific, horrendous, and extremely excessive ways to ensure that the Empire remained dominant. Tarkin's destruction of Alderaan comes to mind.

It is true that he had aids, but he must also be subject to a huge burden in running the empire. I doubt the Emperor was jacking of to Twi'lek porn all the time, and thinking about nothing - but Palpatine does seem the sort.

That's not even getting into your posts on EoD. The point is, Zephiel, that you're not as respected as you'd like to think.

Is this what you thought of me? When did I ever state that I was the uber-god of debating? Again, I'm more of a scientist than a debater, dude. Debating is something I do when I want to pass the time, I don't even claim to be good at it.

Pure evil implies that he or she is completely evil. Not in "a complete state of all the facets of evil".

I'm confused here. Why would you think that being "completely evil" is not identical to the "complete state of all facets of evil." Completely, by it's definition -in this case - would include "complete state of all things that make evil well, evil." They're synonyms really for the same meaning.

Bravery can be a tool for evil purposes. If a brave person is evil, that means that they use the trait itself for destructive ends, which - in turn - defies the "morality" of the thing itself. Making it, thus, evil.

By definition though, something that is "pure evil" does not possess that virtue that makes them brave enough to propagate vice. They are comprising vice "cowardice" for virtue "courage/fortitude," in this case. That doesn't make Sidious Mother Teresa - don't get me wrong - but by the definitions of the two in the english language, it cannot comply to concept of "pure[complete] evil." (That is the absence of all things good.)

Anyways, you responded about the Christian religion (and specifically mentioned Catholicism, I think). One of the first things that a Christian is indoctrinated in is that God - an all-powerful entity of "pure good" - is a jealous God. Jealousy/envy is a sin, is it not? Are we to assume, then, that since God possesses an attribute that "society looks down upon" or is a "bad quality" that he is not pure good?

No.

This really connects with the "Problem of Evil" and all types of unpleasant theodicies that have been argued by scholars and theoligians as to why God "will allow evil to occur".

Kant came up with this argument stating that humans can't judge God's actions because we do not have the required faculties - being confined to human preconceptions as we are. God is a being, as per christians, of omniscience and omnibelevolence. A Christian/Jew, I would assume, would believe that only God possesses the required knowledge (due to his omniscience) to judge what is truly good or evil. Hence, by attributing what we perceive what God is displaying(jealousy in this case), assumes that we as humans can judge God's actions and apply labels to Him. To assume that God is jealous assumes that we know more about jealousy than what God does. But God is omniscient, so we obviously don't. Since God is omnibenevolent, he would not do something out of jealousy, but out of some grand optimal plan of "goodness" that He designed.

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
[B]Not really. If, in one's perspective, it is the only/best way to achieve a greater good, then why not? And please, stop with this 'happily' bs, Dooku quite clearly felt remorse for all the bad things he had done, which is made quite clear in Dark Rendezvous (his own private intimate thoughts).

Did we watch the same movies? Palpatine wanted power, and to bully The Galaxy into becoming his own personal playground. Really, what are you talking about, where the hell is it indicated that he genuinely wanted peace or the end of corruption? There's also the fact that Palpatine took pleasure in doing all the bad things he did. Dooku didn't.

Not evil? Please

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
Fine, don't tell me then, be like that. Anyways, the list goes a little something like this:

1. Advent Killed Commies. 😂 (jk, I know you're not IKC, I'll stop doing that now)

2. AcStyles.

3. Gideon.

Edit - Lol ok, just saw that post, seems I need to learn to refresh more.

AC sucks at debating, and so do you. You're not exactly an authority on debating either.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
AC sucks at debating

Personally, I don't see how he's that bad, but that's just me. I mean, just wondering, but why does AcStyles 'suck'?

Judging from my last debate with him, he has the common sense of a 6 year old paraplegic.

Well anyways, I will have to be rather succinct about declining from a debate this time. I am unfortunately a little head over heels with work.

It's been a pleasure ladies and gentlemen. It's good Gids, for the most part we can work out our differences.

I think Sidious is pure evil, just because he had some virtues recognized good by society(intelligence, patience...) doesn't make him any less evil, in fact, it is because of his traits, that makes him even more evil, he did allot more damage, destruction, cause more pain... because ha had those traits, without them he would be nothing, he wouldn't be in any position to make/cause any pain, destruction........

Ofcoz Sidious is pure evil...