So. why don't the Jedi just kill Grievous with The Force?

Started by Q'Anilia4 pages

The word "PIS" is used way too often. I guess that the reason Jedi doesnt kill him with the force, is because they would find it to be a missuse of the gift given them. Or they are worried that taking the life of another through the force might lead to them exploring more simple ways to clear situations up in the future, ending up with more and more killing in the name of the Jedi order and what they define as right.

They kill with a lightsaber also, and they have no problem with that. And they use the force to guide their saber through enemies. Is that misusing the force?

Not as far as I know. Jedimaster Yarael Poof opposed violence for a fact. I'm more than definate that so did extremely many other Jedi. In a war, people die. A Jedi, while not wanting to kill, might be obliged to do so when he is charged by a dozen stormtroopers.

You don't have to kill just because you can. I'm quite certain a decent few Jedi would agree with me. And there's quite the difference between using the Force with purpose of killing, and using it with purpose of keeping yourself alive on hostile ground.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Actually quite enjoyable.

Another thought... using the Force usually requires concentration. What if they do not have the time to create enough power to hold Grievous still?

That seems to be a valid assessment.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
Not as far as I know. Jedimaster Yarael Poof opposed violence for a fact. I'm more than definate that so did extremely many other Jedi. In a war, people die. A Jedi, while not wanting to kill, might be obliged to do so when he is charged by a dozen stormtroopers.

You don't have to kill just because you can. I'm quite certain a decent few Jedi would agree with me. And there's quite the difference between using the Force with purpose of killing, and using it with purpose of keeping yourself alive on hostile ground.

Eloquence. Right here.

I have no idea what that means 😛

el⋅o⋅quence [el-uh-kwuhns]
–noun
1. the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness.
2. eloquent language or discourse: a flow of eloquence.
Origin:
1350–1400; ME < AF < L çloquentia.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't worry about it, I don't understand half of what he says.
*Whispers* He's Canadian.

Still don't get it. Should I be flattered or offended? 😐

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
el&#8901;o&#8901;quence [el-uh-kwuhns]
–noun
1. the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness.
2. eloquent language or discourse: a flow of eloquence.
Origin:
1350–1400; ME < AF < L çloquentia.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't worry about it, I don't understand half of what he says.
*Whispers* He's Canadian.

I dare youse to come on up here and say that to my face, eh. I've got halfer mind to show you the old one-two, if you get my bacon. Show youse what that's all aboot.

It was a compliment.

flattered,,, hes sayin that your good engrish.

That's very much a compliment 😄 They don't teach english in my school, so my knowledge is all dad, movies and rented education books 😛 Thank you.