Poll
90%
10%
This isn't a fight, I made that very clear in the OP, if I wanted a fight I'd have given Palpatine manipulate the midi-chlorians to conceive a veritable Anakin, and transfer his spirit in this boy where midi-chlorians are abundant and cells are healthy and developing more midi-chlorians, a body which the Dark Side would have a hell of a time deteriorating.
No, I mean power, who was more powerful.
Mace disarmed Palpatine because he was in better shape, and focused all of his Force Energy on physical strength and speed, while Palpatine had to sacrifice much of his speed and power to keep him from flying out the window, Mace noticed that he was trying to stay on the ground and kicked him square in the face with his temporarily superior Force augmentation of physical speed and power, and this really threw Palpatine off balance, causing him to lose his lightsaber. It was Palpatine's frailty, not his power in the Dark Side.
I still think Luke had more raw Force Energy to manipulate than Palpatine at his veritable plateau in Empire's End by the time of Legacy of the Force, after Luke had really reached his own potential plateau of sorts as an older Grand Jedi Master.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Palpatine was dying throughout EE. Luke wins easily.
He lives primarily as energy you dolt. His physical condition does not change the Force entity that is the true Palpatine.
Your method of argument=red herring after red herring I bet, don't change the subject or I'll smite you with ad hominems.
Originally posted by \\S//
He lives primarily as energy you dolt. His physical condition does not change the Force entity that is the true Palpatine.Your method of argument=red herring after red herring, I bet, don't change the subject to a subject that your used to debating in because it's easier for you to debate with, this is a red herring, or I'll smite you with ad hominems, which are personal insults and character assassinations like dolt (Idiot).
Fixed to layman's terms for you dolts.
I understand that Palpatine was the most accomplished Force User, and the most powerful Sith Lord of all time, but Luke had the potential to surpass Sidious in power with nothing but his superior midi-chlorian count, pride and power hungry ego, he would have studied just enough to surpass Palpatine times two, if he hadn't been dismembered and burned the way he was.
Luke, and even Leia's potential was pretty close to Anakin's, Luke had a grand affect on the Galaxy, almost as much of an instantaneous well of an affect of Palpatine had at around the time he inhabited Byss, when Luke acquired the Codex, despite his Light Side aura. And furthermore, Luke was able to call upon more physical speed and power than Palpatine could in their duel aboard the Eclipse, and he achieved, as anyone who bests Palpatine so quickly, a shatterpoint and precognition over Palpatine that neither Mace Windu nor Saesi Tiin, and not even Yoda could in ROTS, with no one but Leia and Jacen Solo strengthening him.
The Skywalkers were beyond the most powerful members of the High Jedi Council and Palpatine himself by the time of Dark Empire, Luke very well could have surpassed Palpatine's power by the time of Legacy of the Force, and he definitely when wielding the Codex.
Originally posted by \\S//
Ad hominem and then a red herring. You're full of logical fallacies and break the rules too.
Edit: BTW what is your fascination with the Codex? It really didn't seem to do much. Heck it was likely only temporary.
Originally posted by \S//
Ad hominem and then a red herring. You're full of logical fallacies and break the rules too.
Your bad at this.
the wiki
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"😉, is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
You'll notice that I did not say that you are wrong because you are bad at this. *That* would be an ad hominem. Luckily, I do not use fallacious reasoning.
That fact is overlooked in your brilliant analysis of my post, in which you identify both ad hominem AND a red herring. While I've addressed the first point, it is important to examine the later one.
Because I do not use fallacious arguments, it is simply impossible for me to have used a red herring. Red herrings are fallacies that are (again from the wiki)
an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.
This remark is eminently germane-- settling, as it does, the question of superiority conclusively.
Your not the boss of me.
Spoiler:
Have you not noticed that I've been doing that on purpose for a while now? And do you really think that I'd make such a silly mistake when I'm in pretentiousness mode? I actually proofread posts that I pay attention to. Also, if you have a minute, could you explain your ideas about the Gold Standard in either a PM or the BB2?
Originally posted by Autokrat
Do you mean backing the dollar with gold again?My Econ professor said that would be impossible. Her words were (and this is verbatim) "We would have to rape the Earth to find enough gold ."
Or are you talking about something completely different?
Yes, backing the dollar with gold again. What does your professor mean exactly? Is she familiar with the Gold Cover Clause ratio? Because that would theoretically work. The only time the gold standard does NOT work is when a country is at war. It's been largely successful for thousands of years and is light years ahead of fiat currencies.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes, backing the dollar with gold again. What does your professor mean exactly? Is she familiar with the Gold Cover Clause ratio? Because that would theoretically work. The only time the gold standard does NOT work is when a country is at war. It's been largely successful for thousands of years and is light years ahead of fiat currencies.
She didn't mention any of that. It was Economics 101, so it was a very hectic coverage (10 weeks to go over everything from basic Supply and Demand to the difference between the four types of firms.)
Although she did seem adamant that backing our money with gold wasn't possible.