Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Lol.. You're not doing this in the right thread Gideon. He's not going to be viewing this one.
Oh, I am. There is nothing better than a teenager on an ego trip. Haven't seen much of that for entertainment purpose since watching Beverly Hills, 92010 in the 90s. Where's my popcorn?
Force Knowledge, potential, and experience
At the risk of getting into the weeds (which is actually the whole point!), I think knowledge of the Force, in addition to potential and experience all play significant roles.
I think experience is the biggest contributor, WHEN the Force-wielders are EQUALLY matched in potential (Clearly, when Anakin killed Dooku in ROTS, experience didn't mean squat for Dooku).
If Caedus and Luke Skywalker have the same Force potential (same bloodline), AND they have access to the same knowledge (and one could argue that Jacen had special knowledge during his five year journey after the Vong War, knowledge that Luke NEVER acquired), how is it that LOTF Caedus is nowhere near as strong as LOTF Luke was?
I'm not saying Caedus can't hold his own (which he did, against Luke), but he still lost to him at the end of the day, and was clearly not yet as powerful as Luke (Caedus admitted that Luke was the greatest lightsaber swordsman to have ever lived! - yes that is the character's opinion, but coming from Caedus, that is huge).
So it has to be experience, which is why Sidious could potentially have an upper hand. But this could be offset by Caedus dramatically higher potential than Sidious could ever hope for.
Re: Force Knowledge, potential, and experience
Originally posted by SWFan4Life
If Caedus and Luke Skywalker have the same Force potential (same bloodline), AND they have access to the same knowledge (and one could argue that Jacen had special knowledge during his five year journey after the Vong War, knowledge that Luke NEVER acquired), how is it that LOTF Caedus is nowhere near as strong as LOTF Luke was?
*hissssss*
Take away your logical reasoning from this place. It's not wanted here. Next thing you do is trying to tell us that there is something illogical said in the Bible, a book which can never ever be wrong because it's the incarnation of gospel and contains the one and only truth. Damn atheist. Now go and kill your neighbour if he works on Saturday.
*hissssss*
Re: Re: Force Knowledge, potential, and experience
Originally posted by Borbarad
*hissssss*Take away your logical reasoning from this place. It's not wanted here. Next thing you do is trying to tell us that there is something illogical said in the Bible, a book which can never ever be wrong because it's the incarnation of gospel and contains the one and only truth. Damn atheist. Now go and kill your neighbour if he works on Saturday.
*hissssss*
Isn't that so much better than claiming the concept of God is illogical, and then trying to use logic and reason to describe God and explain God's actions?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Isn't that so much better than claiming the concept of God is illogical, and then trying to use logic and reason to describe God and explain God's actions?
Well. It certainly sounds like a lot of fun, since it gives you all kinds of good reasons to get rid of people you don't like, just because they work on the wrong day or eat the wrong stuff. I mean, hey, you don't even have to construct a complex philosophy that labels member of certain ethical groups "subhuman" in order to kill them. You just do it. "Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His", right? Music to the ears of every German like myself...
Originally posted by SWFan4Life
Nah, instead of logic, let's just argue who's more powerful based on looks? Or should it be the color of the lightsaber?
Why argue at all? We simply let Gideon decide. He's the smartest of us all, well versed in literature interpretation and philosophy alike. He never makes mistakes and always sticks to objective logic and reason, instead of constructing biased arguments like we, the feeble minded fools, often do.
Even his first name, Jessiah, sounds like Messiah - it's almost the same. We should simply quit thinking and worship Gideon instead. That would spare us all a lot of trouble.
Originally posted by Borbarad
Well. It certainly sounds like a lot of fun, since it gives you all kinds of good reasons to get rid of people you don't like, just because they work on the wrong day or eat the wrong stuff. I mean, hey, you don't even have to construct a complex philosophy that labels member of certain ethical groups "subhuman" in order to kill them. You just do it. "Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His", right? Music to the ears of every German like myself...
Oh no, I prefer to claim God doesn't exist so I can incorporate moral relativism into my daily life which gives me the excuse to do whatever the hell I want, and justify it anyway I want. Then again, the greatest tragedy of religion you can give me is the Crusades, while the greatest tragedy of secularism I can give you would be Stalin and the 50 million deaths he was responsible, but who am I to argue.
Why argue at all? We simply let Gideon decide. He's the smartest of us all, well versed in literature interpretation and philosophy alike. He never makes mistakes and always sticks to objective logic and reason, instead of constructing biased arguments like we, the feeble minded fools, often do.
Or you two can just go to one of the very few states that allow same sex marriages and just seal the deal.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Oh no, I prefer to claim God doesn't exist so I can incorporate moral relativism into my daily life which gives me the excuse to do whatever the hell I want, and justify it anyway I want. Then again, the greatest tragedy of religion you can give me is the Crusades, while the greatest tragedy of dogmatism I can give you would be Stalin and the 20 million deaths he was responsible, but who am I to argue.
Fixed it for you.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Oh no, I prefer to claim God doesn't exist so I can incorporate moral relativism into my daily life which gives me the excuse to do whatever the hell I want, and justify it anyway I want. Then again, the greatest tragedy of religion you can give me is the Crusades, while the greatest tragedy of secularism I can give you would be Stalin and the 50 million deaths he was responsible, but who am I to argue.
I didn't know that agnosticism or atheism instantly turn you into a moral relativist. Tell me more. And the greatest tragedy of "religion" (or rather than that: dogmatism) appears to be the Conquista which just wiped 90 million people on the American continent from existance. The Crusades with another (max.) 20 million victims, the hunt on herectics and witches (up to 10 million victims) and the constant progroms against the Jews (several million victims) and the massacres in states like Ruanda (only a few hundred thousand victims) are almost insignificant.
Or you can stop being so transparently insecure with all of your sarcasm and egocentrism. You're definitely smart but the level of insecurity you exhibit is just unhealthy.
But it's just so much fun...
Or you two can just go to one of the very few states that allow same sex marriages and just seal the deal.
I think our girlfriends wouldn't like that and resort to acts of female violence that we don't want to experience first hand. Thus, I think, we leave the male love couple part to yourself and Hewhoknowsall.
Originally posted by BorbaradNail I would love to know where you get your numbers.
I didn't know that agnosticism or atheism instantly turn you into a moral relativist. Tell me more. And the greatest tragedy of "religion" (or rather than that: dogmatism) appears to be the Conquista which just wiped 90 million people on the American continent from existance. The Crusades with another (max.) 20 million victims, the hunt on herectics and witches (up to 10 million victims) and the constant progroms against the Jews (several million victims) and the massacres in states like Ruanda (only a few hundred thousand victims) are almost insignificant.But it's just so much fun...
I think our girlfriends wouldn't like that and resort to acts of female violence that we don't want to experience first hand. Thus, I think, we leave the male love couple part to yourself and Hewhoknowsall.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonBTW nail there is no need to pretend you have a girlfriend(unless you do). 🙂 BTW Nai the death toll for the Crusades was at most, 2 million. I love the rationalizations though, almost makes me think you're religious.
Dogmatism? I didn't realize that was the new rationalization of the atheists. Damn I need to tell my parents and grandparents that they were totally wrong.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nail I would love to know where you get your numbers.
Conquista:
-Bernardino de Sahagún: Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España
-Tzvetan Todorov: Die Eroberung Amerikas. Das Problem des Anderen.
-Lieselotte und Theodor Engl: Die Eroberung Perus in Augenzeugenberichten.
-John Hemming: The Conquest of the Incas.
It should be noted that some countries lost 75 - 95 % of their inhabitants (e.g. Mexico) during that time. Of course many were killed by smallpox, but mainly because the invading Europeans didn't offer help to fight those epidemics based on the idea that it was there god given right to take over the country. Some even viewed the epidemics as devine help to archive the task...
The numbers of victims vary, dependant on if you take the epidemics into consideration or leave them out and the respective assumption of people who lived on the territory. Numbers vary between 40 and 140 million victims. I merely picked the middle.
Crusades:
-Alan V. Murray (Hrsg.): The Crusades. An Encyclopedia.
-Hans Eberhard Mayer: Geschichte der Kreuzzüge.
I don't know how you figured out a number of 2 million victims, pal. There are next to zero actual sources from the time of the first crusades that come up with numbers. It's limited to speculation. Yet Hans Wollschläger delivers a figure of 22 million victims of all crusades total. It probably depends on what events you take into consideration and what assumptions you use, given most of it is speculation. Including the Albigensian Crusade for example would alone raise the kill count by one million (here historians pretty much reached that conclusion).
If you can kill one million people in 13th century Languedoc, I don't see much problems in killing 20 times at much over a time span of 300 years in the various campaings of the Crusaders (including civilians and victims through famine of course).
Heretics
Besides the Albegensian Crusade (1 million victims), you have the Saracene slaughter in Spain (up to 7 million victims), the Christianization of Northern Europe (up to 2 million victims), the Persecution of the Waldensians (900,000 victims), Witch Hunts (tenthousands dead), the Inquisition (hundred thousands dead).
Dogmatism? I didn't realize that was the new rationalization of the atheists. Damn I need to tell my parents and grandparents that they were totally wrong.
Urm. What does "rationalization" mean to you?
I love the rationalizations though, almost makes me think you're religious.
Who said I'm not?
Worth noting is atheism is not a belief, it's a category, like theism. Atheism contains beliefs like secular humanism (responsible for, I belief, no massacres ever) and countless more. Theism contains beliefs like Christianity, Wicca, etc.. Some beliefs can cross the line- there is both theistic and atheistic Buddhism, for example.
Conquista:
-Bernardino de Sahagún: Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España
-Tzvetan Todorov: Die Eroberung Amerikas. Das Problem des Anderen.
-Lieselotte und Theodor Engl: Die Eroberung Perus in Augenzeugenberichten.
-John Hemming: The Conquest of the Incas.It should be noted that some countries lost 75 - 95 % of their inhabitants (e.g. Mexico) during that time. Of course many were killed by smallpox, but mainly because the invading Europeans didn't offer help to fight those epidemics based on the idea that it was there god given right to take over the country. Some even viewed the epidemics as devine help to archive the task...
The numbers of victims vary, dependant on if you take the epidemics into consideration or leave them out and the respective assumption of people who lived on the territory. Numbers vary between 40 and 140 million victims. I merely picked the middle.
Crusades:
-Alan V. Murray (Hrsg.): The Crusades. An Encyclopedia.
-Hans Eberhard Mayer: Geschichte der Kreuzzüge.I don't know how you figured out a number of 2 million victims, pal. There are next to zero actual sources from the time of the first crusades that come up with numbers. It's limited to speculation. Yet Hans Wollschläger delivers a figure of 22 million victims of all crusades total. It probably depends on what events you take into consideration and what assumptions you use, given most of it is speculation. Including the Albigensian Crusade for example would alone raise the kill count by one million (here historians pretty much reached that conclusion).
If you can kill one million people in 13th century Languedoc, I don't see much problems in killing 20 times at much over a time span of 300 years in the various campaings of the Crusaders (including civilians and victims through famine of course).
Heretics
Besides the Albegensian Crusade (1 million victims), you have the Saracene slaughter in Spain (up to 7 million victims), the Christianization of Northern Europe (up to 2 million victims), the Persecution of the Waldensians (900,000 victims), Witch Hunts (tenthousands dead), the Inquisition (hundred thousands dead).
The problem with those numbers Nai, is you're guesstimating favorably for your argument. The estimated death toll for the Crusades was 2 million people, which is very reasonable I might add. I'll do more specific research on the Conquista because I've never heard those numbers you're throwing out. Also, what sources do you have for the numbers of the Albigensian Crusade?
I can look through my various books Nai, but the estimates range from 1 million to 5 million at best..
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#European
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_battle_over_the_crusades/