Is anyone interested in Star Wars the Old Republic?

DS
If the best you can do is "well he TECHNICALLY was a pawn", then yes, your argument was defeated.

😂

The argument was semantic from its inception, which doesn't equate to a defeated argument.

DS
Yes, I'm telling you that if the argument is purely semantic and your best bet is "technically", you lost the argument.

Oh, well since you (the guy who will be arguing semantics professionally) say so.... haermm

DS
This coming from a guy who's been deepthroating Palpatine for years? AHAHAHA thanks for that laugh.
haermm

He has a way about him. innuendur

And I'm pretty sure you were there too. There's a testicle for each of us, you know.

DS
As usual, when you get your ass kicked, you're quick to throw out the "concession accepted" speech. It's been fun spanking that ass. 🙂 🙂 🙂

Not nearly as fun as seeing the future lawyer be driven to such desperation as to condemn semantics outright, I assure you. 😂

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir

The argument was semantic from its inception, which doesn't equate to a defeated argument.

Oh, well since you (the guy who will be arguing semantics professionally) say so.... haermm

Not nearly as fun as seeing the future lawyer be driven to such desperation as to condemn semantics outright, I assure you. 😂 [/B]

Weird, I've already used the desperation line with you. You took the "I know you are but what am I" comment to heart, didn't you? 😂

DS
Your argument went from "Revan was a pawn in the emperor's schemes" to "well, TECHNICALLY Revan WAS/could have been a pawn." Too easy

Spoiler:
I posted the definition of pawn and tailored my argument to it as early as page 42, my love.

DS
I don't believe our argument was purely semantic,

But it was.

DS
it was just your last move before admitting defeat.

I admitted defeat? mmm

DS
And I'll kill myself if I do that for a living.

Semantics is at the heart of anything that heavily involves language and interpretation of it, so....

DS
Weird, I've already used the desperation line with you. You took the "I know you are but what am I" comment to heart, didn't you? 😂

wut

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
[B]

Spoiler:
I posted the definition of pawn and tailored my argument to it as early as page 42, my love.

Time to move on and pray every nonsense you've written becomes canon🙂

DS
No, you tried desperately to MAKE it tailor to your argument, and you ended up with "well, technically".

Er...

I posted the definition,

Merriam-Webster
One that can be used to further the purposes of another

And then posted the two quotes from Revan. One was an admission of his role as a pawn,

TOR spoilers from the downloaded files, courtesy of Lucius
Revan himself says "The Emperor used me, made me his pawn."

and the other was an explanation as to the purpose the Emperor had in mind:

TOR spoilers from the downloaded files, courtesy of Lucius
"The Emperor used me as his link to the light side of the Force--the Jedi Order. Through me, he saw visions."

This argument was, from its very inception, semantic. Just for diligence, here's the definition of semantic,

Merriam-Webster
Of or relating to meaning in language

^ This was discussing the meaning of the term pawn and whether or not Revan qualified. He did. That his goals and the Emperor's were mutually, directly opposed is irrelevant; so were the goals of Anakin and Palpatine, Padme and Palpatine, Dooku and Palpatine, Jar Jar and Palpatine; the Exile and Kreia, Jacen and Lumiya & Vergere; and so forth. That still didn't stop these manipulators from using their targets as pawns. Even if it backfired, even if they were opposed, they were still used.

And now, teasing aside, that is what I'm trying to articulate here: That it doesn't matter that Revan ultimately rebelled or fought against the Emperor. Revan was still, as per the definition of a term, the pawn and that does not diminish his intellect. Similarly, Palpatine himself was a pawn of another at least once, but that doesn't make him less of a genius. It simply makes him fallible.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
And then posted the two quotes from Revan. One was an admission of his role as a pawn,

and the other was an explanation as to the purpose the Emperor had in mind:

This argument was, from its very inception, semantic. Just for diligence, here's the definition of semantic,

And now, teasing aside, that is what I'm trying to articulate here: That it doesn't matter that Revan ultimately rebelled or fought against the Emperor. Revan was still, as per the definition of a term, the pawn and that does not diminish his intellect. Similarly, Palpatine himself was a pawn of another at least once, but that doesn't make him less of a genius. It simply makes him fallible. [/B]

See Veneficus' example of pawns on a chess board..

Edit: And to put this argument to rest, assuming I give you all the leeway in the world and call what you have left, credible, we'll play with the following.

"The Emperor used me as his link to the light side of the Force--the Jedi Order. Through me, he saw visions."

One that can be used to further the purposes of another

DS
And I posted evidence that showed he wasn't a pawn in any way shape or form,

To do that, you would have to prove that Revan furthered no purpose of the Emperor. All you've done is prove that the two were ultimately championing two radically different, mutually opposing agendas, which doesn't free one from one's role as a pawn.

DS
then Veneficus reinforced that and all you were left with was "well technically". I'll try it your way. Well technically, he WASNT a pawn.. There we go!

No, Lucius presented an argument suggesting that Revan's role as a pawn was limited and used an actual chess analogy. But even he conceded that Revan fits the definition, which was what my argument was from the moment I posted the definition.

DS
Well aware, but you started the whole debate claiming Revan was a pawn of the Emperor, as well as blowing that part out of proportion. Only when evidence to the contrary was presented did you decide to backpeddle and revise your definition of pawn.

How did I blow it out of proportion? I never claimed that Revan was some sort of intellectually compromised, psychologically damaged toy with which the Emperor amused himself.

DS
See Veneficus' example of pawns on a chess board..

I never claimed that Revan's use as a pawn was unlimited, I simply said he fits the term.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
To do that, you would have to prove that Revan furthered no purpose of the Emperor. All you've done is prove that the two were ultimately championing two radically different, mutually opposing agendas, which doesn't free one from one's role as a pawn.

No, Lucius presented an argument suggesting that Revan's role as a pawn was limited and used an actual chess analogy. But even he conceded that Revan fits the definition, which was what my argument was from the moment I posted the definition.

DS
By the very definition you chose to use, if Revan didn't further a purpose for the Emperor, then he wasn't a pawn. However, it is you calling Revan a pawn, so you are suggesting that he furthered the Emperor's purpose somehow, thereby redirecting the burden of proof back on yourself. Thanks for playing.

And the burden of proof was satisfied by Revan's explanation: the Emperor's purpose for Revan was to provide visions, which is what he got.

DS
Yet I could argue that it didn't fit the definition at all. You can tailor your arguments to look like it fits and I can tailor to make it look like it doesn't. Yet you're still lacking the proof that Revan somehow furthered the Emperor's purposes.

Saying you can provide an argument and actually providing it are two separate actions. Honestly, all you've offered is a big "no u." How does it not fit the definition?

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
And the burden of proof was satisfied by Revan's explanation: the Emperor's purpose for Revan was to provide visions, which is what he got.

Saying you can provide an argument and actually providing it are two separate actions. Honestly, all you've offered is a big "no u." How does it not fit the definition?

Ironic how you repeat my accusation of "I know you are but what am I" with "no u".

DS
This doesn't prove that this furthered any of the Emperor's goals but nice try.

Establishing a connection to the Jedi order and the light side of the Force is a purpose, which Revan was used to achieve. That, by definition, makes him a pawn.

DS
Revan also said he gave the Emperor nothing, but I guess you missed that part of the conversations, huh?

Feel free to provide the quote and, if possible, the full conversation and I'll happily discuss it.

DS
Ironic how you repeat my accusation of "I know you are but what am I" with "no u".

DS, we can return to the mocking and my lighthearted teasing of you if you'd like. (Lord knows you've given me an endless reserve of ammunition!) Or we can set the trolling aside and you can prove me wrong like you claim to be able to do.

How does the definition not apply?

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Establishing a connection to the Jedi order and the light side of the Force is a purpose, which Revan was used to achieve. That, by definition, makes him a pawn.

DS, we can return to the mocking and my lighthearted teasing of you if you'd like. (Lord knows you've given me an endless reserve of ammunition!) Or we can set the trolling aside and you can prove me wrong like you claim to be able to do.

How does the definition not apply?

DS
But there is no proof that he was successful in establishing a connection to the Jedi order from that quote alone.

Given that Revan was apparently the conduit by which this connection was established, I'd say his word is definitely credible enough:

The Emperor used me as his link to the light side of the Force--the Jedi Order. Through me, he saw visions."

DS
God damn it, now I have to go through it all again.

You don't have to get to it tonight, but remember: I tried to download this shit and it didn't work for me. 99% extraction on 7zip and then.... nothing.

DS
I enjoy the mocking because I find it ironic that you're doing it in the face of a losing argument. It's quite Nebaris-like and very amusing.

Well since I'm teasing you and mocking your argument, technically I guess I am doing it in the face of a losing argument. 😂

DS
Even if you're using the definition as lightly as possible (IE a pawn even for 30 seconds), there's still no proof that the Emperor was successful in furthering his goals and Revan has repeatedly stated that he fought with the Emperor, gave up nothing, made him look for piece, and apparently held him back for 300 years. So if you want to continue the mocking, it just looks worse for you in a losing situation.

The only way this would be the case is if I argued the Emperor toyed with Revan the entire time and that he was nothing more than a pawn. I didn't claim as such and if I did, please provide the quote so that I may retract it. The definition applies because the Emperor had a purpose (establish connection to the Jedi/light side) and Revan was used to fulfill it.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Given that Revan was apparently the conduit by which this connection was established, I'd say his word is definitely credible enough:

Well since I'm teasing you and mocking your argument, technically I guess I am doing it in the face of a losing argument. 😂

The only way this would be the case is if I argued the Emperor toyed with Revan the entire time and that he was nothing more than a pawn. I didn't claim as such and if I did, please provide the quote so that I may retract it. The definition applies because the Emperor had a purpose (establish connection to the Jedi/light side) and Revan was used to fulfill it. [/B]

But if the Emperor did not establish connection and instead fought Revan through the force for 300 years while siphoning off his force energy(or not), then no...

"I paid the price as the Emperor ravaged my mind over centuries... but I gave him nothing. I am proof that the dark side can be resisted."

Spoken to the Imperial team that comes to kill him. Its actual level of accuracy is nebulous since Revan is actively trying to convince the Imperial team to desist and surrender and Revan is no stranger to persuasion.

The wording of the quote unquestionably indicates that the Emperor was successful:

Revan
The Emperor used me as his link to the light side of the Force--the Jedi Order. Through me, he saw visions."

Notice the careful wording: Used, not "attempted to use" or "tried to use." Saw, not "attempted to see" or "tried to see."

Originally posted by Lucius
"I paid the price as the Emperor ravaged my mind over centuries... but I gave him nothing. I am proof that the dark side can be resisted."

Spoken to the Imperial team that comes to kill him. Its actual level of accuracy is nebulous since Revan is actively trying to convince the Imperial team to desist and surrender and Revan is no stranger to persuasion.

There we go, that one.. If that IS taken as credible, then by Gideon's definition, he is not a pawn. On the other hand, if we use the definition lightly, then Revan was a pawn of the Emperor and vice versa, and the same applies to Vader and Palpatine.

Lucius
"I paid the price as the Emperor ravaged my mind over centuries... but I gave him nothing. I am proof that the dark side can be resisted."

Spoken to the Imperial team that comes to kill him. Its actual level of accuracy is nebulous since Revan is actively trying to convince the Imperial team to desist and surrender and Revan is no stranger to persuasion.

I'm not privy to the full conversation, but it doesn't seem entirely inappropriate to suggest that these quotes do not contradict one another and that neither one must be a lie. The confession from Revan regarding the Emperor's use of him as a pawn to establish a connection to the Force doesn't necessitate the ravaging of Revan's mind. Your quote could be interpreted that the Emperor was seeking something other than just visions and Revan foiled him from obtaining whatever information that may be.

On the other hand, they could very well contradict one another.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Unbiased fanboyism?

It's a paradox!

Also, Bandon for president.

Bandon for Overlord of Pangæa!

Also: Your face is a paradox.

That is all.