Originally posted by omgchos
Ill address these one at a time.A) Its not like in the 1000 generations that people have been using the force (maybe longer) that it was only jedi and sith who could do it. Obi Wan basically told is it binds the galaxy together.... so its not just for them.
Supposition
Originally posted by omgchos
B)I'm pretty sure that to utilize the force you have to be sentient in some way and have free will.... therefore its a choice.
Supposition and non-sequitur
Originally posted by omgchos
C) In all three of the original movies no one ever used "darth" as a title... in fact many poeple called him "Lord Vader". So what he's Lord Darth? See when someone has a rank or title their last name goes with it. Like how they called han solo "general Solo" And lando "general callrissian".
That's an completely inadequate train of thought. Just cause no one said it in the specific way you like doesn't mean it couldn't be true.
Originally posted by omgchos
D) and lastly the lighting was a plot device. The emperor is a beast. He is old an powerful (and btw vader being more powerful is nonsense) He could have done so many things to luke. Stop his heart, choke him, crush him into a tiny mound of flesh. But he wanted to torture him. So he let go of some of that awesome energy he can utilize. If he could do it why couldnt other people who are very stong with the force?
Again supposition.
You interpreted it that way when watching it, therefore you think it must have been that way even though it could have been the other way as well.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
That's wrong. In ROTJ when Luke is talking to ghost Obi-Wan on Dagobah he refers to Vader as 'Darth'.Obi-Wan: Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and *became* Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.
Originally posted by omgchos
But see im fine with them writing books about what happens after the rebellion basically defeats the empire.... but it turned into kind of an encyclopedia thing. Like a reference guide to all the stuff thta didnt need to be explained. And then he makes these sequels where most of what happens to the so called "Main Character" of the prequels is never shown. Its like Lucas did it on porpose so wed have to go buy these comic books and novels and such just to know wtf was going on.
I'm not really understanding what you mean by 'encyclopedia thing'. Are you saying the EU is bad because it's too vast, or the attempts to chronicle it by setting a clear line of continuity? The EU after the OT doesn't reference the OT films at all really, I can rememeber something about Luke getting health issues in one story after the Emperor's lightning attack, or something to do with The Glove of Vader but not much else...
I get your second point though, explaining events between the films is confusing but they did this to the OT too with the Shadow of the Empire concept which was meant to be inbetween ESB and ROTJ. Good book too!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Shadows_of_the_Empire
Originally posted by Bardock42
SuppositionSupposition and non-sequitur
That's an completely inadequate train of thought. Just cause no one said it in the specific way you like doesn't mean it couldn't be true.
Again supposition.
You interpreted it that way when watching it, therefore you think it must have been that way even though it could have been the other way as well.
Just saying supposition doesn't prove your point. And u do know that Non sequitur is basically a synonym for suppostion so u failed 3 times.
As for the other arguments you basically just became a hypocrite. "Just cause no one said it in the specific way you like doesn't mean it couldn't be true." Same with you last argument. That right there is supposition on your part.
So good job not proving me wrong.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I'm not really understanding what you mean by 'encyclopedia thing'. Are you saying the EU is bad because it's too vast, or the attempts to chronicle it by setting a clear line of continuity? The EU after the OT doesn't reference the OT films at all really, I can rememeber something about Luke getting health issues in one story after the Emperor's lightning attack, or something to do with The Glove of Vader but not much else...I get your second point though, explaining events between the films is confusing but they did this to the OT too with the Shadow of the Empire concept which was meant to be inbetween ESB and ROTJ. Good book too!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Shadows_of_the_Empire
No im saying it's alot of nonsense. Novels after the fact is one thing but basically Lucas used the fact that he a popularized EU mythology to get really lazy in the film making. I mean at the end of Attack of the Clones anakin has a golden hand for some reason and gets married to Padme. Then in the opening sequence of Revenge of the Sith, Obi and Anakin are Trying to get to General grievous' ship and anakin has huge scar on his face and a hand that resembles vaders hands, and has apperently grown attached to some clone trooper who he goes back to help. So basically if you havent read up on the whole clone wars EU ur lost and confused.
Originally posted by omgchos
Just saying supposition doesn't prove your point. And u do know that Non sequitur is basically a synonym for suppostion so u failed 3 times.
Supposition is not a synonym of non-sequitur. And I don't think the burden of proof is on me, you claimed something, I just said that what you claimed is not supported by the movies you cited as supporting your claim. You should point out where it supports it rather than just reiterating your point.
Originally posted by omgchos
As for the other arguments you basically just became a hypocrite. "Just cause no one said it in the specific way you like doesn't mean it couldn't be true." Same with you last argument. That right there is supposition on your part.So good job not proving me wrong.
You are incorrect though, I am not saying that you are definitely wrong, I am saying that it could be either way. I don't have to prove that what you say is wrong, at most I have to prove that what you say is not necessary. You may be right, but the movies don't prove that you are.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are incorrect though, I am not saying that you are definitely wrong, I am saying that it could be either way. I don't have to prove that what you say is wrong, at most I have to prove that what you say is not necessary. You may be right, but the movies don't prove that you are.
I use the movies as proof because they are "the" source material for star wars. At the very least "A New Hope" is. So they are really all the proof you can get.
Originally posted by omgchos
I use the movies as proof because they are "the" source material for star wars. At the very least "A New Hope" is. So they are really all the proof you can get.
No, you misunderstand me, I said you FAIL to use the movies as proof. Not that you shouldn't use them as proof. Quite to the contrary, you should. Go ahead, do that now.
Originally posted by omgchos
If i change my name from danny to steve..... i "become" steve. And in "A New Hope" one of the most famous lines is:
"You cant win Darth, if you strike me down i shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine"
That sounds to me like some calling someone by a first name. Obi wan also called him "Vader" previously so he wasn't mocking his title he was calling him by his first name. His adopted first name i should say.
He could be mocking his title though, not to mention mocking his conversion to the dark side by using the 'Darth' prefix. There are many ways you can interpret the dialogue.
As with the troops you mentioned they referred to him as 'Lord' Vader but that could just be an ideal title for them to use seeing how they are so dismissive of his religion.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you didn't, but far be it from me too ask you to continue if you don't want to.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
He could be mocking his title though, not to mention mocking his conversion to the dark side by using the 'Darth' prefix. There are many ways you can interpret the dialogue.As with the troops you mentioned they referred to him as 'Lord' Vader but that could just be an ideal title for them to use seeing how they are so dismissive of his religion.
The point i was making was that he wasnt mocking him when he said it. His tone was that of "matter of fact" which goes with the rest of the line. If he were mocking he might have mentioned something of his betrayal.
And dont you think in Return he might have mentiond something of the sith and how everyone who becomes one becomes darth. All he basically said was that he changed his name. Albeit no matter how you look at something someone somewhere will always see it differently, but i never once heard someone refer to him as just "darth" accept obi wan. i only ever heard "Darth Vader", Lord Vader" and "Vader". In fact in the first movie the emperor doesnt even call him darth.
Originally posted by omgchos
What im basically saying here is im not gonna go back look at all my arguments then re-post them just because you feel they werent valid. For most of my origional arguments all i got from you were short answers which basically just dismissed them and gave me no basis to counter argue. U cant take the high ground just by saying "go back and do it better, then ill tell you why you were wrong". I wanna hear why you think my arguments werent valid. Thats how a debate works. Its not like when your five and you say "i know you are, but what am i?"
Well, that's not quite correct, but I guess I could point out to you where your argument fell flat.
Witch, straight up. I'd study like Hermione, have the passion of Harry, and the heart of Ron, so I'd be uber-versatile, uber-powerful, and uber-compassionate. The lifestyle of Harry Potter Canon is pretty damned sweet. If I get a place in Hogsmeade or Diagon Alley, none of the other three could ever take me.