Ultimate Sith Fight Winner Take All

Originally posted by Nephthys
Kreia says that theres no defense. Considering she's pretty much the foremost scholar on the technique, I take her word. At the least, if she thinks theres no defense, then I doubt many other character can contraduct her.

That's a very slippery slope.
I'm inclined to take Kreia's expertise into consideration, but I remain skeptical of such bold claims. And when one takes Ulic's mysterious technique imitated by Anakin into account, the situation becomes even murkier.

Why am I not surprised.

She was in the same position as the Council or any other Jedi to learn of Uliq's technique and then afterwards goes on to head the Trayas Academy on Malachor ( a treasure trove of Sith knowledge), instruct someone on the technique and goes on to experience it first hand and then learn it herself. In the game she demonstrates her knowledge of the technique by describing it in detail and speaking of its history. If anyone is in a position to be aware of a defense, it is her.

And yet she was not.

How do you think the PT Jedi would gain knowledge of the technique? Theres no known practicioners after Nihilus and in canon Malachor is destroyed. Where would a defense materialise from?

Ulic didn't share the technique with anyone else and I didn't say that the PT Jedi knew of a defense.

It seemed like you were disagreeing with my assessment. I didn't say that no defense existed, only that barely anyone knew of it if indeed it does exist.

I only disagree with the idea that we should automatically defer to any character's assessment or opinion on any issue. If Nai enjoyed one success, it was promulgating the idea that much of what we look to as definitive is simply the words of fallible characters. Kreia's expertise shouldn't be lightly tossed aside, but it's very good that you make room for the very real possibility that her knowledge was simply incomplete on the subject.

Likewise, being arbitrarily sceptical about a characters assessment is equally illogical. Kreia is the person most knowledgable on the technique in the entire mythos. While she might be wrong in regards to some aspects of it, that isn't something I'm going to believe by default, or even seriously consider without proof.

I'll give you the same response I gave Zampano: I'm unwilling to extend greater confidence to Kreia or Tobin simply because they're characters in KotOR II. Sidious is arguably the most knowledgeable Force user in the mythos and we question his proclamations routinely. I see no reason why lesser experts {Kreia} or those who aren't experts at all {Tobin} should somehow be exempt to this.

Originally posted by crisis_ryitua
I'll give you the same response I gave Zampano: I'm unwilling to extend greater confidence to Kreia or Tobin simply because they're characters in KotOR II. Sidious is arguably the most knowledgeable Force user in the mythos and we question his proclamations routinely. I see no reason why lesser experts {Kreia} or those who aren't experts at all {Tobin} should somehow be exempt to this.

So you doubt the credentials or the source media itself?

That seems awfully biased, crisis. I prefer to look at each situation independently. If I see reason to doubt Sidious' word on matters then I will. In Kreia's case I do not, and so I do not.

Originally posted by Nephthys
That seems awfully biased, crisis. I prefer to look at each situation independently. If theres reason to doubt Sidious' word on matters then I will. In Kreia's case I do not, and so I do not.

😐

I'm proposing that we apply skepticism in all cases of fallible characters issuing broad declarations. That's not biased.

You're proposing that we take some characters at their word and question other characters and the character you say we should trust implicitly is on record as one of your favorite characters.

In short, I believe you have that backwards. 😬

Stealth Moose
So you doubt the credentials or the source media itself?

The former.

Originally posted by crisis_ryitua
😐

I'm proposing that we apply skepticism in all cases of fallible characters issuing broad declarations. That's not biased.

You're proposing that we take some characters at their word and question other characters and the character you say we should trust implicitly is on record as one of your favorite characters.

In short, I believe you have that backwards. 😬

Being sceptical in all cases without reason to be is what I said: Arbitrary scepticism. What I am saying is that we need an actual reason to doubt someones word, it should not be our default position.

Being skeptical in all cases is hardly arbitrary given the snafus, ranging from hyperbole to retcons, that we encounter throughout our exploration of Star Wars. We have questioned or outright disregarded many claims from various characters on what may be the case.

What I'm proposing isn't tossing out the baby with the bath water but couching such proclamations with acknowledgement that what they say doesn't necessarily reflect the absolute truth.

And, as we have seen, once we acknowledge that, the persons claims seem to instantly be rendered obsolete.

Only when they constitute the literal sum of an argument.

And thats a problem. When we disregard a claim because just because its fallible and might be wrong, the argument becomes a farce.

Equally problematic is people choosing to accept bold claims that they find appealing and/or from characters they like while simultaneously rejecting bold claims that they don't find appealing and/or from characters they don't like.

Originally posted by Nephthys
And thats a problem. When we disregard a claim because just because its fallible and [b]might be wrong, the argument becomes a farce. [/B]

This is true. You wouldn't arbitrarily ignore even a relative authority on a subject on the pretense that they might be wrong, especially when you take older canon material which makes sweeping generalizations without further support and use it as a source of absolute unapproachable credibility.

Originally posted by crisis_ryitua
Equally problematic is people choosing to accept bold claims that they find appealing and/or from characters they like while simultaneously rejecting bold claims that they don't find appealing and/or from characters they don't like.

Naturally. Which is why I propose a middle ground: That we question a claim only if given reason to. A reason aside form bias, of course. :3

Originally posted by crisis_ryitua
Equally problematic is people choosing to accept bold claims that they find appealing and/or from characters they like while simultaneously rejecting bold claims that they don't find appealing and/or from characters they don't like.

So in other words what you're doing?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So in other words what you're doing?

We've been over this. I don't barge in on the Nihilus vs. Palpatine thread and say anything along the lines of: "According to DESB, Palpatine can invent new Force powers at leisure so he invents a technique to block the giga-drain and kills Nihilus outright." Nor do I introduce Dooku's claim that Palpatine is an "event horizon" in the Force unless I'm being a.) facetious or b.) pointing out the very issue we're discussing here in terms of the discrepancy between sources.