Originally posted by NaiShame nothing in you reply addressed the shortcomings of your argument, unless of course conjecture is a valid substitution for evidence now.
I don't missed it, but since I have already moved on with the posting(s) following the one you talked about, I'm not going to reply to the stuff once again to a different person. Feel free to pick up where the Ellimist left.
Originally posted by BeniboyblingThis is 95 percent of all of Nai's arguments. A wordy thesaurus but a debater lacking any real evidence to support his claims just baseless conjecture.
Shame nothing in you reply addressed the shortcomings of your argument, unless of course conjecture is a valid substitution for evidence now.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
But your own interpretation of the source material and the supplementary material is sacrosanct, right? 😂
Nope. It's just superior to your own. Which isn't that hard, provided that you are not even interpreting it in the first place. 😂
Also I don't know where the idea that I handle my "interpretation" of the source material - which you have never seen by the way - as "sacrosanct" comes from. From the fact that I see them superior to yours? 😂
Yeah, and how's that Antediluvian notion that the planet-throwing Marka Ragnos is supreme faring? 😂
Don't know. Found factual evidence that he isn't somewhere? Nope? Thought so... So the status quo that everybody is pretty much entitled to their own opinion in regards to that topic is still unchanged, despite ten years of your best effort. 😂 👆
I'd say my objective has been long-fulfilled. 👆
Having your petty opinions worshipped by a bunch of peasants? Yup. Carry on. Caeci caecos ducentes. 🙂
(of course, everything written here is also just limited to "all things Star Wars"😉
@Beniboybling
Since you insisted:
Originally posted by Beniboybling
But hey I'm bored, so I'll expand.This is true, but doesn't demand that practitioners of the dark side also grew stronger.
Their increased midi-chlorian count, caused by the shift, does.
Midi-cholorians appeared more easily manipulated as a result of that shift, but that is one power out of many.
Since the argument was, that the shift did only affect farsight and prediction, this served as counter to that claim. Furthermore I still fail to see how a shift of the Force in its entirety would just affect selected abilities and the same is the case for an increase of the midi-chlorian count of the Sith.
This revelation is not only made in entirely different contexts, but before the shift was conducted at all.
That "revelation" is made just before he starts remembering the balance shift, that happened eight years before that particular scene. It is directly linked to that particular judgement.
But yeah, Plagueis is pretty much better than any Sith who came before him. 👆
According to his own thoughts and knowledge and based on his idea that the balance shift made him more powerful than all of the others. Which neither precludes other Sith from reaching that point, nor does it really make him more powerful than all that came before.
Prominent =/= potent, he's referring to how practice of the dark side was more widespread, not that the dark side was stronger back then (it wasn't, and if it was, would make this argument backfire spectacularly).
Obviously false interpretation. How would a more common use of the Dark Side make individuals more powerful or, more specifically, enable them to do stuff so beyond anybody, that pre-shift Plagueis thought, their feats could only be myth and / or conjecture? He's, quite literally, asking wether they were more powerful individually or wether the Dark Side was more powerful in general. What was back then is less important here then the effect that the balance shift caused.
Perhaps, but certainly not according to these sources.
Pretty much undeniable if you read the novel and the specific chapter in its entirety.
Nai
Nope. It's just superior to your own. Which isn't that hard, provided that you are not even interpreting it in the first place.
If you define "interpreting" as "eagerly distorting reality," then I wholeheartedly endorse you as a leading interpreter.
But then I could never hope to rival the tortured mental contortions you call your arguments. I gather it takes an Olympian flexibility of reason to wedge your head so deeply up your own ass.
^ You should change your profile pic to your yearbook photo and be done with it. We'd certainly recognize you quicker.
Nai
Also I don't know where the idea that I handle my "interpretation" of the source material - which you have never seen by the way - as "sacrosanct" comes from.
Only from years' worth of interactions.
Nai
From the fact that I see them superior to yours?
I'm not sure how you see much of anything with a view like yours.
Spoiler:
That's a colon, not a telescope.
Nai
Don't know. Found factual evidence that he isn't somewhere? Nope? Thought so... Thought so... So the status quo that everybody is pretty much entitled to their own opinion in regards to that topic is still unchanged, despite ten years of your best effort. 😂 👆
What a graceful shift of the burden of proof. All these years of you trumpeting Ragnos, I never once realized that the burden was not yours to prove, but mine to disprove. #awkward
You might wanna tell this guy:
Spoiler:
Or do the rules contour themselves around NaiFohlFail?
I'm honestly not surprised. You employed this excruciatingly weak excuse years ago:
And were called out by Blax:
That, after all this time, your last line of defense for antediluvian ineptitude is the notion that the inane shit you espouse is "possible" is truly, profoundly cringeworthy.
Seriously LeGenD-tier shit.
But that would explain why he's so enamored with you.
Nai
Having your petty opinions worshipped by a bunch of peasants? Yup. Carry on. Caeci caecos ducentes.(of course, everything written here is also just limited to "all things Star Wars"😉
Or I could always draw comfort from the fact that this is the second time in this very conversation that you've deified me.
It's about godmedamned time you recognize.
Had to remove most of the smilies, sadly, in order to respond with all the pictures/.gifs.
Originally posted by Nai
[BThe only people we encounter that have been trained Force users under Sidious regime and have survived his death do pretty much either only appear in sources released before the "balance stuff" was introduced [/b]
And once again, you oscillate in and out of applying out-of-universe timeline considerations - if we do, then your whole case is moot anyway because the relevant Vader feats predate the Plagueis novel. Your reply was that the balance issue had already been introduced in AotC. Two problems:
1. Your justification for extending this to combat, despite no apparent decline in the film you're talking about, comes from the Plagueis novel. From just the movie all you have is a "well why wouldn't it", which is hardly grounds to rationalize all of the literature that shows no correlation with this shroud of the dark side when it depicts combat, and the absurd mental gymnastics that would require.
2. If we're talking about the knowledge and intentions of the authors, even after AotC, there's no indication that any EU writer, or heck Lucas himself, were consciously nerfing light siders' combat abilities to display this change. If they were, newsflash: someone would have mentioned it somewhere. But it's only ever referenced in relation to seeing the future, you know, because Sidious was using a technique to shroud his presence and his actions.
The rest I'll respond to when I have access to my Plagueis copy.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
If you define "interpreting" as "eagerly distorting reality," then I wholeheartedly endorse you as a leading interpreter.
I define "interpreting" as not opening a source, reading a quote, quoting the quote and say "That's it!" as if handing in god given fact. That's still your branch of work.
But then I could never hope to rival the tortured mental contortions you call your arguments. I gather it takes an Olympian flexibility of reason to wedge your head so deeply up your own ass.
Oh. This is why you deal with my arguments so easily, rather than entering the thread with an unprovoked ad hominem and then continue with more ad hominems afterwards, without even considering the actual arguments ad hand, from which you've run before. Sounds reasonable. If it only were the truth. Instead:
^ You should change your profile pic to your yearbook photo and be done with it. We'd certainly recognize you quicker.
Ad hominem #1: Although I don't know how a picture of you arguing in Sidious favor relates to myself. *shrug*
Only from years' worth of interactions.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
I find it pretty hilarious that, after having been lectured by me on the issue countless times, you still confuse the stuff I post here with my personal views, interpretations and opinions. I'm here to stir debate and maybe to encurage people thinking outside the box by producing, what did you call them, "tortured mental contortions" and see how people react to that. And yes, I have the mental flexibility to argue points that I personally find completely hilarious, just for the sake of an argument. That's the main difference between you and me.
I'm not interested in discussing my convictions here, because there is still nobody here who could argue them on equal terms with me. Fortunately, I have friends and colleagues who can, when it comes down to fictional concepts, literature published in "franchised universes", hermeneutics, narratology, the issue of the applicability of authorial intent (Barthes - La mort de l'auteur anybody?) or philosophical issues (deconstruction a la Jacques Derrida anybody?). This forum here, for me, is still just a place to have fun. Not so much for you? I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be my problem, although you apparently want to pin it on me.
I'm not sure how you see much of anything with a view like yours.Spoiler:
That's a colon, not a telescope.
Continued ad hominem. Also: Pot. Kettle. Black. Furthermore: Continued argumentum ad ignorantiam.
What a graceful shift of the burden of proof. All these years of you trumpeting Ragnos, I never once realized that the burden was not yours to prove, but mine to disprove. #awkwardYou might wanna tell this guy:
Spoiler:
Or do the rules contour themselves around NaiFohlFail?
Pardon me.
It was new to me, that convictions and beliefs, until being made part of a debate, require any kind of "proof". As far as that goes, everybody is entitled to their own beliefs anyway.
But, for the sake of you getting any kind of a point across, let us just go with the assumption that this was the issue at hand in a debate:
You'd still find a situation, where there is a fairly large amount of allusions to the idea, that Ragnos - just some examples - being the Dark Lord of the Sith in the Golden Age of the Sith and so on and so forth - outranks quite a lot of the Sith Lords coming before or after him. Agree so far?
Then, and here we come back to what I said, you'd still find that everything that might contradict that idea is - thanks Star Wars authors - a result of character thoughts and their interpretation. But using that, specifically the thoughts of Luke Skywalker in JK:JA, Ragnos might even be far above the likes of Sidious.
But of course you would argue here (aside from rightfully pointing out, that Luke's ideas aren't god given fact), there is much more stuff to be found, that prominently features Sidious in the top position among the Sith Lords. But then, I've specifically asked for factual evidence that it is not Ragnos. We could also reverse that to: Present factual evidence for somebody else "reigning supreme" or even being superior to Ragnos.
Since the requirement - spoiler - for presenting aforementioned evidence, would be somebody beating Ragnos in all his living glory in a fight, I know that this can't be produced. And here we arive back at square one, where I can say "I think Ragnos is the most powerful Sith Lord ever, because..." and you go "Nope. I don't think so, because ..." and then we can agree to disagree, because no factual evidence exists to prove one of the positions and thereby disprove the other.
Not that this even matters: I've told you before that, outside my chosen role as advocatus diaboli, my opinion on the issue is not that far away from your own, although that has nothing to do with praise from some characters (or secondary sources elaborating on that), but more with the issue that would - maybe - be discussed right here, if you weren't so busy again making a fool out of yourself by glossing over the argument at hands to deal with my 5-year-old posting history, in a desperate attempt to "win". 😉
I'm honestly not surprised. You employed this excruciatingly weak excuse years ago:And were called out by Blax:
That, after all this time, your last line of defense for antediluvian ineptitude is the notion that the inane shit you espouse is "possible" is truly, profoundly cringeworthy.
Seriously LeGenD-tier shit.
But that would explain why he's so enamored with you.
That after all this time, you've still not understand the fundamental workings of fiction and debates regarding fictional realms is the only thing "cringeworthy" here. What Blax "called me out for" is precisely my take on fictional realms: I accept the idea that everything is possible, because everything is possible. I'm rather sure that I don't need to lecture you about the most hilarious things that made it into Star Wars canon, since you know most of them yourself. But if you want an example, you may want to answer the following question:
Judging from his performance against a single Droideka in "Survivor's Quest" (right before the start of the NJO series), how many individuals do you think are superior to Luke Skywalker? We might start with Ahsoka Tano here.
Or I could always draw comfort from the fact that this is the second time in this very conversation that you've deified me.It's about
godmedamned time you recognize.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
And once again, you oscillate in and out of applying out-of-universe timeline considerations - if we do, then your whole case is moot anyway because the relevant Vader feats predate the Plagueis novel. Your reply was that the balance issue had already been introduced in AotC. Two problems:1. Your justification for extending this to combat, despite no apparent decline in the film you're talking about, comes from the Plagueis novel. From just the movie all you have is a "well why wouldn't it", which is hardly grounds to rationalize all of the literature that shows no correlation with this shroud of the dark side when it depicts combat, and the absurd mental gymnastics that would require.
2. If we're talking about the knowledge and intentions of the authors, even after AotC, there's no indication that any EU writer, or heck Lucas himself, were consciously nerfing light siders' combat abilities to display this change. If they were, newsflash: [b]someone would have mentioned it somewhere.
But it's only ever referenced in relation to seeing the future, you know, because Sidious was using a technique to shroud his presence and his actions.The rest I'll respond to when I have access to my Plagueis copy. [/B]
I'm afraid, but you are trying to restrict the meaning of two very general statements, because of the sentence uttered before that particular statements.
Yoda: Blind we are, of creation of this clone army we could not see.
Mace Windu: I think it is time we inform the senate that our ability to use the force has diminished.
Yoda: Only a Dark Lord of the Sith knows of our weakness. If informed the senate is, multiply our adversaries will.
Mace speaks about a general ability to use the force, while Yoda refers to a general weakness. And anything else doesn't make any sense, if you would apply some context here:
A)
From the fact, that Mace thinks that now it is time to inform the Senate essentially means, that they aware of their diminishing abilities before already, and that Mace views this "failure" as either the final straw that breaks the camel's back or a such a huge slip linked to their diminishing abilities, that it is now mandatory to inform the Senate of a fact, that has been reality for a longer period of time already.
B)
Even following your idea, that everything there is dealing with an ability seperated from the balance shift in this context, that Sidious used to cloud their foresight: The Force was still unbalanced and that is a fact that is there in TPM already, given Qui-Gon is already assuming Anakin is the Chosen One that will bring balance to the Force again, which wouldn't make much sense, if the Force wasn't unbalanced yet.
C)
Following from there, you have still failed to answer the question, why an unbalancing of the Force, tipping the scales in favor for the Dark Side, would just affect certain abilities. That could make sense, if we were dealing with force techniques viewed as "light side" techniques in general (e.g. "wall of light"😉. But mere glimpses into the future?
@Nai
1. I acknowledge the increment Plagueis and Sidious received in midi-chlorian count but I think you are overlooking some particulars.
First of all this it took several years for this effect to manifest by Plagueis own ommission, and the way in which its described suggests it was personal to them, rather than every dark sider in the galaxy:
Regardless, eight long years later, Plagueis remained convinced that he was on the verge of absolute success. The evidence was in his own increased midi-chlorian count; and in the power he sensed in Sidious when he had finally returned to Sojourn. The dark side of the Force was theirs to command, and in partnership they would someday be able to keep each other alive, and to rule the galaxy for as long as they saw fit.This is itself quite different from a "nexus amp" which is instant and indiscriminate.But he had yet to inform Sidious of this.
Furthermore what Plagueis and Sidious experienced was a permanent change to their ability (i.e. an increment to their midichlorian count) which we cannot assume would abruptly vanish in the absence of imbalance. In fact DE Palpatine is stated to be more powerful than ever despite the balance in the Force being restored; implying that their increased abilities was not dependent on the shift in the Force, merely caused by it.
2. More common use of the dark side would mean more research and exploration would be conducted into its mysteries, including immortality. Hence why ancient Sith knowledge is so sought after. Immortality being all Plagueis was referring to in relation to that point. Neither is he speculating on that front, instead he says "the fact the dark side had been more prominent" - and yet no other source to my knowledge makes out what your suggesting he means to the case. It's certainly a fact it was more widely practiced however.
3. Plagueis' musings about being a more powerful Sith than any who came before is supported by:
1. His comprehensive knowledge of Sith lore and their abilities, including knowledge of the capabilities of Emperor Vitiate and Exar Kun.
2. Through study of his own midichlorians surely a comprehensive understanding of what he was himself capable of.
3. Support of his claim by the novel blurb that regards him to be "the most powerful Sith that ever lived."
However that is a separate discussion.
---------------------------------------------
And as far as the Jedi are concerned, only their ability to see the future is said to be effected according to Force & Destiny:
For those plebians who don't know what the Cosmic Force is:
So no, I'm not seeing any evidence to suggest their combat abilities were effected, and the exchange between Windu and Yoda can be easily read in this way.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
[B]@Nai1. I acknowledge the increment Plagueis and Sidious received in midi-chlorian count but I think you are overlooking some particulars.
First of all this it took several years for this effect to manifest by Plagueis own ommission, and the way in which its described suggests it was personal to them, rather than every dark sider in the galaxy:
Again: False interpretation. The part that you quoted doesn't indicate when the effect manifested, just that it is there eight years later. In the same regard, Plagueis does just consider himself and Sidious. What other Dark Siders would he mention in that particular regard - especially when considering the context of the chapter: Which is the narrative of the entire balance shift, that Sidious and Plagueis caused.
This is itself quite different from a "nexus amp" which is instant and indiscriminate.
Since you failed to present proof for the idea that the effects of the balance shift manifested slowly (contradicted by the fact that Plagueis is capable of killing / reviving Venamis on the same day, which is testament to an increase in terms of power) and that it does discriminate (countradicted by the idea of Plaguies that pretty much every force user should instantly feel it), there doesn't seem to be much difference.
I also don't see any possibility to directly compare the effects of the balance shift to the effects a nexus would have on a Force user.
Furthermore what Plagueis and Sidious experienced was a permament, tangible change to their ability (i.e. an increment to their midichlorian count) which we cannot assume would abruptly vanish in the absence of a nexus.
I fail to see and evidence for the idea, that the change was "permanent". If the increase of midichlorians was caused by the shift in balance, it stands to reason that restoring the balance could - and would - also lead to the opposite effect. How long that would take is entirely unknown, since we also don't know how long it took for this effect to manifest.
(In fact DE Palpatine is stated to be more powerful than ever despite the balance in the Force being restored). Implying that their increased abilities was not dependent on the shift in the Force, merely caused by it.
First: We're still dealing with the "real life problem", that the entire DE storyline was conceived before the introductioin of the "balance of the force" idea. Secondly: We're also dealing with the problem, that "balance of the Force" required the death of Sidious who doesn't die before the events of DE exactly. Thirdly: There are more then enough explanations for Sidious increasing in power, despite the restoration of the balance in the force.
2. More common use of the dark side would mean more research and exploration would be conducted into its mysteries, including immortality. Hence why ancient Sith knowledge is so sought after. Immortality being all Plagueis was referring to in relation to that point.
That research would be conducted by individuals who were extremely reluctant to share any kind of knowledge. Furthermore did you dodge the question: How would that make individuals more powerful and why would Plagueis contrast personal power to "more research"?
Neither is he speculating on that front, instead he says "the fact the dark side had been more prominent" - and yet no other source to my knowledge makes out what your suggesting he means to be fact. It's certainly a fact it was more widely practiced however.
Urm. Context?
He is obviously speculating on that front. Had he viewed it as fact, that the Dark Side had been stronger in that time, there would be no need to question wether people using the Dark Side would have benefitted from that or not. But he is, quite obviously, asking wether that was the reason for them beeing more powerful or their individual strength in the Force.
3. Plagueis musings about being a more powerful Sith than any who came before him is supported by 1. his comprehensive knowledge of Sith lore and their abilities, including knowledge of the capabilities of Emperor Vitiate and Exar Kun 2. Through study of his own midichlorians surely a comprehensive understanding of what he was capable of 3. support of his claim by the novel blurb that regards him to be "the most powerful Sith that ever lived."
I wonder how his actual knowledge regarding Sith Lore compares to the knowledge of Ancient Sith, who had centuries (and in Vitiates case more than a millenium) to broaden there knowledge, experiment, increase their skills or, simply put, to become more powerful. That he knew the stuff that Vitiate and Kun were capable of doesn't mean he was capable of it himself. The study of his midichlorians might enable him to cast an accurate judgement about his own abilities but it doesn't help him to accurately determine the powers of long dead Sith Lords.
And the "most powerful Sith" novel blurb comes from "Darth Plagueis"? Because that phrase is present in the book just once, used by Sidious.
Nai
I find it pretty hilarious that, after having been lectured by me on the issue countless times, you still confuse the stuff I post here with my personal views, interpretations and opinions. I'm here to stir debate and maybe to encurage people thinking outside the box by producing, what did you call them, "tortured mental contortions" and see how people react to that. And yes, I have the mental flexibility to argue points that I personally find completely hilarious, just for the sake of an argument. That's the main difference between you and me.
Nah, you're full of shit. You're here to wank the ancient Sith and proudly wave the antediluvian banner. That's it. You'll naturally reference the handful of instances where, by sheer cosmic accident, you've stumbled into something vaguely resembling an alternate viewpoint as though they mean anything. But two or three instances don't overwhelm a 10 year trend.
Everyone here knows #teamswtor comprise the most consistently vocal members and in the greatest number: LeGenD, Neph, Ant, etc. One would think if you were really just playing the devil's advocate and you were really just interested in stirring debate, you'd actually cross swords with people who're young, hungry, and actively seeking that challenge.
Instead, you bother with the likes of me, whose opinions and abilities you consistently deride.
Now why would that be, I wonder?
Spoiler:
Perhaps because you're full of shit. Also, I own your soul.
Nai
I'm not interested in discussing my convictions here, because there is still nobody here who could argue them on equal terms with me. Fortunately, I have friends and colleagues who can, when it comes down to fictional concepts, literature published in "franchised universes", hermeneutics, narratology, the issue of the applicability of authorial intent (Barthes - La mort de l'auteur anybody?) or philosophical issues (deconstruction a la Jacques Derrida anybody?). This forum here, for me, is still just a place to have fun. Not so much for you? I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be my problem, although you apparently want to pin it on me.
That's an extraordinarily weak excuse from someone who's had 10 years to come up with one.
Nai
Pardon me.
It was new to me, that convictions and beliefs, until being made part of a debate, require any kind of "proof". As far as that goes, everybody is entitled to their own beliefs anyway.But, for the sake of you getting any kind of a point across, let us just go with the assumption that this was the issue at hand in a debate:
You'd still find a situation, where there is a fairly large amount of allusions to the idea, that Ragnos - just some examples - being the Dark Lord of the Sith in the Golden Age of the Sith and so on and so forth - outranks quite a lot of the Sith Lords coming before or after him. Agree so far?
Then, and here we come back to what I said, you'd still find that everything that might contradict that idea is - thanks Star Wars authors - a result of character thoughts and their interpretation. But using that, specifically the thoughts of Luke Skywalker in JK:JA, Ragnos might even be far above the likes of Sidious.
[b]But
of course you would argue here (aside from rightfully pointing out, that Luke's ideas aren't god given fact), there is much more stuff to be found, that prominently features Sidious in the top position among the Sith Lords. But then, I've specifically asked for factual evidence that it is not Ragnos. We could also reverse that to: Present factual evidence for somebody else "reigning supreme" or even being superior to Ragnos.Since the requirement - spoiler - for presenting aforementioned evidence, would be somebody beating Ragnos in all his living glory in a fight, I know that this can't be produced. And here we arive back at square one, where I can say "I think Ragnos is the most powerful Sith Lord ever, because..." and you go "Nope. I don't think so, because ..." and then we can agree to disagree, because no factual evidence exists to prove one of the positions and thereby disprove the other.
Not that this even matters: I've told you before that, outside my chosen role as advocatus diaboli, my opinion on the issue is not that far away from your own, although that has nothing to do with praise from some characters (or secondary sources elaborating on that), but more with the issue that would - maybe - be discussed right here, if you weren't so busy again making a fool out of yourself by glossing over the argument at hands to deal with my 5-year-old posting history, in a desperate attempt to "win". 😉 [/b]
To recap: you're saying that, all these years, you didn't have to prove your claims because you were most certainly not debating and, instead, merely expressing innocent opinions exempt from the rules of discourse.
Just when I think you've hit rock bottom, you drop lower.
Nai
That after all this time, you've still not understand the fundamental workings of fiction and debates regarding fictional realms is the only thing "cringeworthy" here. What Blax "called me out for" is precisely my take on fictional realms: I accept the idea that everything is possible, because everything is possible. I'm rather sure that I don't need to lecture you about the most hilarious things that made it into Star Wars canon, since you know most of them yourself. But if you want an example, you may want to answer the following question:Judging from his performance against a single Droideka in "Survivor's Quest" (right before the start of the NJO series), how many individuals do you think are superior to Luke Skywalker? We might start with Ahsoka Tano here.
Actually, I think Blax called you out because you're a dishonest hypocrite. mmm
PS: As far as the "ad hominems" are concerned, you're certainly no stranger to delivering them lol. You and I are two people who are united in an open and mutual disrespect for one another. There's a refreshing clarity in that and we don't need to bother with what would otherwise be farcical civility. I think you're a moron and you think I'm one. I encourage you to find the integrity in that.
Nai
Everybody gets the peer group he deserves. 😂
I take it you're the thing I flushed down it? haermm
