I read the quote as DTM revealing a thousand years of Sith chaos and darkness. In such a situation, it would be considered an unbalancing.
At the very least, the disturbance could have attributed to an overall tally that led to Skywalker's birth, in which the meditation was likewise just one of many.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
So you agree that Palpatine's ascension is also a possible candidate for causing Anakin's birth? 😕You wouldn't consider causing a hole in the fabric of the Force as causing an unbalance / disturbance?
Furthermore, it could have been a combination of all these factors.
1. Palpatine's ascension? You mean when he killed Plagueis?
2. A disturbance isn't an imbalance. The hole was just there to allow the Jedi to feel the dark side. It didn't increase the potency of the dark side or anything.
3. A combination of Plagueis and Palpatine's efforts/existences, which Palpatine continued on by himself after killing Plagueis. 👆
A hole being scissored into the fabric of the Force would constitute as the Force going into a state of balance into unbalance.
If balance is equilibrium, the Force being cut open is, like, the absolute of equilibrium.
You're really yet to prove that the various other examples I cited aren't factors besides saying they weren't.
I just spent hours debating this though, and I'm getting exhausted, so I'm going to head off. I'll leave repeating this:
Originally posted by AncientPower
Yes, but by there being numerous factors necessitating his birth, thus not the sole one, using him as a means of wank justification for Plagueis and Sidious is a massive stretch and thus not usable in debates. Them not being the sole reason negates the argument in and of itself.
Once again,
Plagueis understood, too, that there were no powers beyond his reach; none he couldn't master through an effort of will. If a Sith of equal power had preceded him, then that one had taken his or her secrets to the grave, or had locked them away in holocrons that had been destroyed or had yet to surface. The question of whether he and Sidious had discovered something new or rediscovered something ancient was beside the point. All that mattered was that, almost a decade earlier, they had succeeded in willing the Force to shift and tip irrevocably to the dark side. Not a mere paradigm shift, but a tangible alteration that could be felt by anyone strong in the Force, and whether or not trained in the Sith or Jedi arts.
Plagueis' and Palpatine's ritual was made out to be far more extravagant in nature and effect than anything you mentioned, and it coincided with Anakin's birth. The "coincidence" is specifically mentioned later in the book--it's not an accident that it was written this way. You know it, too. I get that you're trying really hard here to make a point, but there's no way anyone's gonna let this slip by. It's way too obvious to be written off as too ambiguous.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
By point is that there's so many degrees of speculation here that it can't be used in debates.There's a fundamental difference between assuming who's better than who and then assuming which event happened.
The former is rooted in discussion and comparison - the latter is arbitrary.
So Ant thinks that cosmology, evolution, archaeology, anthropology, history, and physics are all imaginary subjects.
Congratulations - you have won KMC.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
1.) That's foremost assuming the shift detected was due to Plagueis and not Anakin's growing power.
That the Chosen One made to balance the Force would unbalance it towards the dark side makes absolutely no sense. You just say that Pablo said so, but he also agreed (with the same tentative "maybe"😉 that Plagueis and Sidious caused Anakin's birth - you can't have it both ways, lmao.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Sasukedc, I've been through this (I think with you?) already,
Pretty sure I can argue just by quoting myself, at this point. Let's try.
That's then assuming that the tangible alteration birthed Anakin Skywalker and not other factors.
Plagueis' and Palpatine's ritual was made out to be far more extravagant in nature and effect than anything you mentioned, and it coincided with Anakin's birth. The "coincidence" is specifically mentioned later in the book--it's not an accident that it was written this way. You know it, too. I get that you're trying really hard here to make a point, but there's no way anyone's gonna let this slip by. It's way too obvious to be written off as too ambiguous.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
A hole being scissored into the fabric of the Force would constitute as the Force going into a state of balance into unbalance.If balance is equilibrium, the Force being cut open is, like, the absolute of equilibrium.
You're really yet to prove that the various other examples I cited aren't factors besides saying they weren't.
I just spent hours debating this though, and I'm getting exhausted, so I'm going to head off. I'll leave repeating this:
No, it's not. Imbalance isn't just making a hole in the Force.
You can't ask me to prove a negative. This whole "prove water isn't fire" thing is ridiculous. Almost none of your quotes prove an imbalance. If you think there are imbalances hidden in those quotes, then it's your onus to prove it, not mine to disprove it.
You're making his argument sound retarded when it really isn't. Some of the things he has claimed are definitely questionable but more than anything else the point he was putting across since the beginning is not at all farfetched. In fact I am awaiting an argument proving those other galactic scale factors wouldn't be factors at all.
Frankly, the fact he had to deal with over half of your brigade at once and et his argument is still standing says a lot. If you're going to actually debate him on the actual premise of his argument, don't bombard him with posts. That honestly looks really desperate, when we all know you could actually debate him properly instead of condescendingly demeaning a perfectly viable stance on his part.