It's like maybe we shouldn't take quotes from sh!t sources as hard irrefutable fact. Kun has vastly superior scaling/feats and hence I'm inclined to dismiss a source that also seems to consider bastila~dooku.
Regardless it's pure idiocy to try and use this to twist this into Revan>Vitiate when he gets outright demolished in a direct confrontation and the entire plot of SOR revolves on Revan being sh!t to Vitiate.
And yes, if you want to take an az-style, quotes are canon no matter what approach, I'm not really seeing how you can avoid sf malak being>>Kun.
Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
What makes a source shit though? That's the point. Once you start saying "I don't have to take quotes from shit sources."You can claim any source that says something you don't like is a "shit source."
And yes, you can claim the stupidity of or dispute any quote you find to be nonsensical, assuming you've got good reason to do so.
I dispute the quote on the basis of Kun having much greater feats and scaling than Malak does.
Quotes aren't indisputable, they can be argued against, assuming you have an argument against them.
You're not being honest what your stance is: a quote is objective unless subjectively disputable, therefore making it non-canonical.
So, in other words, if a quote says something you like, it's absolute. Otherwise, if you don't like it, then it's non-canon rubbish.
"What you don't like" meaning if you personally don't think the quote is supported by your own interpretation of events.
That is distinctively different than all quotes are subjective evidence and, depending on the situation, hold varying levels of authority.
The latter viewpoint, of course, is mine. I'm not saying you have to have that, but let's be honest here on what you believe versus what I believe.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
You're not being honest what your stance is: a quote is objective unless subjectively disputable, therefore making it non-canonical.
All quotes are disputable and can be disputed. However some quotes can be defended aside from the quote itself better than other quotes can be. Determining which quotes are more solid than others comes down to debating. If a quote can be well supported via holistics, feats, and/or scaling, or if it's oe of many that contributes to a common theme across the mythos(sids>valk for example), I'm going to be more likely to accept thana quote which makes little sense in regard to feats, scaling, or holistic sense(malak>kun or bastilla~dooku for example). The source also matters. I'm going to give a novel blurb, codex entry, or WOTC quote less weight than say a statement from Lucas himself. But like I said, that's subjective, and it comes down to debating to determine which evidence we consider stronger.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
What you just said was what I said, but with a lot of fluff around it to make your stance seem more acceptable than my direct version.
That is distinctively different than all quotes are subjective evidence and, depending on the situation, hold varying levels of authority.
All quotes are disputable and can be disputed. However some quotes can be defended aside from the quote itself better than other quotes can be.
We have the same approach, you're just sour I'm willing to apply your approach on a quote you like.
You can stop crying wolf now. 🙁
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Because it has repeatedly suggested stuff that doesn't make much sense holistically or in terms of feats.And yes, you can claim the stupidity of or dispute any quote you find to be nonsensical, assuming you've got good reason to do so.
I dispute the quote on the basis of Kun having much greater feats and scaling than Malak does.
Quotes aren't indisputable, they can be argued against, assuming you have an argument against them.
I understand your line of thinking but I can't agree with it since there's no objective place where we draw the line. It makes debating impossible or rather TOO possible. No one would ever reach a consensus due to inherent biases.
Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
I understand your line of thinking but I can't agree with it since there's no objective place where we draw the line. It makes debating impossible or rather TOO possible. No one would ever reach a consensus due to inherent biases.