This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Verbatim
Pages: 1 ... 148714881489 14901491 ... 1601
44641
« on: January 06, 2015, 06:12:17 PM »
It's more of an incredibly slight undertone of the movies that's expanded upon more in Legends material, but the Jedi Order is incredibly strict in their code. If a Jedi isn't held to an inhuman (figuratively, given that many Jedi aren't human) level of knowledge, understanding, and a blind, unwavering support of the Council then they are banned from the order or are stuck under a glass ceiling. Another fault is that the Jedi Order is generally indecisive lend themselves to intentional ignorance of things to remain pure of mind. They are essentially zealots with telekinesis and laser swords.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Sith are ruthless, untrustworthy, and eternally power-hungry. It was shown quite clearly in the movies that they are the "bad" guys and that they are simply the opposite of everything righteous.
That's why the Gray Jedi is the best position to take; it admits that you can't simply hide from reality and thus you must understand it while at the same time shunning the use of the Force as a tool for evil. But as in real life, very few reach a truly balanced position intentionally or not. That's why the Force can only exist balanced in two circumstances:
1) All true Jedi and Sith (individuals who subscribe totally, or nearly so, to the doctrines) are eradicated. This only works for a short term, as the knowledge cannot be completely destroyed and the ideals will always be rediscovered by force-sensitives.
2) Jedi and Sith exist on equal standing in terms of power and control.
i mean, it's great that you know all this, it's nice that the EU has made efforts to make the universe more graspable for people like me who find the silly light/dark dichotomy to be trite and uncreative, and i find your dedication to the franchise admirable, but that's just another problem i see with it the fact that so much of the films' logic was sort of dependent on outside sources within the EU to make sense?...well, not dependent, but... supplemented by and made more sense from fight club requiem for a dream chronicle gone girl some of my favorite film stories of all time they... don't need an EU to help make sense of all its stuff i realize that's not what the EU is originally intended for--it's originally intended to make money, because star wars is the biggest cash cow franchise of all time--but i'm just saying, because of it, whenever i think about star wars, i get an intense wave of i-don't-give-a-shit syndrome due to just the staggering amount of shit that i have to endure just to justify every idiosyncrasy in the films that wouldn't really add up if you didn't play a video game or read a book if there weren't people like you to condense all of this stuff for me, i would never, ever know I'm not sure if we actually know the allegiance of Episode 7's villain, but I'm holding out hope that it doesn't retcon ROTJ's conclusion. >.> the narrator clearly said "THE DARK SIDE" as soon as he appeared i mean, i think that's pretty definitive, but maybe he'll pull a heel-face turn or something
44642
« on: January 06, 2015, 05:53:59 PM »
Meta hit it on the nail, actually. It's not that it's "wrong" on a quantum level, it's that the answer becomes more of a gray area the more specific the subject becomes. For the genocide argument-- the fact is that you can demonstrate and support for or against it well all based on your view of it. And because there are such a number of different views that express support or opposition, it would be either incredibly difficult (or impossible) to reach a specific answer to it. It's possible to find a general application to the umbrella it falls under (genocide), but specific scenarios don't have a specific moral response. That's reasonable. I guess for me, here's an analogy... morality is as subjective to me as the existence of god. Most people aren't gonna say that the question of "is there a god" is a matter of opinion--there either factually is or there factually isn't, but we can't ever really know that, so it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis--the same term could be used to describe any moral conundrums and dilemmas we could come up with. To your initial example, you say that the worker is more valuable than the few hikers--I might ask you, well, how good of a worker was he? Did he do his job well? Was he like, fifty-nine years old and about to retire? All these variables are too plentiful to account for, giving the illusion of subjectivity, but if we knew everything, we could make an objective choice. I won't say it's subjective just because we can't ever know all the variables, but I will say that, yeah, no perfect conjecture can be made in hyperspecific circumstances like that... Edit: *few HIKERS, not workers. derp
44643
« on: January 06, 2015, 05:41:14 PM »
In America, cannibalism is morally wrong
In parts of India and various indigenous tribes around the world, cannibalism is seen as acceptable I wouldn't really call that an example of subjectivity. Let alone a moral issue. It's a cultural difference of values. Most people would agree, I'd wager, that if someone consented to be eaten, it's okay to eat that person. I don't think you're going to find too many people who disagree with that, even in America. If you're suggesting that nonconsensual cannibalism is rife within Indian communities... This is news to me.
44644
« on: January 06, 2015, 05:30:41 PM »
"Genocide of the chronically handicapped is morally right" is much more subjective because it boils down to your individual approach of the subject in terms of your socioeconomic views. And that is where moral objectivity breaks down; as I said, objective morality cannot exist on a small scale. From my perspective, if you can't demonstrate why genocide of the chronically handicapped is morally right--if you fail to demonstrate why, then you're just wrong, flat-out. If you can demonstrate it, well, now you have yourself an objective argument. Just because something is controversial or difficult to argue doesn't make it subjective. Edit: Basically what Meta said. He's a lot faster than me, so I'll just let him take care for me...
44645
« on: January 06, 2015, 05:23:32 PM »
yeah, yeah
it still makes me giddy to know it's not canon anymore
About the jedi/sith thing though, that's just what I don't like about Star Wars. It's just arbitrary. It would feel less silly if the sith weren't card-carrying villains. Their side is literally called "the dark side". That's what makes lines like, "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!" so stupid and laughable. Like, your side is NAMED after evil! You're evil! Duh!
It's not like red and blue, or democrat/republican, where it's kinda ambiguous. You know who to root for right away. If it were a better franchise, they'd have ways to sort of sympathize with the sith in some form or another. The movies did a piss-poor job of that. I just chalk it up to it being for... you know, kids. A lot of people get all emotional if I say that, though.
44646
« on: January 06, 2015, 05:14:28 PM »
Could you describe another scenario? The choice was pretty clear to me on the first one you gave. It may not be for someone else, but there's a difference between subjectivity in that sense and... someone who just doesn't have their priorities straight. In a platitude--"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"... If one goes by that, the answer is always going to be clear. There's gotta be a more challenging scenario that would suggest a level of subjectivity.
44647
« on: January 06, 2015, 05:05:58 PM »
But two out of three of those aren't canon anymore so there's no point in referencing them as evidence to a claim. no, there is not haha, neener neener
44648
« on: January 06, 2015, 05:01:07 PM »
What if there was such a situation that, given terrible suffering for everyone, would lead to an eventual pay-off? Is it morally sound because it eventually ends with something good for humanity if it entails large amounts of suffering?
What if the difference in morality lies in the method, not the outcome? Is it morally correct to divert a train into a man working on the tracks if it means saving the lives of a couple of hikers, or is it more correct to not interfere? Or is it better to let someone live in a vegetative state, who feels no sensation be it pain or pleasure, or to pull the plug?
In order to "pay off" any suffering incurred, the "good" that would come as a result would have to outweigh that suffering. Otherwise, you have yourself a zero-sum game. What you just described is more or less an argument for an objective "morality" (using that word makes me want to puke), more or less, which I know you don't believe in, so I'm kind of confused as to where you're going with that. Edit: So, okay, so you DO believe in an objective morality... on a large scale. Well, I would just argue that there really is no other scale. It's a large scale--but it's also the only scale.
44649
« on: January 06, 2015, 04:55:16 PM »
I'm kinda with you, to be honest. Though, "morality" is kind of a stupid word.
44650
« on: January 06, 2015, 04:48:18 PM »
the original star wars trilogy's ending was ruined for me as soon as episode seven was announced
like, oh
there's still sith
so that happy ending was worthless
44651
« on: January 06, 2015, 04:44:38 PM »
It seems less like the creators left the ending open and more like they decided 'fuck it, let's just end it here.' i just didn't get that impression i'd have to rewatch the series to really demonstrate why, too, though but i don't got time for that
44652
« on: January 06, 2015, 04:31:48 PM »
nope
44653
« on: January 06, 2015, 03:57:40 PM »
well i'm just saying, even by it's own terms, i don't even see how it's a bad ending
the reason why the majority dislikes it is because it doesn't answer questions like the operator's origins
which you said you don't care about
what you wanted for them was to expand upon the mythos more
which, of course, not everybody cares about--it wasn't the mythos that made it compelling for me
it was the realism
and the ending is the most real ending they possibly could've done, in my perspective
44654
« on: January 06, 2015, 03:43:07 PM »
i find the reasoning of "it wasn't how i wanted/how i'd like it to be" rather childish, personally
it's not your story, is it
and that certainly doesn't make it bad
44655
« on: January 06, 2015, 03:30:36 PM »
Did anyone here watch Marble Hornets?
That's an example of mystery-horror done right, only to end in the shittiest, most unsatisfying way possible. It was absolutely awesome up until that fucking final entry.
but i loved it lol
44656
« on: January 06, 2015, 03:23:00 PM »
Did anyone here watch Marble Hornets? Slender man, right? I watched a couple, didn't get why it was so scary.
I watched it because I found it be an interesting series, not because it was scary. It ended a few months ago and everyone hated the ending but me. It was a Lost-esque ending where basically nothing was explained--but that's what I loved about it. It wouldn't make sense if everything was explained.
44657
« on: January 06, 2015, 03:19:41 PM »
Did anyone here watch Marble Hornets?
44658
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:53:47 PM »
Everyone would talk about how apparently awesome that guy was back in Coup, but I never got to know him/her.
44659
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:49:45 PM »
Get out newfag. 3D is best
44660
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:47:35 PM »
do anime fans wonder why people hate them
or do they have an understanding of how annoying and insufferable they can be like this is an honest question because from what i can tell, a lot of weeaboos will wonder why people hate anime without giving it a chance--but they also happen to be the least welcoming fanbase ever except bronies
44661
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:34:28 PM »
do anime fans wonder why people hate them
or do they have an understanding of how annoying and insufferable they can be
44662
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:33:44 PM »
couldn't get into the first one
44663
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:28:07 PM »
not particularly profound though
Doesn't need to be.
i think it does there's no use in saying something everyone already knows/agrees on
44664
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:20:08 PM »
not particularly profound though
44665
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:13:29 PM »
i find genres useless anyway
music is fucking music
even when i say i hate country, that's a lie, because a lot of johnny cash's stuff is pretty tight
the mentality of using genres to "help find music you like" promotes closed-mindedness
44666
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:11:13 PM »
OK welp, looks like we have a winner tool: metal the end
44667
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:10:15 PM »
and what's funny is that all of the bands that jim considers metal (black sabbath, and i believe he mentioned iron maiden and judas priest), i consider them metal too--not to mention the "big four"
it's just when i listen to tool
i hear very similar sounds and very similar techniques used between them and the seven other bands mentioned
so i say... yeah, tool is metal
if you want to get specific, call it progressive metal, because as far as i know, the "progressive" label just means an attempt to bring artistic merit to whatever genre you're attaching it
it's not rock, because rock is too soft
tool is not soft
it's not fucking anal cunt
but it's not fucking buddy holly or chuck berry either
44668
« on: January 06, 2015, 02:02:52 PM »
you didn't even do that though lol
all you can say is that it isn't metal
and then link a bunch of bands that ARE metal (which sound exactly like tool by the way) and try to use that as an argument
and then say that a song like vicarious is in the same genre as a song like comfortably numb (progressive rock)
which is THE dumbest thing, ever
OK
your problem is that you're not articulate enough (or at all, to be frank) you obviously don't know any technical terms that would help you describe the sounds that you hear when listening to whatever the fuck you consider metal, and what you hear when you listen to tool if you did, it would be a cinch to draw the line between them, but because you don't, you can't articulate anything--all you can say is "my opinion is right because i studied music history for years" which helps no one
44669
« on: January 06, 2015, 01:51:34 PM »
you didn't even do that though lol
all you can say is that it isn't metal
and then link a bunch of bands that ARE metal (which sound exactly like tool by the way) and try to use that as an argument
and then say that a song like vicarious is in the same genre as a song like comfortably numb (progressive rock)
which is THE dumbest thing, ever
44670
« on: January 06, 2015, 01:47:20 PM »
because i think it's sad how a music expert such as yourself cannot even explain how tool is apparently not metal
Pages: 1 ... 148714881489 14901491 ... 1601
|
Show Posts