Are Tuskens All Bad?

Don't recall Anakin turning into the hero.

Stryphe: You're getting confused with verb tenses, dear. Anakin did not turn into a hero, true, but what does that say about what he is now? The Tusken Massacre was clearly a mistake and I'm rather sick of his arrogant, presumptuous nature, but otherwise, he looks like a pretty good hero. He helped the Naboo win the war in TPM. He helped the Jedi win the war in AOTC. He helped rescue Obi-Wan. He fought Dooku. Yes, very good hero - except for the Tusken incident.

Depa Billaba

 

Maybe my favorite poem:

"In men whom men would deem as ill,
I see so much of goodness still.
In men whom men would deem divine,
I see so much of sin and blot.
I hesitate to draw the line
between the two where God has not."

-author unknown

 

<< looks at the roaring fires in this thread and stands by a conviniant window to post:


OK, looking at the original question, were the Tuskens all bad? I think that in the context of the films , the Tusken Raiders are like the old Nazis in the movies (think even Raiders which is based on such an era... the style where Nazis=eviiiiiil) That's the roll of the Tuskens.

Film Noir... that's about the tone I'm looking for.

On a 'spritual' level, Anakin demonstrates the trueism...


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster himself...

Good old Friedrich Nietzsche....

 

Sure, the only people Anakin killed were children. He didn't kill the men who brutally tortured his mother, and he didn't kill the women who watched it happen and did nothing. He only killed children. He left on a Saturday morning from the Lars homestead and told Padme, "I'm going to go down to a Tusken Day Care Center and hack up some babies and send their body parts back to their parents, because I'm bored. You need to stay here--these are good people, Padme, you'll be safe. I won't be long."

So would you slaughter the children or not?

When you bring up posts about "slaughtering children", this is how you make Anakin look. You refuse to even acknowledge two facts: one, his mother was tortured to death, and two, most of the people he killed were not children.

Yes , his mother was tortured to death. As for the second part - I don't know whether most of them were children or not.

I don't see your point. If a citizen of the U.K. travelled to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban and was captured by Afghanis that were fighting the Taliban, they would still most likely be less comfortable as a prisoner in Afghanistan. Even with the Taliban gone, Afghani law is still much harsher than being in U.S. custody.

My point is they're not all from countries with the laws you described.

Why not just say 'dozens and dozens and dozens' to demonize Anakin even more? Wouldn't it be bad enough if he killed twenty? I wasn't saying I had to see every Tusken on the screen. I'm saying that your estimate sounds steep, to me. You wouldn't be biased, would you?

"Dozens and dozens" is from the novelization. You don't think the author is biased do you.

Well for one, those children would have grown up. And thanks to the Tuskens, the remaining farms do not have enough men left to protect themselves if the tribe had decided to strike again.

That's an appalling reason for killing children. Can you think of any culture that supports this idea?


g

 

I go by that rule as much as you do.

So stop pretending it's OK for the Tuskens not to.

And if I have to explain it to you one more time that I neither had nor have any intention to bait you, I'm going to scream.

So don't ask me something like, "Why is torturing an innocent woman wrong?" because you lead me to believe that if my mother or my sister were tortured, I would have no right to be upset--after all, the people who did it might have been raised by thugs and thought it was perfectly OK.

But I don't bring it up as a moral absolute anywhere and neither should you unless you're willing to defend your stance.

So should I have to tell you why 2+2=4, or can we not just accept that without questioning?

This reminds me of trying to help my college roommate with math. She would ask me why a squared + b squared = c squared. I finally gave up, because she refused to accept some things just as is and stop analyzing.

It's no wonder I made better grades in math than she did.

We can either accept certain moral absolutes, the ones that are inherent to every civilized society in the world--namely, harm none--or we can live in an anarchal society in which people are forced to carry around Uzzis to defend themselves just in case they run into people who think that there's nothing wrong with torturing innocent people.

This isn't about forcing religious beliefs on people. This is about being able to live on the same planet together. If we have the rule, "As long as we think it's OK, it's allowed", we're going to live in a pretty crappy world. Not one I want to live in.

And if someone tortures someone else to death, "I was raised by thugs" is not going to get them off--at least, not unless the judge needs to be disbarred. It shouldn't get the Tuskens off either.

I happen to believe that torturing innocent people is wrong. But that's my belief. What's to say that there isn't going to be a species that thinks otherwise? You don't think that killing animals is right and I also don't think that, but there are several people who eat meat without a problem. They're obviously cannibals; God should give that pig's son the ability to think so he can rally up all the animals to his cause and murder everybody who ate meat and murder all their families as well, regardless of whether or not they eat meat. After all, they weren't stopping the meat-eaters from eating meat. How dare they?

Two questions for you:

One, were the Tuskens eating Shmi? I don't think so. (I asked you this before--you didn't answer it.)

Two, if any humans are eating an animal whose son is capable of rallying the other animals and hunting down the humans, then the humans deserve to die. You don't eat something that is that sentient.

And why the hell should I believe in what I argue?

Because otherwise the only reason you're arguing is to irritate people on the other side.

I'm studying philosophy and I often have to argue things that I don't believe in just because my teacher forced me to argue those things.

Philosophy is a waste of time and that's why I never took any. I've got better things to do than argue about whether or not the lamp on my computer table really exists. It's like arguing about whether or not 2+2=4.

Just not in this way. I don't think that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are right, because they are humans and I fully believe that they had some inkling that they were wrong.

What makes you so sure? I think they thought they were right. Bin Laden thinks he's on some sort of jihad, which means his God told him to blow up the World Trade Center--of course he thinks he's right. Therefore, according to your philosophy, 3000 Americans deserved to die.

But the Tuskens? They aren't even humans.

They are humanoid, which is basically the same.

It's utterly ridiculous to judge them by human moral standards.

No, it's not. George Lucas, who created Star Wars, is a human. Somehow I don't think he inten

 

There is so much good in the worst of us
And so much bad in the best of us
That it hardly behoves any of us
To talk about the rest of us.

The finest example of Tusken poetry in the entire EU!!

Just kidding. don't know who said the above, but since poetry has been introduced into the mix, there's some more!

 

I think that we can all agree that the Tusken males' capture and torture of Shmi was not an altruistic act; it was certainly evil as defined by many dictionaries.

eg.That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction

They were not helping anybody by hurting Shmi, and their motives are not explained so we can argue about why they did what they did, but I can't believe that they didn't know what they were doing. They made a choice. If you take away someone's rights, inflict harm on them, you must expect to take responsibility for it.

I still argue that the children were innocent of their elders' crimes and that they deserved a chance to grow up and make their own choices, for good or ill.

You can argue that black is white and that reality is just the the dream of a giant turtle on crack, but I will still stand up for the rights of the individual.

 

I still argue that the children were innocent of their elders' crimes and that they deserved a chance to grow up and make their own choices, for good or ill.

I would agree with this, except that I get tired of that argument being twisted (not by you, soitcomes, just in general) into making Anakin look like a monster, a child molester, and someone who torches day care centers for amusement.

You can argue that black is white and that reality is just the the dream of a giant turtle on crack, but I will still stand up for the rights of the individual.

Thank you. And you can argue that the computer that I'm typing on doesn't exist, or that 2+2=3, not 4, and you can ask me to prove that 2+2=4--but I'm not interested in participating. I find that sort of thing a gross waste of time.

 

That's an appalling reason for killing children. Can you think of any culture that supports this idea?

Hmmm... no, I cannot. Then again, I also can't think of any culture that snatches people off of thier properties and tortures them for no good reason... there might be a culture like that in exsistance, but I really hope there isn't.

 

The Good ol US of A Does!







































Thank you everybody, Good Night!!

 

Then again, I also can't think of any culture that snatches people off of thier properties and tortures them for no good reason...

Yeah, no kidding. If there is such a culture, I don't want to go anywhere near it. This is why I don't understand all the "Anakin killed babies!" screams. They are ignoring a very crucial issue here--his mother was tortured to death.

 

This is why I don't understand all the "Anakin killed babies!" screams. They are ignoring a very crucial issue here--his mother was tortured to death.

Who's ignoring anything? Are you even reading the arguments of your opponents, or just making up some pretend argument and railing against that? And what does that have to do with whether Anakin was right or not? Unless the kids tortured Shmi to death, Anakin had no right to kill them.

I would agree with this, except that I get tired of that argument being twisted (not by you, soitcomes, just in general) into making Anakin look like a monster, a child molester, and someone who torches day care centers for amusement.

It's interesting that you're the only one who's mentioned either of those three (I see you've added "child molestor" to your repertoire, though; I'd love to see you provide some proof for that one being said). You want to counter the actual points being made, or continue with this fictitious argument you're having with some imaginary opponent?

 

The Tuskens who kidnapped Shmi should definitely be punished, but not in the way Anakin did it. You don't cut off every single head in the tribe like that. Since Tatooine was out of the Republic's jurisdiction, I'm not sure exactly how it would be handled. It could be possible that the suspected Tuskens could be taken in a tried and punished. I'm sure this image might evoke laughter, but don't we have people in other countries tried under our own laws too?

I am sure we have all felt intense rage when we felt wronged at one time, but if everyone indulged in their own vengeful feelings this would be an awful place to live.

If there is one thing I do like, is that how Anakin and Luke's actions differ, where Anakin couldn't control himself while Luke was able to fight off the temptation in RotJ.

 

Hydronium: Do you even read my posts, or do you just look for something in them to use to personally attack me with, to accuse me of being somehow delusional and making things up?

People have said "Anakin killed children", which misconstrues the issue. It ignores the other, very important part of the equation--in revenge for the torture and murder of his mother. It also ignores the fact that most of the people Anakin killed were adults.

I have seen "Anakin is a baby-killer" posted on TF.N numerous times. I have also seen "Anakin is a mass murderer" posted here numerous times. These sentences imply that Anakin is another Charles Manson who hacks the limbs off babies at day care centers because he has nothing better to do. It misconstrues the issue.

Now, stop misconstruing my posts and making false accusations.

People here are emphasizing that kids died, and that is entirely unfair to Anakin--I somehow think that is done on purpose though.

JohnWilliams:

It could be possible that the suspected Tuskens could be taken in a tried and punished.

Under who? The Hutts?

Someone earlier suggested that Anakin handcuff the Tuskens. That image invokes laughter. For one thing, where was he going to get the handcuffs? For another thing, how was he going to get them back? 75 Tuskens on the back of Owen's speeder--75 violent Tuskens? Sure. Why not.

 

As Lord Hydronium said, we are not ignoring Shmi's torment. We are merely arguing that what happened to Shmi does not excuse the killing of innocent women and children. I happen to think that what happened to Shmi was tragic, but the killing of Tusken children was equally tragic. Both were innocents caught in between a conflict that they had nothing to do with.

 

I happen to think that what happened to Shmi was tragic, but the killing of Tusken children was equally tragic.

Well, for one thing, I disagree, because the children weren't tortured over a period of a month, and Anakin didn't kill them for fun. For another thing, if the two tragedies were equal, why does everyone emphasize the children and ignore Shmi?

 

As far as I can see, no one is ignoring Shmi. We just don't think what happened to SHmi gives Anakin a free ticket to kill innocent women and children.

Also, revenge is limited to only those that have wronged you. Killing the Tuskens responsible for his mother's torment is revenge. Killing women and children who had nothing to do w/ it is not revenge. Revenge is retaliation on those that wronged you. Killing those who had never wronged you is not revenge. Killing anyone associated w/ the wrongdoer who had nothing to do w/ the transgression is not revenge.

The killing of an innocent is wrong, period. I don't think there are differing degrees. I don't believe any one innocent life is more valuable than another. I don't think that the Tusken children had less of a claim to life than Shmi. Therefore, their loss of life is equally as tragic to me.

To say that the Tusken children are less worthy of life also implies a notion that the sins of the parents go to the children. This is a concept that I find repugnant.

 

People have said "Anakin killed children", which misconstrues the issue.

Except for the slight little fact of it being true.

It also ignores the fact that most of the people Anakin killed were adults.

Again, we come to this. Since when was morality legislated by numbers? If a dictator kills 1000 people who just said bad things about him, but then he kills 1001 murderers, does that make him a good person?

These sentences imply that Anakin is another Charles Manson who hacks the limbs off babies at day care centers because he has nothing better to do.

Incorrect. You are inferring that and blowing anything bad said about Anakin tremendously out of proportion.

Anakin didn't kill them for fun

I have yet to see any proof that Shmi was tortured for fun either.

For another thing, if the two tragedies were equal, why does everyone emphasize the children and ignore Shmi?

Because Shmi is a given. No one is arguing about Shmi. You, on the other hand, continue to say that it was OK for Anakin to kill the kids. Now, if both sides agree on one thing, but disagree on another thing, which are they more likely to talk about?

And two wrongs do not make a right. Shmi being tortured does not suddenly give Anakin license to do something bad.

EDIT: What SLR said.

 

I have yet to see any proof that Shmi was tortured for fun either.

You know of any other reason why she might have been tortured?

You, on the other hand, continue to say that it was OK for Anakin to kill the kids.

Actually, I never said that. "Understandable" doesn't mean "OK".

You all, however, ignore the fact that Shmi was brutally tortured to death. When you're not ignoring it, you make lame excuses for why the Tuskens might have done it.

And two wrongs do not make a right. Shmi being tortured does not suddenly give Anakin license to do something bad.

What was he supposed to do? Turn them over to the Hutts?

That was the only way justice was going to be done. It was also what I would have done in his situation.

Except for the slight little fact of it being true.

There's also the slight little fact that SHMI WAS TORTURED TO DEATH OVER A PERIOD OF A MONTH. Not that any of you give a rat's ass.

Since when was morality legislated by numbers?

It's not, but why do you have a right to misconstrue the numbers to make it look like Anakin attacked a day care center?

 

So stop pretending it's OK for the Tuskens not to.

You realize that I said I believe that it's wrong. That's not to say that it's wrong for Tuskens. The Tuskens are NOT humans. I don't know why you insist on holding them by human standards.

So don't ask me something like, "Why is torturing an innocent woman wrong?" because you lead me to believe that if my mother or my sister were tortured, I would have no right to be upset--after all, the people who did it might have been raised by thugs and thought it was perfectly OK.

And what's this flame's number? 24?

I really thought I didn't need to repeat myself every single time - but I am playing the Devil's Advocate. Some people find that arguing stimulates their intellectual capacity. I'm one of those people. I don't argue just because I believe in things - I argue about those things, much more vehemently - but I also argue because I like the challenge of reaching a compromise, at least, or convincing opposition that they're wrong, at the best.

So should I have to tell you why 2+2=4, or can we not just accept that without questioning?

But 2+2=4 is NOT an absolute. There are several different branches of mathematics in which 2+2 in fact does NOT equal 4. Even if it were, philosophy is NOWHERE as clear as mathematics.

It's no wonder I made better grades in math than she did.

I'm a math major. I'm also a philosophy major. I've also read several Computer Science & Professional Ethics books. Now what?

We can either accept certain moral absolutes, the ones that are inherent to every civilized society in the world--namely, harm none--or we can live in an anarchal society in which people are forced to carry around Uzzis to defend themselves just in case they run into people who think that there's nothing wrong with torturing innocent people.

Oh, no. We don't have any moral absolutes. I challenge you to look through history. Until the last century, there's nothing that suggests that anybody followed your supposedly absolute rule. The Crusades? The American colonization? Genghis Khan? Alexander the Great? Napolean Bonaparte? The Ottaman Turks? Need I go on? What civilizations are you talking about?

This isn't about forcing religious beliefs on people. This is about being able to live on the same planet together. If we have the rule, "As long as we think it's OK, it's allowed", we're going to live in a pretty crappy world. Not one I want to live in.

We need some rules so that we live as a species. That doesn't mean that they're moral absolutes - because what works for us might not work in a different society. What's torture for us might be a way of life for a different species. It's only now - in the last century - that we come to see women as equal to men. Four centuries ago, that's not the case. We think that it's wrong. They don't think that it's wrong.

And if someone tortures someone else to death, "I was raised by thugs" is not going to get them off--at least, not unless the judge needs to be disbarred. It shouldn't get the Tuskens off either.

You aren't getting it. There is a person raised Christian and a person raised Hindu. How can you tell the Hindu to follow the Christian moral code when they don't even know of the Bible or Jesus Christ?

One, were the Tuskens eating Shmi? I don't think so.

I didn't think it needed answering. Obviously they weren't eating it.

Two, if any humans are eating an animal whose son is capable of rallying the other animals and hunting down the humans, then the humans deserve to die. You don't eat something that is that sentient.

I see. Now we're bringing even more variables into the equation. Why is sentient important? Do the animals feel any less pain than humans when tortured?

Because otherwise the only reason you're arguing is to irritate people on the other side.

No, I'm arguing because I like to argue. You are the one who are getting irritated. If you can argue

 

Killing innocent women and children is never justice or understandable. Justice implies that wrong doers get their just deserts. Punishing innocents is cruelty that makes Anakin no better than the Tusken men responsible for the torment of his mother. I am perfectly aware of what happened to Shmi, but that doesn't give Anakin a free ride to kill innocents.

 

Stryphe: You're getting confused with verb tenses, dear. Anakin did not turn into a hero, true, but what does that say about what he is now? The Tusken Massacre was clearly a mistake and I'm rather sick of his arrogant, presumptuous nature, but otherwise, he looks like a pretty good hero.

Of course it's a mistake. What would you expect of the man who is to become Darth Vader? That he make all the right decisions and be highly likable*? What sense would that make, story-wise?

----------------------------------
(* Yes, A_G, I know you find him highly likable. This is a case of agree to disagree.)

 

You know of any other reason why she might have been tortured?

I think the VD says it was to test the strength of humans.

And I know you're going to assume that that means I think it's right, so I'll make this explicit: no, it doesn't. But you wanted to know if there was another explanation, so I gave it to you.

"Understandable" doesn't mean "OK".

That's probably the first thing we've agreed on. And while Anakin's anger (and what he does as a result of that anger) may be understandable, from an objective point of view, IMO it is most definitely not OK.

You all, however, ignore the fact that Shmi was brutally tortured to death.

See above, on my comment about how it's a given. There's no reason to bring it up again and again other than to try to win an argument using pathos.

What was he supposed to do? Turn them over to the Hutts?

That was the only way justice was going to be done.

Where did this come from? I'm talking about killing the kids. That wasn't justice, that was the Dark Side.

There's also the slight little fact that SHMI WAS TORTURED TO DEATH OVER A PERIOD OF A MONTH.

What does that have anything to do with the kids being killed? Does the fact that Shmi was tortured mean the kids weren't killed? No? Than your inclusion of that is simply a non sequitur.

Not that any of you give a rat's ass.

That was completely uncalled for.

(I include the next two together for good measure)

When you're not ignoring it, you make lame excuses for why the Tuskens might have done it.

It's not, but why do you have a right to misconstrue the numbers to make it look like Anakin attacked a day care center?

I what? PPOR (the second P being the key term here).

 

I don't argue just because I believe in things - I argue about those things, much more vehemently - but I also argue because I like the challenge of reaching a compromise, at least, or convincing opposition that they're wrong, at the best.

Well, it will not happen here. I believe what I believe, and I would rather be tied to a tree and tortured by Tuskens than compromise my morals.

Don't concede your point--I really don't care. But I will not concede mine.

The Crusades? Barbarians.

The American colonization? Done by barbarians with no consideration for the Native Americans.

Alexander the Great? Napolean Bonaparte? The Ottaman Turks? Barbarians, barbarians, barbarians.

We need some rules so that we live as a species. That doesn't mean that they're moral absolutes - because what works for us might not work in a different society. What's torture for us might be a way of life for a different species.

Doesn't make it OK. If the Tuskens thought torture was OK, they should have tortured one of their own, not Shmi.

It's only now - in the last century - that we come to see women as equal to men.

Which means for centuries, people were wrong.

You aren't getting it.

You're damn right I'm not. Should "I didn't know any better" be an excuse, or not?

Why is sentient important? Do the animals feel any less pain than humans when tortured?

No, which is why no one should be tortured.

If you can argue against my argument - which I notice you still haven't successfully done -

BS. I most certainly have--I just haven't done it the way you want it done. You want me to defend things that don't need defense. I refuse to do it.

I'm going by the movies, not GL or the EU. Are you? I'm inherently skeptical of accpeting anything at face value. I'm simply NOT going to believe something just because GL happens to make it and wants me to believe it this way.

Since GL created the saga, I'm going by what he believes.

If I did what Anakin did, then I would deserve to be thrown into jail, too.

And the Tuskens?

 

Killing Little Children Makes up for the Torture of Your Mother. Now everyone is Even-Steven. Anakin Feels Better about his Mom Being Dead now that he has a stack of crpses by his Feet, and the Dead Tuskens know it is wrong to Torture People, because it hurts their victims loved ones. They will never make that mistake again!