Are Tuskens All Bad?

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by gezvader28, Nov 17, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    What I mean is, if one side can argue its position, then surely the other side should be allowed to.

    They're allowed to, but I still don't understand how anyone could justify defending a group of thugs who tortured an innocent woman to death for the purpose of "testing her will".

    And, funnily enough, I have NEVER, NOT ONCE brought up an individuals personal feelings towards a characater as a means of countering their argument.

    That doesn't mean there is something wrong with doing so.

    As far as any so-called warnings by the mods, if I have gotten any, it would be due to bias against Anakin on TF.N, and if I get banned, it will be because someone wants me to leave everyone alone in their Anakin-bashing.

    I don't allow that sort of thing towards any character--Anakin, Obi-Wan, Mara Jade, anyone (not even the Tuskens, because since there is no bashing of Anakin, there is no need to call the Tuskens thugs in order to defend Anakin)--on the message board that I run, and I think it's sad that it's allowed here.

    I've seen one person compare them (sort of) to Native Americans, but even that person didn't say that the Tuskens did nothing wrong

    The Native Americans did nothing wrong. Therefore, if the Tuskens are like the Native Americans, the Tuskens did nothing wrong.

    JohnWilliams:

    But I cannot understand why you would think it's understandable to atone for the death of innocents by killing more innocents.

    Most of the Tuskens in the camp were not innocent. My problem isn't with people saying that Anakin killing the women and children was wrong--my problem is with people who say "Anakin killed children," and by doing so, purposely leave out the men who murdered his mother and make it sound like he is another Richard Davis who kidnapped Polly Klaas.

    Anakin got angry and lost control. I think people really need to hold off judgment until their own mothers have been tortured to death and they know exactly what they would do. I don't think so much of myself that I feel comfortable saying I wouldn't do the same thing Anakin did.
  2. JenX Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2002
    star 3
    "And, funnily enough, I have NEVER, NOT ONCE brought up an individuals personal feelings towards a characater as a means of countering their argument."

    That doesn't mean there is something wrong with doing so.

    Ad hominem attacks are weak in the extreme. Attacking a position by attacking the poster, or side stepping the issue by questioning the persons motivations adds nothing of worth to the debate.


    As far as any so-called warnings by the mods, if I have gotten any, it would be due to bias against Anakin on TF.N, and if I get banned, it will be because someone wants me to leave everyone alone in their Anakin-bashing.

    Wow, that reply explains so many things. So now you claim do know the motivations of the mods too? And these motivations aren't about upholding the TOS?

    Okay...

    The Native Americans did nothing wrong. Therefore, if the Tuskens are like the Native Americans, the Tuskens did nothing wrong.

    Argh. More bad reasoning. The conclusion is not valid based on the premises. Someone who compares Tuskens to NA in one instance is not automatically saying that NA did nothing wrong, and are not automatically saying the Tuskens did nothing wrong.
  3. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    So now you claim do know the motivations of the mods too? And these motivations aren't about upholding the TOS?

    Considering doing so is not against the TOS, then there should be no warnings about me questioning whether or not people's arguments are motivated by bias against a certain character.

    If I get banned for asking someone if they hate Anakin, it will be along the same lines as what happened to a friend of mine, who was banned for "excessively asking for proof"--this was after someone threatened to shoot her and got off with a warning. I haven't had anyone threaten to shoot me, but I have had people make much more insulting comments about me than "Do you hate so-and-so?" and have gotten off with not even a warning.

    Attacking a position by attacking the poster, or side stepping the issue by questioning the persons motivations adds nothing of worth to the debate.

    And calling Anakin a "child slaughterer" adds so much to it.
  4. JenX Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2002
    star 3
    Considering doing so is not against the TOS, then there should be no warnings about me questioning whether or not people's arguments are motivated by bias against a certain character.

    Yes, but making broad and inaccurate generalisations, where you incorrectly label people and then attack their arguments based on these labels is.

    And calling Anakin a "child slaughterer" adds so much to it.

    Well, when the topic is dealing with Tuskens...it adds a lot more then ad hominem attacks.


    Anakin got angry and lost control. I think people really need to hold off judgment until their own mothers have been tortured to death and they know exactly what they would do.

    I don't need to wait to know that I wouldn't slaughter children.

    Oh, and doesn't that mean that YOU should withhold any judgement you make about Anakin. Presumably, according to your argument, you shouldn't make a judgement about him.

    I don't think so much of myself that I feel comfortable saying I wouldn't do the same thing Anakin did.

    Well, I don't think that much of myself, but I do know enough about myself to know I wouldn't respond by slaughtering a village.





  5. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    You don't see me judging Anakin, do you? I'm not the one condemning him.

    Saying I should withhold a lack of condemnation is very circular reasoning and a ridiculous argument.

    Well, I don't think that much of myself, but I do know enough about myself to know I wouldn't respond by slaughtering a village.

    What if the village slaughtered your mother?

    You're actually going to go up to each person in the village and say "Excuse me--were you the one who killed my mother? You know, you really hurt my feelings."

    You obviously think a lot of yourself, because you have already decided that you're better than Anakin although you haven't been in his shoes.

    Yes, but making broad and inaccurate generalisations, where you incorrectly label people and then attack their arguments based on these labels is.

    I labelled people? I wasn't the one who called Anakin a "child slaughterer".

    I have the right to ask you whether or not you hate Anakin--it gives me an idea as to where you're coming from. I think it's rather funny that you call Anakin a "child slaughterer" and then think that it's insulting when I ask you if you hate him.

    I don't go around calling characters I like "child slaughterers."

    I don't need to wait to know that I wouldn't slaughter children.

    Well, good for you--but leave the rest of us alone.

    And how many times do I have to say it--that is half a sentence. Anakin is not Ted Bundy. You leave out the other half of the sentence, which is "who tortured his mother to death", and therefore you purposely make Anakin look like the villian.


  6. JenX Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2002
    star 3
    You don't see me judging Anakin, do you? I'm not the one condemning him.

    Judgement does not = condemnation

    Saying I should withhold a lack of condemnation is very circular reasoning and a ridiculous argument.

    Err, even if that is what I was saying (which it isn't), that wouldn't be an example of circular reasoning. But I do think that not judging Anakin (whatever that judgement might be) until you have gone through something similiar is a ridiculous argument.


    What if the village slaughtered your mother?

    I still wouldn't slaughter the village.

    You're actually going to go up to each person in the village and say "Excuse me--were you the one who killed my mother? You know, you really hurt my feelings."

    No, I wouldn't. Didn't I say something before about how you should stop trying to guess things about me, because you invariably get them wrong?

    You obviously think a lot of yourself, because you have already decided that you're better than Anakin although you haven't been in his shoes.

    Again with the inaccurate guesswork. I don't think a lot of myself, I just know that I'm not the kind of person who reacts to the death of a loved one by killing lots of people.

    I labelled people? I wasn't the one who called Anakin a "child slaughterer".

    I said you inaccurately labelled people who post here. Last time I checked, Anakin is:

    1) A self confessed child slaughterer

    2) Not a poster on TF.N boards.

    Correct me if I'm wrong on either of those points.

    I have the right to ask you whether or not you hate Anakin--it gives me an idea as to where you're coming from.

    Hold on. I post my thoughts about the topic. That's all you need to know to see where I'm coming from. But let me make it clearer: I'm coming from the position that slaughtering the entire village was wrong.

    I think it's rather funny that you call Anakin a "child slaughterer" and then think that it's insulting when I ask you if you hate him.

    And AGAIN with the inaccurate guesswork. I never said that I find your asking "insulting", and I don't.


    "I don't need to wait to know that I wouldn't slaughter children."

    Well, good for you--but leave the rest of us alone.

    That reply doesn't even make sense. The only "person" I've criticised for slaughtering children is Anakin.

    And how many times do I have to say it--that is half a sentence. Anakin is not Ted Bundy.

    I know.

    You leave out the other half of the sentence, which is "who tortured his mother to death"...

    Err, what sentence have I typed which should end with "who tortured his mother to death".

    and therefore you purposely make Anakin look like the villian.

    But I am saying that what Anakin did was wrong. It was horrific, and the fact that his mother was tortured to death does not justify what he did.

  7. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Err, what sentence have I typed which should end with "who tortured his mother to death".

    The one that says "Anakin slaughtered children".

    I never said that I find your asking "insulting", and I don't.

    So what's the problem?

    I said you inaccurately labelled people who post here. Last time I checked, Anakin is:

    1) A self confessed child slaughterer

    2) Not a poster on TF.N boards.


    Posters on TF.N boards are not gods. And hate-mongering does not make a good atmosphere for a message board. It only makes people want to retaliate. On my site, it is OK to constructively criticize a character's actions, but not to give a character a hateful label.

    And no, Anakin never said, "I am a child-slaughterer."

    I don't think a lot of myself, I just know that I'm not the kind of person who reacts to the death of a loved one by killing lots of people.

    What about the brutal torture of a loved one?

    Was Samuel L. Jackson's character in "A Time to Kill" wrong to shoot the guys who raped his daughter?

    But I do think that not judging Anakin (whatever that judgement might be) until you have gone through something similiar is a ridiculous argument.

    Why?

    I think assuming you know what you would do in a situation you have never been in is ridiculous.
  8. Anakina_Jade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 15, 2004
    I think assuming you know what you would do in a situation you have never been in is ridiculous.

    I don't agree with JenX with her view on Anakin, but that's a rather hypocritical statement to make, anakin_girl, since you did the same thing. You "assumed" that if your own mother had been tortured and killed, you would've killed the Tuskens. So you're also "assuming you know what you would do in a situation you have never been in."

  9. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    You "assumed" that if your own mother had been tortured and killed, you would've killed the Tuskens. So you're also "assuming you know what you would do in a situation you have never been in.

    Now who is misconstruing whose statements (not to mention calling another TF.N user a "hypocrite")?

    I don't assume I would have killed the Tuskens for sure--I'm assuming that I very well might, however.

    I'm also not elevating myself above someone else by making that statement. I am being empathetic, which is a good quality, rather than judgmental, which is a bad one.
  10. mixza Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 28, 2004
    star 4
    I keep hearing about how Anakin was responsible for the deaths of the Tusken woman and children. My question is: what about the Tusken Raider's part in it? The Tuskens who kidnapped Shmi knew, (or should have known) that the farmers in Anchorhead would try to get her back. It's not often you can kidnap a beloved wife and mother without expecting some form of retaliation. If the Tuskens had not kidnaped and tortured Shmi, Anakin would not have gone after them, and all those Tusken children would not have died. Neither would the farmers that went out after her. And unlike Anakin, the Tusken had no reason for doing what they did. So aren't the Tuskens who totured Shmi at least partially responsible for the deaths of the Tuskens in their tribe?

    Personally, I blame them.

    Oh, and Darth Geist:

    There's a difference between specifically going after those responsible and nuking everyone in sight.

    So, you're saying that no innocent people were killed in the war? I think we both know that isn't true.
  11. JenX Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2002
    star 3
    "Err, what sentence have I typed which should end with "who tortured his mother to death"."

    The one that says "Anakin slaughtered children".

    Well, I can't do that because I don't know whether that is the case. I don't know how many children Anakin killed, and I don't know whether all of them tortured his mother to death.

    Posters on TF.N boards are not gods.

    Okaaay...

    And hate-mongering does not make a good atmosphere for a message board.

    With you so far...

    It only makes people want to retaliate.

    Retaliating by coming up with a reasoned argument = good.

    On my site, it is OK to constructively criticize a character's actions, but not to give a character a hateful label.

    Err...your site, your rules.

    And no, Anakin never said, "I am a child-slaughterer."

    Which isn't what I said. I said he was a self confessed child slaughterer. If Anakin confessed to slaughtering the men, women and children, that would mean he confessed to slaughtering children.

    I'm still sure my deductive reasoning checks out ok.

    "I don't think a lot of myself, I just know that I'm not the kind of person who reacts to the death of a loved one by killing lots of people."

    What about the brutal torture of a loved one?

    Yes, even then I wouldn't react by killing lots of people.

    Was Samuel L. Jackson's character in "A Time to Kill" wrong to shoot the guys who raped his daughter?

    Never seen it.

    "But I do think that not judging Anakin (whatever that judgement might be) until you have gone through something similiar is a ridiculous argument."

    Why?

    Because I don't think it is necessary to have gone through a similiar experience to judge it.

    I think assuming you know what you would do in a situation you have never been in is ridiculous.

    Yeah, you've made that clear. But I know me, and I know what I've gone through in my life. I know how I'd react, and I know I wouldn't slaughter an entire village.



  12. AdamBertocci Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Feb 3, 2002
    star 7
    As far as any so-called warnings by the mods, if I have gotten any,

    I certainly recall warning this thread at large, several times, in bold text, about how to and how not to post. Leaving aside anything I might have said to you personally.

    it would be due to bias against Anakin on TF.N, and if I get banned, it will be because someone wants me to leave everyone alone in their Anakin-bashing.

    I would hope you give your beloved mod a little more credit than that. Hell, Anakin is one of my favorite characters in the saga. Yet step out of line and TEH BANSABER will be forced to pay a visit. That's how modding works.

    I don't allow that sort of thing towards any character... on the message board that I run, and I think it's sad that it's allowed here.

    Noted. If you have more to discuss on the issues with the way the AOTC forums is run, you may bring it up with me, with Windy, or, if absolutely neccesary, in Comms.

    I think people really need to hold off judgment until their own mothers have been tortured to death and they know exactly what they would do.

    You realize that also means we can't judge him positively, either?
    I've never lived under an oppresive empire, does that mean I can't identify with the freedom fighters of the OT?

    Considering doing so is not against the TOS, then there should be no warnings about me questioning whether or not people's arguments are motivated by bias against a certain character.

    Agreed, to an extent. It is, however, a bit off-topic.

    Posters on TF.N boards are not gods.

    Speak for yourself. :p

    you're also "assuming you know what you would do in a situation you have never been in."

    Agreed. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

    The best you can say about your defense of Anakin is that you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, and that other people aren't. Which in my mind is far less a polarized debate than you've made it out to be.

    (not to mention calling another TF.N user a "hypocrite")?

    No one called you a hypocrite. You were told you made a hypocritical statement. Your argument was attacked, not you, and you have defended it fairly.



    Rick McCallum loves you!
  13. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    If you have more to discuss on the issues with the way the AOTC forums is run, you may bring it up with me, with Windy, or, if absolutely neccesary, in Comms.

    With you or Windy, I would do it. Coms? Not touching that hate-filled drama-mongering place. I've yet to see an argument actually get settled there.

    I would hope you give your beloved mod a little more credit than that. Hell, Anakin is one of my favorite characters in the saga.

    Good, but 90 percent of the mods hate him, as do 90 percent of the posters. That's why posts such as "Anakin is a child slaughterer" are allowed.

    You realize that also means we can't judge him positively, either?

    I'm not "judging him positively", I'm empathizing with him.

    I've never lived under an oppresive empire, does that mean I can't identify with the freedom fighters of the OT?

    Actually, after seeing the PT, I've taken a good look at exactly why the Empire was formed and it's changed my perspective. But that's more of a topic for the CT forum.

    The best you can say about your defense of Anakin is that you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, and that other people aren't.

    Yet amazingly enough, they give his mother's murderers the benefit of the doubt. Very telling.

    Which in my mind is far less a polarized debate than you've made it out to be.

    It's still polarized.

    Yes, even then I wouldn't react by killing lots of people.

    And you know this, how? Because you're a perfect person?

    Which isn't what I said. I said he was a self confessed child slaughterer. If Anakin confessed to slaughtering the men, women and children, that would mean he confessed to slaughtering children.

    So if I called all the US soldiers in Iraq and Vietnam "Arab slaughterers"--or even "child slaughterers"--that would be OK? After all, according to your reasoning, it's accurate--even if, like the statement "Anakin is a child slaughterer," it's only telling half the story if that much.

    Err...your site, your rules.

    Right. And is there any reason why other sites shouldn't have these rules?

    And hate-mongering does not make a good atmosphere for a message board.

    With you so far...


    Huh? ?[face_plain]


  14. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    So, you're saying that no innocent people were killed in the war?

    Do you not see the difference between getting caught in the crossfire and deliberately targeted?

    So if I called all the US soldiers in Iraq and Vietnam "Arab slaughterers"--or even "child slaughterers"--that would be OK?

    All of them?
  15. AdamBertocci Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Feb 3, 2002
    star 7
    I've yet to see an argument actually get settled there.

    We picked a new banner once.

    That's why posts such as "Anakin is a child slaughterer" are allowed.

    And until Anakin Skywalker registers here, they will be, and I will defend one's right to call Anakin names. We can say all sorts of bad things about fictional characters here at the JC.

    In fact, I plan to go to the EU forum right now and criticize Prince Xizor's taste in fashion. That man should know better than to wear velvet after Moonkar Festival Eve.




    Rick McCallum loves you!
  16. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Geist: Check out the novelization. Anakin didn't "deliberately target" the kids. They were caught in the crossfire. A bunch of Tuskens ran away from him into a tent, and he dropped a rock on the tent. He didn't find out until later that there were actually kids in there.

    Adam:

    And until Anakin Skywalker registers here, they will be, and I will defend one's right to call Anakin names. We can say all sorts of bad things about fictional characters here at the JC.

    And I consider that a problem. Calling people, even fictional characters, names does nothing other than piss off the people who like those characters. It doesn't promote good discussion. That's why I haven't called Palpatine names, although I don't like him.

    We picked a new banner once.

    How many people came in and commented on how much they hated it? :p
  17. Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 11, 2002
    star 5
    So, you're saying that no innocent people were killed in the war? I think we both know that isn't true.

    Collateral damage is not the same as intentional killing. With the moral code you expressed, it would be OK to nuke the entire Middle East after 9-11 because "they started it".

    Personally, I blame them.

    Nice rationalization. So the guy who actually swung the lightsaber blade isn't responsible for their deaths. I guess it's pretty easy to absolve a character from guilt if you don't blame him for anything.

    I'm not sure what you were getting at with all that "Shmi never took land" stuff. Nobody said she did. I was responding to your statement that because "there's plenty of land" that it's OK if the settlers take some.

    my problem is with people who say "Anakin killed children," and by doing so, purposely leave out the men who murdered his mother

    Explain to me what's wrong with that. We know he killed the men and that Shmi was tortured. There's no need for you to repeat it at every possible opportunity. Just because people don't say something in every single post doesn't mean they're ignoring it. Any implications that people are making him out to be some horrible monster by only mentioning the children are entirely your creation. This "purposely" stuff is unnecessary and is simply creating a straw man by assuming a knowledge of the poster's intent.

    And can you address JW00's quotes from Lucas on the previous page? I'm curious what your response to the creator himself disagreeing is.

    Good, but 90 percent of the mods hate him, as do 90 percent of the posters.

    Does "hate him" mean "disagree with you"? And you got numbers on this?

    That's why posts such as "Anakin is a child slaughterer" are allowed.

    No, they're allowed because they're true. Like saying "Tarkin is a planet destroyer" or "Palpatine is a Jedi killer".

    Yet amazingly enough, they give his mother's murderers the benefit of the doubt. Very telling.

    OK, I'm going to call you out on this one. I want you to prove that people are giving "his mother's murderers the benefit of the doubt", and I mean that literally: prove that people have given the benefit of the doubt to the men of the camp where Shmi was kept captive. No other talk of Tuskens counts here, since no one but those men killed Shmi. Post proof, or retract. And by retract, I mean "quit making up random arguments and pretending they were stated by the opposition".

    And the self-righteous comments like "Very telling." aren't really helping your argument.

    And is there any reason why other sites shouldn't have these rules?

    Here we refer back to my statement of people being allowed to have different opinions, views, and in this case, rules.
  18. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    I want you to prove that people are giving "his mother's murderers the benefit of the doubt"

    That's what this entire damn thread is--giving the Tuskens the benefit of the doubt.

    Does "hate him" mean "disagree with you"?

    No, it means "calling him names like 'child slaughterer'."

    We know he killed the men and that Shmi was tortured. There's no need for you to repeat it at every possible opportunity.

    Obviously there is. Other people are repeating "Anakin killed children" at every possible opportunity.

    And by retract, I mean "quit making up random arguments and pretending they were stated by the opposition".

    And by "I won't dignify this with a response", I mean, "I'll ignore the rest of your post as it was full of insults towards me."
  19. JenX Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2002
    star 3
    "Yes, even then I wouldn't react by killing lots of people."

    And you know this, how?

    Because I know myself, what with me being me and all..

    Because you're a perfect person?

    I'm not perfect. I don't need to be perfect to know that I wouldn't slaughter children.

    "Which isn't what I said. I said he was a self confessed child slaughterer. If Anakin confessed to slaughtering the men, women and children, that would mean he confessed to slaughtering children."

    So if I called all the US soldiers in Iraq and Vietnam "Arab slaughterers"--or even "child slaughterers"--that would be OK? After all, according to your reasoning, it's accurate--

    No,anakin_girl, according to my reasoning that would NOT be accurate. I'm sorry that you have failed utterly to follow this simple piece of deductive reasoning, so I will spell it out for you, using your examples to show the difference.

    If a US solider in Iraq said "I killed all the Iraqis in that village; the men, women and children. I slaughtered them all" then, using deductive reasoning I can deduce that said US solider has, by his own admission, slaughtered children. This would make him a self confessed child slaughterer.

    Anakin confesses to killing the Tusken villagers; the men, the women and the children. He goes on to say that he slaughtered them like animals. "Them" includes children. If Anakin confessess to slaughtering "them" and "them" includes children, then Anakin has confessed to slaughtering children, which makes him a self-confessed child slaughterer.

    This is basic deductive reasoning. If you called all the US soliders in Iraq "Arab slaughterers" that would be an example of a inaccurate generalisation.

    "Err...your site, your rules."

    Right. And is there any reason why other sites shouldn't have these rules?

    Yes, there are reasons why other sites shouldn't have these rules. If you want a few, PM me.




  20. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Yes, there are reasons why other sites shouldn't have these rules. If you want a few, PM me.

    That's OK, I don't need to PM you. I know the answer: "Some sites prefer to give their users the freedom to hate and bash. If you don't like the hate and bashing, you need to grow thicker skin."

    No thanks. I prefer sites where people get treated decently and don't feel they have to retaliate against attacks.

    If a US solider in Iraq said "I killed all the Iraqis in that village; the men, women and children. I slaughtered them all" then, using deductive reasoning I can deduce that said US solider has, by his own admission, slaughtered children. This would make him a self confessed child slaughterer.

    So what about the guy who blew up Hiroshima? There were some children in Hiroshima. Was he a "child slaughterer"? Was he wrong to blow up Hiroshima?

    And using your example, would the US soldier be wrong to blow up the village?
  21. Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 11, 2002
    star 5
    That's what this entire damn thread is--giving the Tuskens the benefit of the doubt.

    Read what I said again: "I want you to prove that people are giving 'his mother's murderers the benefit of the doubt'", as in, the men in that camp who killed Shmi. If you make a broad statement like this, you should be expected to defend it. This thread talks about the Tuskens as a race, and I assume that we're all knowledgeable enough here to know that you don't condemn an entire race or group for the actions of a few.

    Other people are repeating "Anakin killed children" at every possible opportunity.

    Because that's the issue we're discussing. We're not asking whether it was OK to torture Shmi (because we all agree it wasn't), we're not asking whether Anakin killed men (because we know he did) or whether it was justified (because we all agree that it was as justified as any revenge), we are discussing whether it was OK for Anakin to kill the children. Thus, it's logical to assume that people are going to be talking about Anakin killing children. If you know a way to talk about Anakin killing children without ever mentioning that Anakin killed children, by all means, tell us.

    And by "I won't dignify this with a response", I mean, "I'll ignore the rest of your post as it was full of insults towards me."

    You won't dignify me asking you to actually argue against real people and real arguments? ?[face_plain] Whatever.

    Can you at least address the Lucas quotes, though?
  22. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Can you at least address the Lucas quotes, though?

    If you want specifics, it's going to have to wait til tomorrow. However, for generalities, I refer you to the quotes I made from the novelization, which described in detail what the Tuskens did to Shmi. Lucas endorsed the novelization and the screenplay, which I also have.

    we are discussing whether it was OK for Anakin to kill the children. Thus, it's logical to assume that people are going to be talking about Anakin killing children. If you know a way to talk about Anakin killing children without ever mentioning that Anakin killed children, by all means, tell us.

    So in other words, this is a thread meant to bash Anakin.

    You won't dignify me asking you to actually argue against real people and real arguments?

    No, I won't dignify insulting statements such as this one, in which you imply that my defending myself against the attacks of many other posters in this thread are "straw man arguments", etc.
  23. JenX Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2002
    star 3
    That's OK, I don't need to PM you. I know the answer: "Some sites prefer to give their users the freedom to hate and bash. If you don't like the hate and bashing, you need to grow thicker skin."

    I wouldn't have said that. Once again, in spite of being told that your guesses about me are invariably wrong, you persist in trying.

    No, I won't dignify insulting statements such as this one, in which you imply that my defending myself against the attacks of many other posters in this thread are "straw man arguments", etc.

    anakin_girl, you have used straw man arguments repeatedly in this thread. And, yes, you have put words in other people mouths, "assuming" an answer on behalf of the poster instead of waiting to see what the poster would have actually said (see your "I don't need to PM you" reply).
  24. mixza Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 28, 2004
    star 4
    Do you not see the difference between getting caught in the crossfire and deliberately targeted?

    I think anakin_girl pretty much covered it, but I just wanted to add that, as I said earlier, Anakin did not intend to kill anyone when he first entered the camp. It was only after he saw his mother, beaten and tied up, die in his arms, that his anger... his darkness, took over.

    Collateral damage is not the same as intentional killing. With the moral code you expressed, it would be OK to nuke the entire Middle East after 9-11 because "they started it".

    Anakin did not kill all the Tuskens, just the ones in that particular camp.

    Okay, I have another example. After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harber, the U.S. went to war with Japan. Most of the soldiers we killed were innocent Japanese civilians who had had nothing to do with the bombing, they were merely drafted into the war. Some were as young as 15. But war is war. And they started it. :eek: OMG, the United States president used playground wisdom!

    Nice rationalization. So the guy who actually swung the lightsaber blade isn't responsible for their deaths. I guess it's pretty easy to absolve a character from guilt if you don't blame him for anything.

    For Pete's sake... Yes, I guess it is. Not that I said that. I said I blamed the Tuskens for bringing his (Anakin's) anger onto them. But you did not answer my question. Were not the Tuskens who took Shmi also to blame for causeing Anakin to have to go there in the first place?

    I'm not sure what you were getting at with all that "Shmi never took land" stuff. Nobody said she did. I was responding to your statement that because "there's plenty of land" that it's OK if the settlers take some.

    People have said that the Tuskens took Shmi because the farmers were taking over thier land. And there is plenty of land. It's not like the Tuskens are being forced onto reservations.
  25. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    Okay, I have another example. After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harber, the U.S. went to war with Japan. Most of the soldiers we killed were innocent Japanese civilians who had had nothing to do with the bombing, they were merely drafted into the war. Some were as young as 15. But war is war. And they started it. OMG, the United States president used playground wisdom!

    False analogy. The Japanese soldiers, young as they may have been, were armed combatants. Both sides had to kill or be killed. Anakin was under no such circumstances with the women and children.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.