Saga Is the light side just as bad for the Force as the dark?

Lmaaaoo so anyone who proves you wrong is trolling?

Watch ROTJ again. Yoda never mentions any good/bad sides.

 

PS Don't make stuff up it weakens your argument.

 

What makes it corrupted? And why call it a side? Does that not imply another side? And if the dark side can seduce someone, it obviously exists beyond a person's original intentions. The relationship is often shown inverted, that it is the dark side that corrupts the user.

 

But it is enough to not only tell you, but also give examples that back up that, when you have made a false assertion. You might want to go back, read what you said and read my response. It is very, very simple. You made an assertion that I demonstrated had no real basis.

 

And yet again, you dodge. Don't waste any more of my time. Answer the question, and if not, dont' respond at all.

Or do you claim riverside as your answer? That the darkside is "adjacent to the dark". If you want to go with that, have at it

 

Lucas has said many contradictory things in regards to the balance thing. Initially, it seemed to refer to the dark side as a cancer upon the force. In recent Lucas projects, he treats the force as the balance between light and dark. The Mortis trilogy shows this.

Funny, it's almost like Lucas has no idea what he's doing...

 

I usually don't listen to Lucas when he tries to explain matters (except on rare occasions). Either he had no idea what he was doing, or his original opinion on the matter was stated in terms of black-and-white morality in order to appease most of the fans who may not like the idea of the Force being balanced between "light and darkness"; and in later years decided to stop trying to appease the fans and come clean on his real views.

Although I do wonder why people don't like the idea of the Force being balanced between good and evil.

 

Lucas does tend to be all over the place.

 

No, it isn't what you say it is because it isn't what you say it is. Simple as. The term light side is never mentioned in the movies. That is a fact. You have been coy about actually quoting what was said because...it isn't what you say it is. If it were you would not have been shy about sharing it.

As for Lucas' own words...you still haven't referenced a source for this alleged quote, while I have. And the quote that I supplied rather contradicts what you are claiming. Did you forget those words?

Yes I do. That would be the individual who refused to quote the passage that he was referencing. That would be the individual who says...

Weasle words (to use a Wikipedia reference). If you make an assertion such as this then it is for you to show that extensive documentation - not simply expect others to rely on your word for it.

How odd. You seem to have not quoted the important part here. Let me remind you. From George Lucas, in the commentary from ANH;

"Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe..."

Let us put this into some context. You said earlier that "The urge to eliminate the dark side itself is somewhat conspicuously never even spoken of, for a concept allegedly so near and dear to the characters' hearts. In truth it is only the fans who assume the dark side is something impermanent which can be scrubbed away to leave behind a pure, spotless, one-dimensional Force. Lucas says otherwise, and his characters always fail to espouse the one-sided view.In truth it is only the fans who assume the dark side is something impermanent which can be scrubbed away to leave behind a pure, spotless, one-dimensional Force. Lucas says otherwise, and his characters always fail to espouse the one-sided view." and "The Sith are not the dark side. Destroying the Sith does not destroy the dark side."

As usual these are not opinions or interpretations but, as you like to point out (usually following the word "no" to emphasise this positioning) how it really is. But here we have a quote from George Lucas, with a source, that directly contradicts your argument. Strangely in the same post you extol that we have George Lucas' own words (allegedly), and then.... try and discount George Lucas' own words.

Let's see...I've suggested that a 20th Century American writer has coloured his interpretation of an ancient Eastern philosophy with the baggage of his judeao-Christian outlook and that, perhaps, the best source in terms of understanding that philosophy might be the original writings on it. Let me ask again. Would you disagree with that? Let me be more specific, would you agree that in order to understand the ancient philosophy in question the best source would be the source of that philosophy? As for whether I can back up what I'm saying about Taoism...there are plenty of free translations of the Tao te Ching. Read and learn.

Irrelevant to what? You keep making reference to it when I mentioned it simply in reference to the (alleged) quote from Lucas as demonstrating philosophical confusion. It is not relevant to the rest of the discussion, but you keep implying something about it that isn't there (and again you part-quoted me, so that aspect of my response is lost here)

Errmm..because I never claimed that term was used in the film, and that by putting quotation marks around it you are mis-representing what I have said. It is very dishonest. So, yes, I never claimed that the term ''perversion of the Force'' is ever mentioned in the films, so it is no surprise, nor embarrassment, to find that it does not.

And yet again you have part-quoted me. You just spent the time to tell me that you haven't read beyond Jospeh Campbell on Taoism. In other words you have spent the time to acknowledge that you are ignorant on the subject. You have then gone on to assert an opinion on a subject you admit you are ignorant about. So the rest of the response "Read man, it does no good to make assertions, or general philosophical arguments when you are clearly arguing from a position of ignorance." is relevant. I find it incredible that somebody would say (basically) 'I don't really know what I'm talking about but, here's my opinion of how it is anyway.'

Oh, its become a reference now? How about a mention, which is what The Supreme Chancellor was talking about.

 

^ Can't say it much better...

 

The way I always looked at it is that no one ever thinks they're the Villain, Vader and the Empire were doing what they thought was right just the same as the Rebels.
I have watched the movies quite a few times and really when was the darkside ever used in an evil way, or should I say a more evil way than the light. It's the Jedi who keep telling us that the Sith are evil but if you take that out of the equation it would be hard to tell the two apart.
Vader uses the force to choke many men in the OT but Obi-Wan kills a lot of troopers with the force in the PT....whats the difference???

 

The troopers had just finished murdering innocent Jedi and children. They were working for a corrupt Empire founded on treachery and betrayal. No to mention their orders were to kill Jedi on sight so it was him or them.

The men that Vader chokes in the OT were his subordinates who made mistakes that frustrated him. They were working for the same cause as Vader and could have been severely reprimanded in many other ways, but Vader chose execution on sight.

That's the difference between the Jedi and the Sith.

 

Who's to say they are innocent, again that's from the Jedi's point of view, there is a war on after all and the Empire were just removing a future threat which is what any sane minded force would do...killing the subordinates was to aid the Empire not the Sith, yes Vader used the force to choke them but Ben uses the force to make people do things against their will, so again I think the lines blurry because of when and how the force is used.

What about Yoda trying to keep Luke on Dagobah instead of going to help Han and the gang? They had already risked their lives for the Rebellion and yet Yoda was happy to let them die? That doesn't sound very Jedi to me....and before you say "Yoda could not have known of what they did" of coarse he would have, there's no way he wouldn't be informed of such a victory against the Empire

 

The Jedi younglings not innocent? What were they guilty of? What were the Jedi guilty of? It is "sane" to murder younglings as a future threat? What are you saying?

Alderaan. You remember Alderaan?

 

The big question is: is the Dark Side bad for The Force? We consider the Dark Side as being bad because of its malevolent intentions and devastating consequences to the people and to society. But does that mean that the Dark Side is bad for The Force? Both Dark and Light Side are both ways of exercising and experiencing The Force, and for The Force itself are neither good nor bad.

 

Oh, the irony...

He never said that. What can be said is that the Sith are the cancer of the Force, because of their "unnatural" exploitation of it.

 

If you remember, Leia and company escaped from Bespin with absolutely no help from Luke...in fact they ended up saving him! I see a huge difference between doing a mind trick against someone's will and murdering a subordinate. And as viewers we are seeing the films from an outside POV not a Jedi POV, and from where I'm looking the Jedi at the temple were innocent victims of a Sith plot. What did the younglings do to deserve being murdered?

 

The dark side is bad for the galaxy. When the Sith run rampant their use of the dark side ends up in pain, war and suffering. Even when dark side users had the chance to create a stable government with "peace and security" the level of oppression and suffering it's citizens had to endure was on par with that of any war.

 

^The Jedi and the Republic historically have as often as not been little better. Read the "Essential Guide to Warfare" 's background information about the deep history of the Order and the Old Republic.

 

They were brought in to the fold by the Jedi and the Jedi knew there was a chance of being called into battle.....I'm not saying killing anyone is a means to an end I was just stressing the point they were at war!

Not to get all political but the Americans did drop two nuclear bombs in a hope it would end the war....was Alderaan the same type of ploy....were the Allieds evil???

 

That argument is complete and utter crap.

The Allies were fighting to preserve human life, rights and dignity.

The Empire in Star Wars was fighting to deny sentient life, rights, and dignity. It was an evil, unjust, and illegitimate tyranny with NO moral authority to attack ANYone.

 

The younglings were not even padawans yet, there was no chance of them being called into battle. They were killed so that there would be no new generation or remaining legacy of the Jedi Order.

 

I don't know of any oppression or suffering enacted by the Jedi, but whatever is in the essential guide is a discussion for the EU. We don't see the Jedi doing any of this during the saga.

 

Star Wars is one big saga...you can't separate out the EU and put it off to one side. The events as depicted take on a different meaning when the EU material is considered.

 

Actually, you can. And many of us do.