why didnt anakin rescue shmi before?

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by dark_charlie, May 2, 2004.

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

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "That turned into a longing to see her again, which eventually turned into those troubling dreams he was having about her."

    His longing for her was not was caused his dreams. It was her capture and detainment which caused his dreams.

    Clear now?
  2. Siphonophore Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2003
    star 4
    Hi. To clear my trivial and off-topic first post out of the way..... The movie that I caught the tail-end of the other day, "Unhook the Stars" with Jake Lloyd (Anakin) had dialogue that sounded similar to Anakin's encounter with Shmi:

    Matilda: "Annie...? Annie...? What are you doing in the dark? You're so beautiful. My beautiful daughter."
    Or something quite similar to that
    It reminded me of the AOTC dialogue:
    Shmi: "Annie...? Is it you...? You look so handsome. My son... my grown-up son."
    And to find out that Jake Lloyd was in it made me wonder if Lucas was somehow consciously or subconsciously influenced by the scene when writing AOTC.

    Now getting back on-topic
    I've breezed through quite a bit of this thread, and will read it all soon, when I have time. So, sorry if my thoughts have already been wrung through the wringer.

    It's a situation that I've thought about for two years now, since there was no explanation of why he didn't rescue her in ten years, but I guess that's where our imaginations come in.

    My thoughts:

    1. Shmi told Anakin to never look back. Anakin may have taken that as "Eh, mom'll be fine... she told me not to look back... and I really don't want to go back to Tatooine. It's so sandy. She's doing just fine." ?

    2. Anakin's a career man. He's always so busy busy busy going on missions with his boss and training at the temple. He got so caught up in his job that he neglected his family. A scenario that is not so different than what happens in today's world. Someone gets so selfishly caught up in their little world, striving to be the best of the best, making personal sacrifices, staying focused, but tragically they neglect the ones who love them.

    3. Anakin's heart was so heavy with guilt when Shmi died, he placed the blame on others. He killed the Tuskens, he blamed Obi-Wan for holding him back. If Anakin were a Jedi and could freely travel where he pleased without a master, then he could have made a stealthy rescue trip to Tatooine. Obi-Wan would not have allowed Anakin to return to his mother to free her.

    4. In regards to #3, does the council keep track of where all Jedi travel? Does the council punish them for travelling somewhere on a non-sanctioned mission that goes against the code, while using the company car? Because the code instructs you to sever ties to your born family, would Anakin even have the means to travel to Tatooine without being caught?


    3 and 4 are just reasons for Anakin to blame Shmi's death on the Jedi, the code, and Obi-Wan.
    Anakin refuses to take responsibility for neglecting her because he was so caught up in #2. If he truly wanted to rescue her, he could have, but he didn't. He could have found a way that the Council would never know.

    Anakin holds onto his grudge with the Jedi and Shmi's death, which would be just one reason why the Jedi Order should be destroyed. It's out of balance.... if you have to sever ties with family, and it leads to a mother's grisly demise, then I'd say there's something wrong with the Order too.
  3. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    So it was another movie with Jake Lloyd. That is kind of interesting. Does anyone know anything more in this regard?

    In any case, glad you joined the discussion!

    As for your comments, I'll give more in-depth comments after I've had some sleep. But the thing that really strikes me at the moment is that, to be fair, her being free or not free had nothing to do with the way she died. The Tusken raid was a completely unforeseeable event, and doesn't seem to have Shmi as a premeditated target.

  4. earlchinna Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2004
    star 2
    wow, this debate is not over yet! :p
  5. Siphonophore Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2003
    star 4
    her being free or not free had nothing to do with the way she died. The Tusken raid was a completely unforeseeable event

    That's true. She was no longer a slave at the point she was taken, and there were free people in the search party that were killed too.

    I do think the chances of living a longer and safer life are increased when you're not living on a planet that is filled with such scum, villainy, and animalistic nomads.

    It wasn't purely a matter of rescuing Shmi from slavery. I think Anakin should've taken her to live on a safer planet.

  6. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    . But from my perspective, which is the only one I would be expected to respond from, I eliminated all the others.

    "eliminated" ? Yeah, like the TF eliminated Padme - Not at all.

    Your arguments against the reasons I gave basically consisted of comparing the Jedi to a corporation or a government, neither analogy works since the Jedi aren't out to make money like a corporation, nor are they out to make laws like a government. The only similarity you've shown is that as an institution they have some rules, however freeing Shmi breaks none of those rules.

    And one 'rule' which we do know is central to a Jedi's life is compassion.

    Me :"I'm going to have to press you on this issue - are you saying that they'd send Jedi and doctors and Archive people to Tatooine to see Shmi and not bother freeing her?"

    J_W :They might very well, yes. They don't fix all the problems in an area every time they go someplace. They fix the problem that they came to deal with.


    That's bizarre. The Jedi and doctors and archivists go to see Shmi and don't bother freeing her?
    I mean can you imagine them interviewing her and doing some medical tests and at the end of it saying : "Well it was nice to meet you, and thanks for your help, risking your son's life and all, and although there's nothing really stopping us we're not going to bother freeing you.
    'bye."

    You're obviously desperate that they don't free her whatever the scenario or how straightforward it is.
    Why?

    And - you seem to be forgetting a couple of things you've said previously:

    "That is, I don't think they actively want to keep Shmi enslaved. Rather, I think that they keep having more important business to attend to. All my posts come from this angle, so its important that you understand this.

    Well I think I understand it, but do you?
    Since the Jedi and the doctors and the archivists have decided to see her obviously they've already decided that this is important business to attend to.
    all that's left is to free her, how can you deny that they'd do that given what you've said above?
    Remeber - all your posts come from the angle that they have 'more important business to attend to', but now that Shmi has 'jumped to the top of the list' (as you might say), well... there's really no obstacle left.
    (Personally I think it would be a better use of resources to free her and then they can see her more easily or invite her to Coruscant for a visit.)

    Also you previously said:

    Jedi are always free to help people coincidentally. If they can take out two birds with one stone, that's even better for fulfilling the mission of the Jedi Order. Thus, it was perfectly good the Qui-Gon helped Anakin and Jar-jar while helping Padme

    So if the Jedi are already there they can help her "coincidentally", as per your theory.

    Will you stand by what you've said ?

    On another note, I think the rule of attachment thing has run its course. Especially since we are in essence saying the both thing, only with different degrees of severity.

    I'm saying that freeing Shmi doesn't break the rule of attachment, nor do I see any potential for it.
    Glad you agree with me.

    This is very true, and very noble. But like love, these kinds of acts are as noble and powerful as they common and mundane.

    "common and mundane" ??
    "common and mundane" ??
    Risking the life of her only child is 'common and mundane'. [/shakes head]

    Plenty of mother's have had to watch their children risk their lives.

    Huh?
    Parents sometimes have to watch it, but it's incredibly rare for a parent to choose to allow it to help someone.

    While that doesn't make it any less of a deed, it does make it less worthy of special recognition, since there's not anything terribly unique or "special" about it.

    :eek: I really don't know what to say to this.
    What Shmi did was monumentally brave and generous, we're talking about her child's life here.
    I'm just astounded you'd say that.

    The only t
  7. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I'm so very eager to respond to this. But at the moment, I know there are other things I have to do first.

    So until I can make a full response, here's something for you to chew on.

    Shmi's slavery and unknown information about Shmi's genetics and make-up are two wholly separate issues. Missions are assigned by issue, not by person, as we've seen in the films so far. That is, they never said, to Kenobi and Anakin, "go to Padme and solve all her problems for her." Their instructions were to go to Padme to help her with the one specific problem that the Jedi felt was relevant.

    So it is entirely possible for the issue of getting more information about her to make it to the top of their priority list while the issue of her slavery stays right down at the bottom. Because frankly, the two don't affect each other at all. So just because they go to Shmi, they don't need to initiate a whole series of thigns to do for her. They can do just one thing related to her (like get info on her) and then leave and never see or hear from her again as long as any of them live.
  8. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    So it is entirely possible for the issue of getting more information about her to make it to the top of their priority list while the issue of her slavery stays right down at the bottom. Because frankly, the two don't affect each other at all. So just because they go to Shmi, they don't need to initiate a whole series of thigns to do for her. They can do just one thing related to her (like get info on her) and then leave and never see or hear from her again as long as any of them live.

    And you think that sounds reasonable do you?
    Good grief.
    You're even throwing out your own ideas now.
    You said:

    "Jedi are always free to help people coincidentally. If they can take out two birds with one stone, that's even better for fulfilling the mission of the Jedi Order. Thus, it was perfectly good the Qui-Gon helped Anakin and Jar-jar while helping Padme."

    So if they're free to help another person coincidentally why not help free Shmi while they're there to see her?
    Or are they only able to help a different person at the same time.
    You come up with these rules and then when they don't fit you come up with some absurd post-amendment claus.
    Why don't you save yourself some time and just say that the Jedi can help anyone as long as their name isn't Shmi Skywalker. It would save you having to do all these logical backflips.

    Think about it, imagine the Jedi and Co. going to see Shmi:

    Scene : Shmi's slave quarters on Tatooine.
    (Knock at the door)

    Shmi : My goodness, who are all you people?

    Jedi Joe : (brightly) Hello Mrs. Skywalker ?

    Shmi : "Miss".

    Joe: Oh? yes ..of course. Well my name is Joe, I'm a Jedi, and this is Doctor E and his team

    Dr. E (and team): Hello!

    Joe : And this is Professor Higgins of the Archive and a few of his people.

    Professor : Hello.
    And his team : Hello.

    Joe: And there's a few admin staff etc. We've all come to see you.

    Shmi : My goodness, well... would you all like something to drink? (gulps)

    Dr.E : (to Joe) I told you we should've had her freed first. This is a fiasco!

    Joe : Don't start that again!

    (Inside Shmi's apartment all the Jedi people are squeezed in, they all have a drink)

    Shmi: I'm terribly sorry, I didn't have enough cups, I hope you don't mind jars.

    Joe : No, that's fine Miss Skywalker. Firstly I'd like to say how grateful we are to you for helping Qui Gon, risking your son's life etc. Now, as I'm sure you know we spend our time helping people, however there are a lot of problems in the galaxy and we can't deal with them all, but you'll be pleased to know that you've jumped to the top of our list ! Isn't that nice?

    Shmi : Oh that's wonderful! Am I to be freed?

    Joe : ?..Ah. ?.. er ?. no, that's not ?er?that's not really my department, that would be a separate issue.

    Dr. E : Oh for pity's sake let's free her, what's stopping us? We've got the money.

    Joe: But we can only deal with the issue that we've been sent out to do.

    Dr. E : Who says?

    Joe : It's the rules.

    Dr. E: Where are these rules coming from?

    Joe: ?er?.I don't know, they just sort of ?. appear.

    Professor : Well you could help her coincidentally, kill 2 birds with one stone as it were, that's okay.

    Joe: Ah, well, no, it's a separate issue.

    Professor : A separate issue? Coincidentally residing within the same person.

    Joe : I think I could help another person coincidentally but not the same person coincidentally.

    (They all stare at him unable to fathom the depths of this absurdity.)

    Dr. E : (rubbing his eyes with the palms of his hands) Let me get this straight - you can help another person coincidentally, but not the same person coincidentally? Surely it doubles the coincidence if it's the same person!

    Joe : I don't make the rules.

    Dr. E : Where are y
  9. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    I am still not able to understand why you think this doesn't make sense the way it is.

    Qui-Gon did try and free Shmi after the race with the winnings from selling Anakin's pod. Watto refused.

    There are two reasons why Qui-Gon couldn't just grab Shmi and take her with him.

    1) She will explode.

    2) The Jedi make a point to not interfere with the laws of planets outside of the Republic's jouristiction unless they absolutely have to. Because it was legal to have slaves on Tattoine, Qui-Gon had to respect that.

    Shmi was being taken care of reasonably well. Aside from the fact that she was a slave, Watto treated her pretty good for a slave, and even gave her free time to make her own money cleaning memory for the locals.

    Also, when they take a Jedi hopeful away from their family, it's for good. Once they start training to become a Jedi, they are taught to shun attatchments, and are forbidden to reaqauint themselves with their previous relations.

    If the question of this thread is why didn't Anakin rescue Shmi before, that's why. If he wanted to return to free the slaves, he would have to wait until he was fully trained.

    If you want to branch out and ask why the Jedi didn't try again, thats why. Because the last thing they want is Shmi coming back into Anakin's life.

    If you are still trying to argue that Padme should have done something about it, why would she? After that ending cerimony of TPM, they hadn't so much as seen each other, and Padme had moved on with her life.

    If Anakin had approached her about it in the time since then, she might have wanted to help, but Anakin wasn't allowed to make that kind of contact with Amidala.

    To me this not only makes perfect sense, it is painstakingly covered by the narrative of these films.
  10. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    First off, the explanation I just gave didn't say that they couldn't help Shmi. I just said it was entirely possible that they might not, which is true.

    Along the same lines, I said Jedi are free to coincidentally help people. "Free to" does not mean "have to." "Free to," means exactly that, that its up ot the Jedi in question. They might help her coincidentally and they might not. Without any further information provided, the two are equally likely outcomes. Therefore, this doesn't qualify as something that would make us expect that the Jedi would free Shmi. It just creates a possibility that they might do it; a possibility that was already in existence anyway.

    I'll just answer the rest of it now, I guess:

    ""eliminated" ? Yeah, like the TF eliminated Padme - Not at all."

    I'll return you the favor of a witty response. I more likely eliminated them the way Bush eliminated Iraqi WMDs--there was no substance to them in the first place! 8-} Now to real discussion.

    "The only similarity you've shown is that as an institution they have some rules,"

    You missed the essence of these arguments. All I ever wanted to show is that they were an institution. All institutions share some common characteristics (otherwise, it would be a meaningless label, because it wouldn't mean anything). One of those that becomes important here is a level of impersonality. Second, because of the Law Of Entropy (this is one of the basic laws of the Universe, according to modern science) anything in existence has to go about some level of resource management to stay in existence, in that form. Therefore, the longer something stays in the same existence and form, the better resource management it goes about. For the Jedi to have existed a millennia they must have fairly good resource management. Therefore, based on their past behavior, we can expect the Jedi to operate like an institution with relatively good resource management principles.

    That's all I've ever said, or applied or extrapolated from. Period.

    Got to go now, no time after all. More later.
  11. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Alright. So here's the rest of what I wanted to say:

    "And one 'rule' which we do know is central to a Jedi's life is compassion."

    But compassion doesn't necessarily mean going out and freeing Shmi. Compassion is their main tenet of faith, but they decide how that is translated into action, not us the audience. The same thing is true with the basic beliefs of any religion. You don't the Pope what Catholicism is "really about" because he's the Pope, its their religious group and they understand better than any others how the principles of that group is supposed to translate into action. Or again, you wouldn't go presume to tell a Rabbi what the Ten Commandments "really" mean, nor would you be well recieved if you came to Jerry Fallwell with an argument like "God is love and gay people love each other so homosexuality is OK." In every case, it doens't work because your telling people who've dedicated their lives to a religion that you, an outsider presumably uneducated in the subject, can interpret it better than they can. A presumptous act indeed.

    Now, I'm not saying that the Jedi tenet of compassion excludes freeing Shmi. I'm just making the point that it is a highly dubious argument for you to barge in and claim that based on the fact that you know what is an essentially cliched explanation of the Jedi faith, that you can say with absolutely certainty that they were obligated to pick up Shmi. I don't see how that's enough evidence to know.

    "You're obviously desperate that they don't free her whatever the scenario or how straightforward it is."

    Why would I be desperate to make them not free Shmi? I've admitted several other plot holes in the films already. And while I am enjoying the discussion, I'm not an argumentative person. What do I need to prove to you? I didn't like TPM. I thought that ESB dragged in the middle, and if felt like it took the whole day for me to watch it the first time I saw it (I saw it on a VHS that I bought). So I'm not trying to blindly defend the Saga, either. I'm only trying to give you what I see as valid.

    "I'm saying that freeing Shmi doesn't break the rule of attachment, nor do I see any potential for it."

    That's not what I've said at all. And I don't think that's what you mean, either. Possibilities are limitless. There are very real ways it could violate the rule of attachment. However, inasmuch as both of us agree that we won't try and use those to prove the Jedi could have freed Shmi (which you have seemed to have agreed to) then we can drop this part of the discussion. That's what I'll stand by. We can continue playing semantics, but there are more important things to discuss.

    " I really don't know what to say to this.
    What Shmi did was monumentally brave and generous, we're talking about her child's life here.
    I'm just astounded you'd say that."


    This seems to capture everything from this line of thought, so I'll respond to this quote. I don't mean to diminish what Shmi did. It's just that I encourage you to take the broader view here. Yes, it's relatively rare on Earth. But there have only bee na few billion people alive here throughout all of history. In the SW universe, each planet contains hundreds of billions of people. The number of cases would be several magnitudes greater. And the Jedi would no doubt no of some of them.

    So how is it fair to the rest of the parrent's in the Galaxy that do this? How is it fair to those who sacrifice their child, have the child actually die, and then have no one get anything good out of it in return? How is it fair to all those others the Jedi knew about and didn't give any special assistance because of it. Yes, in an ideal world, Shmi would be rewarded for her good deed. But this isn't an ideal world. It's an over-crowded, tremendous one that's on the verge of collapse. People's good deeds get forgotten, ignored, or passed over all the time. As much as everyone would like it if it did, her good deeds are absolutely no assurance that she will recieve a good deed in return. Tha
  12. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    The simple answer is that the Jedi don't allow attachment, and going after her would be a show of attachment.
  13. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    But compassion doesn't necessarily mean going out and freeing Shmi. Compassion is their main tenet of faith, but they decide how that is translated into action, not us the audience. The same thing is true with the basic beliefs of any religion. You don't the Pope what Catholicism is "really about" because he's the Pope, its their religious group and they understand better than any others how the principles of that group is supposed to translate into action. Or again, you wouldn't go presume to tell a Rabbi what the Ten Commandments "really" mean, nor would you be well recieved if you came to Jerry Fallwell with an argument like "God is love and gay people love each other so homosexuality is OK." In every case, it doens't work because your telling people who've dedicated their lives to a religion that you, an outsider presumably uneducated in the subject, can interpret it better than they can. A presumptous act indeed.

    Er... the Jedi aren't real you know.
    It's all an invention of Lucas, the author, and if his characterisation and narrative doesn't make sense then I'm perfectly entitled to say so.
    It's got nothing to do with me being "an outsider presumably uneducated in the subject" thanks very much.

    I'm just making the point that it is a highly dubious argument for you to barge in and claim that based on the fact that you know what is an essentially cliched explanation of the Jedi faith, that you can say with absolutely certainty that they were obligated to pick up Shmi. I don't see how that's enough evidence to know.

    Well excuse me for 'barging in'. *shrugs*
    I never claimed with absolutely certainty that this would cause them to free her, I merely point it out as a good motivation and as a response to your constant attempts to paint them as some heartless corporation.

    Along the same lines, I said Jedi are free to coincidentally help people. "Free to" does not mean "have to." "Free to," means exactly that, that its up ot the Jedi in question. They might help her coincidentally and they might not.

    I see no reason why they wouldn't free her in that situation.

    Why would I be desperate to make them not free Shmi?

    Well I don't know, but when I see someone describe what Shmi did as "common and mundane" I start to wonder. And also - you don't seem to keen to stand by your previous ideas, you said :
    " I don't think they actively want to keep Shmi enslaved. Rather, I think that they keep having more important business to attend to. All my posts come from this angle, so its important that you understand this."

    And yet - even in the scenario where the jedi and the doctors and the archivists are on her doorstep you still hum-and-hah about whether they'd free her or not.
    Come on - from your 'lack of enough resources' stance show me what's stopping them from freeing Shmi in that scenario.

    And further on this 'resource' matter, I notice another point of mine has repeatedly gone unanswered from you, so I'll put it again:

    However if you're talking about Jedi Personnel when you say 'resources' - well, they don't have to send a Jedi to free Shmi (as I've said before), in fact it'd be better not to, a Jedi might arouse suspicion, they could just send an 'agent'

    Again - from your 'lack of resources' stance show me what's stopping them.

    Me:"I'm saying that freeing Shmi doesn't break the rule of attachment, nor do I see any potential for it."

    J_W :That's not what I've said at all. And I don't think that's what you mean, either.


    Yes it is what I mean, I haven't changed my position.
    and if you disagree with me then why did you keep saying that we were in agreement? It's best that you don't give my opinion for me.

    However, inasmuch as both of us agree that we won't try and use those to prove the Jedi could have freed Shmi (which you have seemed to have agreed to)

    You're doing it again!

    I don't see how what they know has any relevance. You don't get rewarded for what you think you've done, only what you actually have. And in t
  14. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    Go mer
    Shmi was being taken care of reasonably well. Aside from the fact that she was a slave, Watto treated her pretty good for a slave, and even gave her free time to make her own money cleaning memory for the locals.

    Well isn't that nice - Lucas gives a positive portrayal of slavery, good to know the morals are coming across loud and clear.
    But you're ignoring a rather obvious fact - as a slave she can be sold to any scumbag who could do whatever he wanted with her. Comforting eh?

    If you want to branch out and ask why the Jedi didn't try again, thats why. Because the last thing they want is Shmi coming back into Anakin's life.

    So they're complicit in slavery because they're worried she may try and contact Anakin. Nice Jedi.
    Shmi isn't going to jeopardise Anakin's chances to be a Jedi, she's very likely aware of the rules and if she isn't then the Jedi should tell her to avert the risk of her breaking them. Leaving her in slavery is hardly a good way of stopping her from seeing him, what if someone else freed her - oh they did.

    If you are still trying to argue that Padme should have done something about it, why would she? After that ending cerimony of TPM, they hadn't so much as seen each other, and Padme had moved on with her life.

    Nice girl that Padme. Shmi risks all she has to help that girl, has to endure the torment of watching her son risk his life, just to help these strangers, and what's Padme's response of gratitude "I've move on with my life." [/rolls eyes]

    g
  15. Leias_love_slave Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2003
    star 5
    Hey, have you guys seen this televison commercial?

    I believe it's for some financial group. Some executives are sitting in a restaurant having lunch when one of them begins choking on a piece of food. The others start discussing whether or not he is choking which leads to a discussion about the 'Heimlich(sp) maneuver'. This goes on for several moments before someone from another table finally comes over and 'Heimlichs' the guy. Then the people at the table commend themselves for correctly assessing that their co-worker had in fact been choking.

    And the catchline is to the effect of 'Actions...not words.'

    When I saw this, I couldn't help but be reminded of the discussion here of Shmi being abandoned.
  16. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    "Er... the Jedi aren't real you know.
    It's all an invention of Lucas, the author, and if his characterisation and narrative doesn't make sense then I'm perfectly entitled to say so."


    If you're going to step outside the context of the films, then we really have nothing to talk about. Because out-of-universe, Shmi not getting rescued makes perfect sense as a plot device. But since you seemed to be looking for some deeper answer, then we have to go in-universe. And in universe, the Jedi are a religious order, and what I said does apply.

    "I see no reason why they wouldn't free her in that situation."

    Coincidence is whimiscal; there might not always be a good reason. That doens't mean its not a valid decision, though. For instance, Kenobi thought they should leave Jar-Jar in the forest, Qui-Gon let him tag along. Was either one of them really "wrong?" No. It was just a personal judgement call each of them made for reasons unbeknownest to us.

    As to why they might not free her, plenty of reasons. Perhaps its a Calamarian Jedi that wants to get off the giant desert that is Tatooine ASAP, and so does the minimum amount of business there possible. Maybe they have another urgent assignment waiting for them back at the temple. Maybe they're just getting over an illness, and are tired, and don't want to over-extend themselves on a mission that they're using as a chance to recover. Who knows? Who cares? Unless you're telling me that you've done good for others every single time you've had a chance to (or you know someone that has) then I don't see how this is relevant. The fact is, even Mother Teresa didn't help all the times she could have without too much trouble to her. And I think you'll agree that that by no means makes her a horrible person.

    "even in the scenario where the jedi and the doctors and the archivists are on her doorstep you still hum-and-hah about whether they'd free her or not. Come on - from your 'lack of enough resources' stance show me what's stopping them from freeing Shmi in that scenario."

    First off, the same rules don't apply to coincidental help because, being as how it is coincidental, it shouldn't really be causing any additional trouble. Secondly, I never hummed and hawed. I said that in such a scenario, they would be free to help her coincidentally, if they chose to, which is consistent with my position. However, free to does mean free to, something you don't seem to want to accept.

    "Again - from your 'lack of resources' stance show me what's stopping them."

    I'd be happy to. I'll first address the money issue, which you seem to be hung on. You say it shouldn't be an issue since "the Jedi have a lot of money." That whole premise is incorrect. Just because you have lots of money doesn't mean that you don't try to use it wisely. For instance, I'm sure Bill Gates could afford to use ten dollar bills as Kleenex and toilet paper. So why doesn't he? Because there is something better he could use that money for. Or again, many doctors make enough in a year to pay for a Dodge Viper in cash. So why do most still use payment plans, just like the rest of us? Because there is some better ways they could use their money than paying cash for a fancy car. So when we ask "Can I afford this?" we're not just asking "Do I make enough money to cover the cost of this one item" but actually "Would the money I spend on this item be better used elsewhere to meet my needs/make me happy?"

    What does all this mean? It means that the Jedi's wealth really has little to do with whether or not its worthwhile to free Shmi. Freeing Shmi still has to have greater merit than anything else they might consider doing with that money. This has to do with the principle that, in economics, is called "opportunity cost." You might look into it.

    Now to move on to your personnel argument. Although I never said this, it could be an issue. After all, there is such a thing as underemployment. People don't get terminal degrees to work at a gas station, and neither do people do
  17. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    The Jedi do not impose Republic law outside of the Republic. That would be like the federal government coming down on multiple marriages in the middle East.
    gezvader28: Nice girl that Padme. Shmi risks all she has to help that girl, has to endure the torment of watching her son risk his life, just to help these strangers, and what's Padme's response of gratitude "I've move on with my life."
    />
    />/>
  18. Leias_love_slave Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2003
    star 5
    It's nice to know that if gang-raping slaves was legal on Tatooine, and Shmi was attacked right in front of a Republican Jedi, he wouldn't interfere because he has no authority.

    Very heroic. [face_plain]
  19. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    Way to take what I said to such an illogical conclusion that no reason can follow.
  20. Leias_love_slave Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2003
    star 5
    Why is it illogical?

    The Jedi CANNOT enforce Republic laws on Tatooine. That was your point.

    Are you now going to start making exceptions?
  21. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    I'm saying we don't have to. Because there wasn't any evidence of what you suggest.
  22. Leias_love_slave Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2003
    star 5
    The EXCUSE being made for leaving Shmi in slavery is that the Jedi can't enforce Republic laws on Tatooine. PERIOD.

    So, it wouldn't matter if Shmi was being pampered or tortured, the EXCUSE would still apply, wouldn't it?

  23. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    I would be willing to bet that the Jedi would be compelled to do something about severe abuse if they were able to.

    However, the slavery shown in TPM wasn't any worse than some regular jobs. They take good care of their slaves on Tatooine, because they consider them to be a highly valued possesion. They are symbols of status and power. You may even notice one of the younger slaves hanging out with Anakin even have braces to imrpove their value.

    If Watto were beating Shmi, I could see Qui-Gon stepping in to do something about it. But short of that, Qui-Gon had more pressing issues to deal with, and wasn't going to take on the responsibility of freeing and entire planet's (that wasn't even part of the Republic to begin with) slave population.

    He did try and purchase her freedom, but "Watto wouldn't have it." Watto blamed Qui-Gon for his losses at the Boonta Eve Classic, and because Shmi was one of the few things he had left, he wasn't about to sell her to Qui-Gon. After doing what he could, he had no choice but to leave Shmi behind. If he were to try and steal Shmi, she would blow up. If he were to try and muscle Watto into turning the explosive device off, he would then alert the Hutts to their presense which would end their trip back to Couruscant real quick wouldn't it?

    Padme didn't do anything, because she knew Qui-Gon had already tried buying her to no avail. What, is she going to keep coming back to Tattoine every year until Watto finally agrees to sell her? After the Award Cerimony, Padme and Anakin parted ways, and she never looked back. She went on with her life.
  24. Leias_love_slave Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2003
    star 5
    "I would be willing to bet that the Jedi would be compelled to do something about severe abuse if they were able to.

    However, the slavery shown in TPM wasn't any worse than some regular jobs.

    If Watto were beating Shmi, I could see Qui-Gon stepping in to do something about it. But short of that, Qui-Gon had more pressing issues to deal with..."


    But can't you see that deflates the argument that the Jedi CANNOT help Shmi because she lives outside the Republic?

    That is making the argument that they aren't MOTIVATED to help her.

    "He did try and purchase her freedom, but "Watto wouldn't have it." Watto blamed Qui-Gon for his losses at the Boonta Eve Classic, and because Shmi was one of the few things he had left, he wasn't about to sell her to Qui-Gon."

    This is the third time I've heard you claim this, but I don't agree with your interpretation.

    What Watto "wouldn't have" was letting Shmi go for what Qui-Gon had to offer AT THE MOMENT.

    A return trip could have solved that problem and made Watto rich, but no one cared enough to attempt that.

    Do you really see Watto as someone who would stay broke to spite Qui-Gon when he could release Shmi for lots of $$$$$$$$?
  25. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    What Qui-Gon had to offer at the moment was worth as much as cost of a slave.

    And if Anakin wasn't worried about it, why would Padme?

    If Anakin had approached her in the meantime, telling her that he need to get enough money to free Shmi, she would have probably done whatever she could.

    But he didn't.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.