Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Mr. B, Jan 19, 2015.
I was responding to Octavian. I may not agree with Seagoat and Cushy but trolls they are not.
I enjoy a good villain. But there's a difference between finding the villain entertaining to watch and supporting his or her stances as applied to our world.
I think the core of the Jedi is non-violence and that you should only defend yourself when attacked. How do people take anything other than that away from it?
It's inherently contradictory. Inevitably, a Jedi will have to use violence to defend themselves against violence.
It's perfectly fine to always attempt to first seek non-violent solutions, so long as there's the recognition that there are moments were the proper application of violence is necessary to save yourself or others.
Which is what I meant by defending themselves...
You can't dedicate your self to non-violence and defending yourself with violence. Something's has to give one way or the other.
Depends what you define as non-violence I guess.
Well when you put it that way, I guess I am. Huh
It's not that they want "peace", as in the simple cessation of armed conflict, want they want is the end of the Empire's brutality. The Rebellion wasn't founded to put an end to a war, it was founded to put an end to the suffering caused by the Empire. They want the end of the Empire, period, because it is anything but peaceful, lawful, just, fair....or any of the good things people want in a government. It's Evil with a capital E, it's not a good entity.
I suppose they could use more subtle ways, but they chose to use less subtle ways, and I agree wholeheartedly with their choice.
The situation in ANH is very much kill or be killed. I agree with their decision to kill. The Death Star shows up at Yavin and immediately prepares to destroy Yavin IV, without so much as a word exchanged.
The Rebels are hiding on an inhospitable ice planet that's pretty much off the galactic map in ESB, and the Empire shows up with Star Destroyers. No words, only invasion. The Rebels are portrayed as being doggedly chased by the Empire in ESB. I agree with their decision to fight and flee in order to survive.
"Imperial troops have driven the Rebel forces from their hidden base and pursued them across the galaxy. Evading the dreaded Imperial Starfleet..."
How about the rampant bigotry (what is this...thing?), the casual murder of innocents (Owen, Beru, Jawas, etc), the fact that it blows up a defenseless planet, Darth Vader being in a position to summarily execute people on a whim, being in a position to do what he did to Cloud City in ESB, etc.
I think the OT does more than enough to establish the Empire as wholly evil, and the EU definitely provides more detail. You are free to disagree with the Empire being evil, and disregard the EU, of course.
No, not "so be it".
People deserve the right to disagree without being blown up.
Surely, on a message board of all places, you can see the necessity of being able to disagree without resorting to blowing up planets.
Seriously, this is absurd.
Nope, no more galactic war.
Now people have to live with the Empire's oppression and brutality, even though they hate it.
That's not really the way I see it. The way I see it, the civil war begun in the PT never really ended. The Empire never had peace. You have to go to the EU for this, but Separatists held out for years, and what became the Rebellion started not long after ROTS. This is somewhat seen in what I believe was a deleted scene in ROTS, with the Delegation of 2000 (or whatever it was called), which is the beginning of the rebellion.
Plus, I don't think hunting down the Jedi Knights to extinction during ROTS and in the years following really counts as "peace". You may disagree, of course.
The Rebels didn't just "come about" out of thin air, they came about because they had reason to rebel. They came about because they didn't actually have peace, they had Imperials brutalizing them.
Obi-Wan calls the period in between ROTS and ANH "the dark times", not "the peaceful times". Granted, Obi-Wan is heavily biased, but The Dark Times has stuck as the title for that time period for a reason, and I'm pretty sure all Star Wars material has portrayed that time period as anything but peaceful.
To put an end to the Empire's brutality, exemplified by the destruction of a defenseless planet in ANH.
Not really. It may indicate that the majority has changed their mind on the Empire (now that they've had a chance to see its true nature), and I'm pretty sure that's it.
After all, the SE added more celebration scenes, including on Coruscant (no?).
Probably because they think it's not true, and frankly absurd.
I mean, you have someone who thinks they're being trolled.
That is your choice, sir but troll I am not. The Rebels and Leia are at fault as well. They could've handled themselves MUCH better than they did and actually striven to DO what they cry as could the Jedi but NO they chose to be violent and threaten the government. Not a wise nor morally sound way to foster change.
Except the government in question is illegitimate.
That's debatable. It doesn't negate the fact all 'sides' could have sought peace and did NOT, not merely one.
I don't remember being shown any Imperial brutality after Order 66 that would not have happened without the insurgency
You can't say that one racist officer is a representation of an entire Galactic Empire, that's absurd and unfair. Again, the innocents would not have been killed if not for the Rebels' aggression. The blood of Owen and Beru was on the Rebels' hands
Again, we never got to see common life under the Empire without a war going on during the OT. You can't say that they're oppressive or evil without having seen it
I mean "so be it" in that one could take the stance that whatever it takes to maintain the peace must be done for the safety of all. If you have a gun and you see somebody else aiming a gun into a crowd, what will you do?
And once again you bring up Imperial brutality. We never see any of this that is not caused in some way by the Rebels
By all means, continue with the idea that the Rebels shot Owen and Beru. That must have been in the Ultimate Editions.
The versions of ANH that I have, has stormtroopers killing them. And I have yet to see a stormtrooper who worked for the Alliance.
Glad my earlier point stands though, the one about submission to totalitarian regimes being A-OK in the name of (LOL) "peace".
There was no moral relativism in the OT, but people are now trying to shoehorn it. Funny.
The Empire's murder of an entire planet should be more than enough evidence for anyone that it was an oppressive regime. Oppressive governments always start small, they don't immediately jump to mass genocide and skip all the other stuff.
It was all the Rebels' fault, they were holding Tarkin back!
If there wasn't a Rebellion, then the Empire would not have been forced to demonstrate that they have the power to keep the galaxy in control. Alderaan would have been saved
I guess that's why they waited for the Rebellion to begin before they started building the Death Star...
That is probably the most absurd logic I've ever seen.
"If the slaves had been submissive, the master would not have needed to beat them." That's essentially what your logic supports.
"If it's not on screen, then it does not exist."
Straight from the Jocasta Nu school of thought.
The plans for the Death Star existed long before that.
It could easily be assumed to be kept concealed unless its usage was needed, as it was due to the rebellion
Octavian: The Empire and the people of the GFFA are not analogous to a slave driver and slaves; we NEVER see any brutality from the Empire that would have happened without the rebellion
How can you justify the slaughter of millions because of rebellion? If there was a rebellion today, in any western country, would you see it justified for the government to slaughter millions in order to stop the rebellion? The rebels cause was righteous and correct, and I'm sure they would rather had not fight but they had too - that's the way it is with overwhelmingly oppressive regimes (and I'm not talking an apartheid system, but rather a totalitarian regime).
Godwin alert: Was the Holocaust (or any other atrocities or even just anti-free policies belonging to the Nazi government) 'on the hands' of European rebel movements in WWII? I don't think so. If there were no one resisting, then whatever happens in the course of resistance might be avoided, true. But the other negative effects of a regime itself might become even worse as a consequence of a lack of resistance.
In your opinion
I don't condone needless killing, yet I support the notion that sometimes, the government must use brute force only if necessary to maintain the piece
It is not necessarily justified in a moral sense; if I were a citizen of the GFFA my loved ones were killed as a side effect of the Empire's necessity to stop the Rebellion, then I would sure as hell wish for the Rebels to surrender
I'm sorry, but it is an extraordinarily sound analogy.
You're simply unwilling to make logical inferences based on available information. The Empire is clearly willing to destroy billions of innocents as a demonstration of its might to the rest of the galaxy and to put down a small, fledgling rebellion punish a bun-haired princess, and you're honestly telling me that you are refusing to accept that the Empire might have also been willing to trample on basic rights as well?
C'mon man, this is not a huge stretch of logic here. You have to be willing to take the leap at some point.