Moderator: Vympel
Okay, so this means that you can't blame the clusterfuck that is the EU on the Alliance because they had no chance of knowing.Rogue 9 wrote: As Kazuaki was telling me before bailing out, you can't use what we know resulted from an action because those making the decisions didn't have the luxury of knowing. Of course, he was using that in reference to Hiroshima, but it applies to the Alliance just as well.
Yes I did, I just don't agree with it. You might notice that the same argument you make here also applies to the rebels. Sit down and take what's coming to you and no one will be hurt. So no rebellion either. Sorry, but your case is weak.Rogue 9 wrote:You didn't comprehend what I said at all, did you? An absolute minimum casualty count would involve not creating the New Order in the first place, but rather sit down, shut up, and be a Senator like he's supposed to do.
No, because I'm counting the Clone Wars, occupation of Naboo, and Jedi Purge in there as well. Case isn't so weak now, is it? The Emperor directly caused billions of deaths before the signing of the Corellian Treaty. The Alliance has nothing to do with that. Further, we're discussing the actions of the Empire, not the Alliance. I'm answering the contention that the Emperor did care about casualties by pointing out that he obviously didn't since he caused so many for his own personal gain.nightmare wrote:Yes I did, I just don't agree with it. You might notice that the same argument you make here also applies to the rebels. Sit down and take what's coming to you and no one will be hurt. So no rebellion either. Sorry, but your case is weak.Rogue 9 wrote:You didn't comprehend what I said at all, did you? An absolute minimum casualty count would involve not creating the New Order in the first place, but rather sit down, shut up, and be a Senator like he's supposed to do.
The occupation of Naboo and the Clone Wars had nothing to do with the Empire; it wasn't even formed at the time. This may be true for the Purge as well. Apparently that doesn't make a difference for you? Let me enlighten you then; the Alliance killed millions, many by the those who became the most prominent leaders of it, and caused even more deaths indirectly during the rebellion - most likely far more than Palpatine was ever responsible for. Does that mean the New Republic is evil and care nothing for the lives of imperials?Rogue 9 wrote:No, because I'm counting the Clone Wars, occupation of Naboo, and Jedi Purge in there as well. Case isn't so weak now, is it? The Emperor directly caused billions of deaths before the signing of the Corellian Treaty. The Alliance has nothing to do with that. Further, we're discussing the actions of the Empire, not the Alliance. I'm answering the contention that the Emperor did care about casualties by pointing out that he obviously didn't since he caused so many for his own personal gain.
What I'm asking for here is consistency; what goes for one goes for the other. I don't care if you separate or clump causes and government together. Just use the same rules for both sides, thank you.Kurgan wrote:Wait, you're saying that we can't count the deaths Palpatine caused directly or indirectly because "the Empire wasn't formed yet"?
Well, then neither should we count the deaths caused directly or indirectly by the Rebel Alliance, since the "New Republic wasn't formed yet."
If you want to seperate the causes and the governments that resulted from them, fine, just say so.
It would strengthen his argument, though again, I'll say I don't see that as a true refutation of his argument, rather against his methods for arriving at that conclusion. He would only need to show why the situations were different, unless he was arguing for a universal principle to apply to both cases, and then not apply it because it was "his country" and thus appearing hypocritical.AdmiralKanos wrote:Rogue 9's argument would be so much simpler if he would just accept that Hiroshima was evil, because then it would be consistent.
That's what drives me nuts about the people who advocate that the means justify the ends in one case, and the end justifies the means in another: if you're going to advocate utilitarianism, don't turn around and throw it out the window in another just because it happens to be your country responsible: it makes you look like an idiot.
Let's try this again. The Emperor is an absolute ruler. He is the Empire personified. Furthermore the occupation of Naboo and the Clone Wars had everything to do with the Empire. Don't even begin to tell me that they didn't. They were the catalysts that formed the damned thing.nightmare wrote:The occupation of Naboo and the Clone Wars had nothing to do with the Empire; it wasn't even formed at the time. This may be true for the Purge as well. Apparently that doesn't make a difference for you? Let me enlighten you then; the Alliance killed millions, many by the those who became the most prominent leaders of it, and caused even more deaths indirectly during the rebellion - most likely far more than Palpatine was ever responsible for. Does that mean the New Republic is evil and care nothing for the lives of imperials?Rogue 9 wrote:No, because I'm counting the Clone Wars, occupation of Naboo, and Jedi Purge in there as well. Case isn't so weak now, is it? The Emperor directly caused billions of deaths before the signing of the Corellian Treaty. The Alliance has nothing to do with that. Further, we're discussing the actions of the Empire, not the Alliance. I'm answering the contention that the Emperor did care about casualties by pointing out that he obviously didn't since he caused so many for his own personal gain.
And at the same time you claim that we can't blame the NR for what happened during the Vong invasion. Or for that matters, the anarchy that followed the Battle of Endor. But the Empire is sure guilty of things that happened before it even existed. Oh yeah.
I reiterate; your case is weak. If you want to claim only that Palpatine cared nothing abour casualties you might have a point. But as you know, those casualties have been pointed out to be completely insignifcant to the galaxy at large. Which makes your point look like this: "Palpatine cared nothing for the few kills he made in order to become Emperor. And that's why the Empire is bad."
Exchange Palpatine for Napoleon or any of dozens of real world leaders and you might get why that's not a black and white picture.
I fail to see how Hiroshima is anything other than a red herring and an attempt to make me look hypocritical so that you can employ an ad hominem tu quoque argument. Hiroshima was done to save the greatest number of lives possible. Alderaan was performed as an act of conquest, designed to ease the conquering of the remainder of the galaxy. The two are entirely different things. The means are similar, and as it is the ends that justify them, we must examine the ends. Well, what were the ends of the Empire? Galactic dominion and a reign of terror. Those of the United States? And end to the most destructive war in history, followed by rebuilding Germany and Japan. My position is entirely consistent when you take the ends into consideration.Admiral Kanos wrote:Rogue 9's argument would be so much simpler if he would just accept that Hiroshima was evil, because then it would be consistent.
What no chance of knowing? It is recognised in high level Rebel Alliance documents that the Old Republic was absolutely rife with corruption (and of just the sort that we see in the Yuuzhan Vong conflict). It would have only taken just one good kick to give life to a snowballing interstellar conflict, while the Republic's politicians pretty much continued to turn a blind eye to look out for their personal interests... You know, kind of like Naboo, the Clone Wars, the Thrawn Duology, and NJO era.Batman wrote:Okay, so this means that you can't blame the clusterfuck that is the EU on the Alliance because they had no chance of knowing.Rogue 9 wrote: As Kazuaki was telling me before bailing out, you can't use what we know resulted from an action because those making the decisions didn't have the luxury of knowing. Of course, he was using that in reference to Hiroshima, but it applies to the Alliance just as well.
Works with me
Strange then isn't it, that even a Rebel Alliance document would state that besides leaving a visible presence, the Empire would pretty much leave 79 in every 80 planet to their own devices.Rogue 9 wrote:Well, what were the ends of the Empire? Galactic dominion and a reign of terror.Admiral Kanos wrote:Rogue 9's argument would be so much simpler if he would just accept that Hiroshima was evil, because then it would be consistent.
Uh-huh.And your evidence that they knew that would inevitably happen again in the NR is? Oh, and the Thrawn duology and the NJO are a red herring because they happened AFTER the creation of the NR.Lord of the Farce wrote:What no chance of knowing? It is recognised in high level Rebel Alliance documents that the Old Republic was absolutely rife with corruption (and of just the sort that we see in the Yuuzhan Vong conflict). It would have only taken just one good kick to give life to a snowballing interstellar conflict, while the Republic's politicians pretty much continued to turn a blind eye to look out for their personal interests... You know, kind of like Naboo, the Clone Wars, the Thrawn Duology, and NJO era.Batman wrote:Okay, so this means that you can't blame the clusterfuck that is the EU on the Alliance because they had no chance of knowing.Rogue 9 wrote: As Kazuaki was telling me before bailing out, you can't use what we know resulted from an action because those making the decisions didn't have the luxury of knowing. Of course, he was using that in reference to Hiroshima, but it applies to the Alliance just as well.
Works with me
Sorry, that dog ain't gonna hunt. The Tarkin Doctrine outlines a textbook reign of terror; rule through fear is the very definition. You're not thinking if you don't realize that to maintain terror the Empire would have to give it's subjects reason to be terrified. Further, concerning Vader:Lord of the Farce wrote:Strange then isn't it, that even a Rebel Alliance document would state that besides leaving a visible presence, the Empire would pretty much leave 79 in every 80 planet to their own devices.Rogue 9 wrote:Well, what were the ends of the Empire? Galactic dominion and a reign of terror.Admiral Kanos wrote:Rogue 9's argument would be so much simpler if he would just accept that Hiroshima was evil, because then it would be consistent.
"There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you... Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy."
Vader was a Dark Lord of the Sith. Are we really to take his word, especially when given in the pursuit of personal power?Yoda wrote:Joined the Dark Side, Dooku has. Lies. Deceit. Creating mistrust are his ways now.
Umm ... regarding Yoda's opinion of Dooku ... Dooku was telling the truth. Just not the whole truth. Furthermore, we have the 3rd-person account of Vader's personal motivations in the ROTJ novelization. He wasn't lying to Luke.Vader was a Dark Lord of the Sith. Are we really to take his word, especially when given in the pursuit of personal power?
Gee wiz, Batman, what did you think you would get when you dig a rotten apple out of the garbage bin?Batman wrote:Uh-huh.And your evidence that they knew that would inevitably happen again in the NR is? Oh, and the Thrawn duology and the NJO are a red herring because they happened AFTER the creation of the NR.
Rule through fear of force, RATHER than force itself. What the fuck do you think nuclear deterent is?Rogue 9 wrote:Sorry, that dog ain't gonna hunt. The Tarkin Doctrine outlines a textbook reign of terror; rule through fear is the very definition. You're not thinking if you don't realize that to maintain terror the Empire would have to give it's subjects reason to be terrified.
And the Jedi are shining examples of truth and honesty, now?Further, concerning Vader:Vader was a Dark Lord of the Sith. Are we really to take his word, especially when given in the pursuit of personal power?Yoda wrote:Joined the Dark Side, Dooku has. Lies. Deceit. Creating mistrust are his ways now.
Okay, just for the record-democracy doesn't work, was that what you were saying?Lord of the Farce wrote:Gee wiz, Batman, what did you think you would get when you dig a rotten apple out of the garbage bin?Batman wrote:Uh-huh.And your evidence that they knew that would inevitably happen again in the NR is? Oh, and the Thrawn duology and the NJO are a red herring because they happened AFTER the creation of the NR.
The RA obviously wasn't thinking about what to replace the Empire with, besides shouting "Freedom! Freedom!! FREEDOM!!!" every now and then, they simply wanted to knock Palpatine out of the throne. And in the end, they decided to bring back a governmental system which by then everybody knew was ripe for the plucking.
If we are talking about democracy in general, no, I was not saying that it doesn't/can't work. What I am pointing out is that the bloated mess that is the Old/New Republic has demonstrated that once corruption starts, it spreads throughout this particular breed of democracy like wildfire.Batman wrote:Okay, just for the record-democracy doesn't work, was that what you were saying?
Nice textbook repetition. That refutes him HOW by telling us how often they elect to exercise that perogative?Lord of the Farce wrote:Rule through fear of force, RATHER than force itself. What the fuck do you think nuclear deterent is?
I see that the parallell with the Alliance went over your head. So let's try that again. If you blame the Empire for what its ruler to be did on his own before it even existed, the same argument applies to the NR.Rogue 9 wrote:Let's try this again. The Emperor is an absolute ruler. He is the Empire personified. Furthermore the occupation of Naboo and the Clone Wars had everything to do with the Empire. Don't even begin to tell me that they didn't. They were the catalysts that formed the damned thing.
Actually no. Let's look at why.nightmare wrote:I see that the parallell with the Alliance went over your head. So let's try that again. If you blame the Empire for what its ruler to be did on his own before it even existed, the same argument applies to the NR.Rogue 9 wrote:Let's try this again. The Emperor is an absolute ruler. He is the Empire personified. Furthermore the occupation of Naboo and the Clone Wars had everything to do with the Empire. Don't even begin to tell me that they didn't. They were the catalysts that formed the damned thing.
So if Palpatine was guilty of Alderaan (even though he wasn't involved in it other than approving Tarkin's deterrent machine of doom), then Carida is the fault of the NR,
That'd be the Warlord's fault there, Chief.the warlordism and anarchy following the collapse of the Empire is their fault by being the direct cause of it,
and the millions of imperials they attacked and killed during the rebellion is on their hands.
The NR orchestrated the Vong invasion? Source?Not to mention the Vong.
Nope. You haven't shown that the Rebellion was directly responsible for the behavior of those others outside of it's command and control. Palpatine was in full control of his own actions and those of the Empire.And you know what? That's way more deaths than Palpatine ever committed under his regime or even before, directly or indirectly. You're still applying a double standard, pal.
Yeah, yeah, I know you're claming we can't blame them because they didn't know what was going to happen. It's hard to describe all the faults with that argument, but I'll give it a try.
First, they certainly knew the Empire was going to collapse by killing Palpy - that's what they were aiming for.
They willing ly killed millions of imperials during the rebellion with little remorse afterwards and none prehand.
The Emperor didn't foresee his own death. The Jedi didn't foresee the Purge. Foresight doesn't work as reliably as Palpatine would have everyone believe.They didn't know about the Vong, but that was only due to their own utter incompetence in the first place. Besides, what happened to Luke's and the other New Jedi's foresight? What goes one way goes both ways..
* I point out that less than 1 in 80 planets has it's planetary government modified (from shifting members of the ruling body, down to changing one government procedure or another) by the Empire.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Nice textbook repetition. That refutes him HOW by telling us how often they elect to exercise that perogative?Lord of the Farce wrote:Rule through fear of force, RATHER than force itself. What the fuck do you think nuclear deterent is?
The fear of force only means anything if your government is willing to use it every once in a while to make sure that people don't forget that you've got it.Lord of the Farce wrote:* I point out - yet again - that it's actually "Rule through fear of force, RATHER than force itself."
That's only six million, three hundred and seventy thousand worlds. My, how few.Lord of the Farce wrote:* I point out that less than 1 in 80 planets has it's planetary government modified (from shifting members of the ruling body, down to changing one government procedure or another) by the Empire.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Nice textbook repetition. That refutes him HOW by telling us how often they elect to exercise that perogative?Lord of the Farce wrote:Rule through fear of force, RATHER than force itself. What the fuck do you think nuclear deterent is?
* Rogue 9 states - yet again - that the Tarkin Doctrine means "rule through fear".
* I point out - yet again - that it's actually "Rule through fear of force, RATHER than force itself."
... So what the fuck are you on about?
I doubt anyone has forgotten what the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did, though occasional nuke tests and scaremongering doesn't hurt.Graeme Dice wrote:The fear of force only means anything if your government is willing to use it every once in a while to make sure that people don't forget that you've got it.
In other words, you want to dismiss scale - which would make the changes made by the Empire comparable to booting out a few of existing members of a local council and maybe change a local parking permit law here and there - in favor of raw numbers which looks massive but is relatively insignifigant in the greater scheme of things.Illuminatus Primus wrote:That's only six million, three hundred and seventy thousand worlds. My, how few.
And you want to dismiss context - small, useless dependencies and protectorates on the Rim will not be of Coruscant's concern. Of those eighty, perhaps sixty are the equivalent of Yokelville, Nowhere. The planets requiring "rearrangement" will be large, well-populated local powers. Otherwise the effort is wasted.Lord of the Farce wrote:In other words, you want to dismiss scale - which would make the changes made by the Empire comparable to booting out a few of existing members of a local council and maybe change a local parking permit law here and there - in favor of raw numbers which looks massive but is relatively insignifigant in the greater scheme of things.
