Kurgan wrote:Is Palpatine only able to possess brainwashed slaves, young children and blank-slate clones? Perhaps I don't understand (or misunderstood) the capabilities of his soul-transfering Sith magick.
It is being suggested that Palpatine only did things that made sense or were his only option? It seems pretty obvious to me that he's an egomaniacal risk-taker and his behavior more and more mirrors that of your stereotypical comic book villain... flawed and/or irrational, so that the heroes can win.
So your evidence to support your conclusion he makes stupid choices is that you interpret canon using your theory that he makes stupid choices as an egomaniacal risk-taker. Right. Let me know when you've learned why circular reasoning isn't meaningful.
But possessing a baby seems like the worst possible thing he could set out to do. Even possessing some small animal would be preferable, because then at least he could more easily escape before he found a more suitable target.
So now you're just making shit up and blaming the fact it didn't happen on the presumption your theory is correct?
Or, there's that technology that exists wherein a brain can be implanted in a droid body or a ship... he could have used something like that to keep alive.
And this would allow him to continue using the Force how?
That sort of thing existed in the EU long before General Grievous, but now there's even less reason to suggest he couldn't do that, unless you buy the BS that your midichlorians don't work unless your body is "all meat" (in which case, just patch flesh onto the endoskeleton, Terminator style?).
I'm not obligated to disprove any and all bullshit you magically invented by eating alphabet soup then pointing your fetid asshole in the general direction of the forum.
Let me hold your hand like a small child so you won't hurt yourself:
In order to prove your theory he was unreasonable or irrational you must establish that he had better,
feasible options he knowingly chose not to use. Evidence accepted includes canonical documents, not some fanon bullshit you just invented and asserted. You're asserting Palpatine changed and therefore the burden of proof lies on you. Its not parsimonious or logical to invent endless corollaries that I must disprove. They must be substantive before I must even acknowledge them.
I repeat. There's no evidence that these mechanisms exist, much less would apply or be feasible, desirable alternatives to a rational person in Palpatine's circumstances. The null hypothesis is that Palpatine of EE is the same Palpatine he's always been, only know he must deal with critical failure of his clone line and despite coming up with the idea to capture the Ysanna, he does not use them. The null hypothesis and parsimony suggests this alternative was not as promising as had initially been thought, and that Anakin was the only rational solution left. You must prove the other solutions were knowingly feasible in order to substantiate your alternative hypothesis that Palpatine is fundamentally irrational.
Now, should responsible authors have shown explicitly Palpatine jumping from one burned out-corpse ofhis heirarchs to another or likewise amongst Ysanna tribesmen or amongst clones thereof while his clone is placed in stasis until its obvious only Anakin will do and then re-inhabit his clone and attempt to possess him. Its lazy writing.
However, you're still making a hypothesis that one of the known qualities of this analysis - Palpatine's personality and character - changed. You must substantiate the claim he changed, and if you cannot prove it with canonical evidence, you must abandon the hypothesis. That nothing changed is the null hypothesis and remains assumed true until proven otherwise.
