[Spiderman Fanboy] 15 and it shows

[Thanas]

Spiderman Fanboy gets a warning for misuse of the report button. You do not report people for using mean words against you.

OK, I understand now. I apologize for breaking the rules. But is profanity allowed on these boards or not? I dislike profanity and/or name calling being used in a discussion. Can you please explain the rules about this (ie, name calling, profanity, etc)?

Announcements has this funny title: newbies please read before posting.
If you had done that, you might have read the rules.
And you might have avoided like an idiot two times in a row.
if you had done that you might have looked into the announcement forums and looked at the huge topic title "Official Board Policies (all newbies please read)"
If you had done that you would not ask a stupid question.
For you would have read PR 5
and read the words contained therein
which are: Grow a Thick Skin. People are allowed to insult each other and use profanity on these forums. Do not run to a moderator or dismiss someone's argument just because he's insulting or rude. The best way to respond to a rude person is to show him up by producing a better argument than he can.
But you did not.
So now you look like an idiot.
Two times in a row.
And wasted my time.
Congratulations.
Idiot.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

What does the construction of the death star being built before the rebel alliance came into being mean? What's your point? It was built to keep the Imperial star systems in line from opposing the Emperor, and, according to the Death Star Novel, from Rebellion.

If the death star replaces the Senate, and the Senate as a device to rule the galaxy's people, that's why I made that comment.

It means the Death Star could not possibly have been built specifically for the Rebel Alliance or in response to any action they may have taken.

The Death Star was built to terrify the populace into obeying the government. The Empire wouldn't need to terrorize their citizenry if they weren't doing horrible things, and specifically shut down any recourse said people might have for airing their grievances and receiving redress. Rule Through Fear generally says you aren't competent enough to rule any other way.

The Death Star is a poor replacement for the Senate as a tool of governance. It doesn't do any better at preventing Rebellion ("The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" remember that?) and it certainly doesn't do any better at the routine administration and paperwork the Senate did. It is not a sufficient replacement in any way.

Obi Wan Kenobi, , " The Chancellor will not be able to control the thousands of star systems without keeping the Senate intact."

"How will the Emperor maintain direct control without the (senate's) bureacracy?"-General Tagge

"Fear (of the death star) will keep the local star systems in line".

(destroying alderaan with the death star), so that, "no star system would dare to oppose the Emperor now."

And, also....

Don't you get it, that the rebels were not rebelling because of the death star? There was a rebellion even before the rebels even knew of the death star.

To quote from Wookipedia, "The Expanded Universe reveals the events described in the film's opening crawl. The opening crawl reveals that the galaxy is in a state of civil war. The Rebel Alliance has won their first major victory by stealing secret plans to the Galactic Empire's secret weapon, the Death Star.
The Rebel Alliance operated an efficient and widespread intelligence network of Bothan spies. Through this network, the Alliance learned of the construction of the Death Star, an extremely powerful space station capable of annihilating entire planets with its superlaser. "

And, also, the declaration of rebellion never mentions the death star.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Declaration_of_Rebellion

The Corellian Treaty and the declaration of rebellion had happened even before the rebels had even known of the death star. So, yeah, they rebelled for purely political reasons, and the death star wasn't built for them in specifically, but it was people for people like them.

Which that sort of dilutes the concept of Palpatine's epic evilness and the death star, if you ask me.

[Ahriman238]

Yes, the Rebels rebelled specifically because of the evil autocracy, the slavery, the ignoring of basic rights, that sort of thing. And in the process of breaking some rules (and the Rebels really hadn't gotten far into actually rebelling by ANH) they found that the Empire was building a Wunderwaffen specifically to attack their own people.

[Stark]

Someone's going to have to join the dots on someone building a weapon of mass destruction to rule through fear after they dismantle the political system being 'less' evil or perhaps 'not' evil if it was secret. Maybe I'm getting slow in my old age, but is he saying that the Death Star being built to stop 'terrorists' makes it ok to kill billions on a whim, or that since it wasn't built to stop 'terrorists' its okay because political opposition needs to be crushed? Has he switched around?

Is there any kind of authoritarianism this kind of circular thinking wouldn't justify? At what point could people resist (politically, and then militarily when the political system is obliterated) the government without justifying any atrocity on the government's part?

[Metahive]

Hey, Spoderman Fenboi! I notice you haven't answered my question yet, why would a benevolent regime need to rule by fear and terror?

[Ahriman238]

Someone's going to have to join the dots on someone building a weapon of mass destruction to rule through fear after they dismantle the political system being 'less' evil or perhaps 'not' evil if it was secret. Maybe I'm getting slow in my old age, but is he saying that the Death Star being built to stop 'terrorists' makes it ok to kill billions on a whim, or that since it wasn't built to stop 'terrorists' its okay because political opposition needs to be crushed? Has he switched around?

Is there any kind of authoritarianism this kind of circular thinking wouldn't justify? At what point could people resist (politically, and then militarily when the political system is obliterated) the government without justifying any atrocity on the government's part?

I don't know what he's arguing anymore. I haven't for almost three pages.

I think we've reached the point of the thread where people keep going just to be contrary, even if it means circling their position.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Someone's going to have to join the dots on someone building a weapon of mass destruction to rule through fear after they dismantle the political system being 'less' evil or perhaps 'not' evil if it was secret. Maybe I'm getting slow in my old age, but is he saying that the Death Star being built to stop 'terrorists' makes it ok to kill billions on a whim, or that since it wasn't built to stop 'terrorists' its okay because political opposition needs to be crushed? Has he switched around?

Is there any kind of authoritarianism this kind of circular thinking wouldn't justify? At what point could people resist (politically, and then militarily when the political system is obliterated) the government without justifying any atrocity on the government's part?

I don't know what he's arguing anymore. I haven't for almost three pages.

I think we've reached the point of the thread where people keep going just to be contrary, even if it means circling their position.

Edit:No, due to snow, there's no church services today, so I can now argue my point right now and here, you guys.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Someone's going to have to join the dots on someone building a weapon of mass destruction to rule through fear after they dismantle the political system being 'less' evil or perhaps 'not' evil if it was secret. Maybe I'm getting slow in my old age, but is he saying that the Death Star being built to stop 'terrorists' makes it ok to kill billions on a whim, or that since it wasn't built to stop 'terrorists' its okay because political opposition needs to be crushed? Has he switched around?

Is there any kind of authoritarianism this kind of circular thinking wouldn't justify? At what point could people resist (politically, and then militarily when the political system is obliterated) the government without justifying any atrocity on the government's part?

In my opinion, there are different "levels" of evilness. And there are also different levels of evilness that make a certain regime worthy of a just war being waged against it or not. A rebel and/or a person seeking to overthrow an evil government is either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. The Allied soldiers were not terrorists at all. They were freedom fighters.

If a leader uses fear to keep people in line (ie, so that they don't rebel against him, and especially violently rebel, and to obey his laws), in my opinion, that does not justify a rebellion. For, if they are good citizens, and if they obey his laws and if they do not use violence because of political dissension, then using fear to keep terrorists/terrorism in line is, at least, not "that" evil of a thing. For example, the empire did not plan on blowing up any more planets with the second death star because they were already ruling through fear. And their harsh policies do not justify a war against them. If Palpatine was this sort of ruler/dictator, then the rebel alliance are terrorists, not freedom fighters.

On the other hand, if a dictator is like Joseph Stalin and they have a habit of taking the lives of their citizens due to an extreme paranoia of threats against their rule, even if their citizens are peaceful law abiding citizens and are not violent rebels, then those soldiers fighting against him (ie, the rebel alliance), would be heroic freedom fighters, and not terrorists.

[Ralin]

In my opinion, there are different "levels" of evilness. And there are also different levels of evilness that make a certain regime worthy of a just war being waged against it or not. A rebel and/or a person seeking to overthrow an evil government is either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. The Allied soldiers were not terrorists at all. They were freedom fighters.

The Allies firebombed entire German and Japanese cities. They nuked two of them. How are the Rebels terrorists if they aren't?

For example, the empire did not plan on blowing up any more planets with the second death star because they were already ruling through fear.

No they weren't. The whole rule by fear thing broke down when the first Death Star went kablooey, thus necessitating the second one. If they had destroyed the Rebel fleet at Endor they would in all probability have had to blow up more planets to cow the population back in line.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

In my opinion, there are different "levels" of evilness. And there are also different levels of evilness that make a certain regime worthy of a just war being waged against it or not. A rebel and/or a person seeking to overthrow an evil government is either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. The Allied soldiers were not terrorists at all. They were freedom fighters.

The Allies firebombed entire German and Japanese cities. They nuked two of them. How are the Rebels terrorists if they aren't?

For example, the empire did not plan on blowing up any more planets with the second death star because they were already ruling through fear.

No they weren't. The whole rule by fear thing broke down when the first Death Star went kablooey, thus necessitating the second one. If they had destroyed the Rebel fleet at Endor they would in all probability have had to blow up more planets to cow the population back in line.

In my opinion, it would have saved more lives in the long run if the Allies had simply just Japan instead of either dropping the two atomic bombs or an operation downfall land invasion of Japan, but apparently, us Americans were so focused on revenge for the 3,000 pearl harbor people that we were willing to defeat Japan at all costs for revenge.

They would have to blow up more planets in order to cow the population back in line? How many? And on what sort of scale? A few planets? Dozens of planets? Maybe even hundreds of planets? I want to know the scale of the Empire's possible evilness. Why not just one of them? I think Stalin's history of paranoia of dissent can help me understand what the Empire would have done had they been defeated in ROTJ.

And, also, here's just a very long link/article that argue against the empire's evilness and the supposed heroism of the rebels. I suggest that you guys read them! I don't feel like writing a wall of text over here, so I'll just send a link as opposed to quoting/posting these entire articles on this thread.

http://scottjen.wordpress.com/tag/galactic-empire/

Now, that link will give us more pages-worth of interesting discussion on this thread! That guy wrote a lot of interesting points about the Empire's nature and the rebel's nature of good and evil.

[DaveJB]

They would have to blow up more planets in order to cow the population back in line? How many? And on what sort of scale? A few planets? Dozens of planets? Maybe even hundreds of planets? I want to know the scale of the Empire's possible evilness.

That's a complete red herring. We don't need to speculate on what would have happened after ROTJ had the Emperor lived and the DS2 not been destroyed (though for what it's worth, the Mon Calamari homeworld and every other world that either had openly aligned itself with the Rebels, or which Rebel leaders just happened to come from, would very quickly have gone kablooie), we can observe from the Empire's actions when it DID exist and conclude that it was evil.

Just to give you an example of how people who WERE loyal to the Empire were treated, Bevel Lemelisk (the head designer of the Death Star) got executed, resurrected and then executed again a dozen or so times in-between the destruction of the first Death Star and him coming up with a Death Star II design that Palpatine was happy with. Qwi Xux (who was the superlaser's main designer) was put in a training program with ten other young geniuses from her race, and told that only one would pass, and that everyone else would not only die, so would their entire hometowns. And Captain Needa was not only force-choked to death, his entire family - none of whom had ever spoken a single bad word about the Empire - were all executed, just because he allowed the Millennium Falcon to escape in the asteroid field. All of these examples were personally authorised by Palpatine and/or Darth Vader.

So, with all that in mind, how the hell do you think the Empire treated those who showed even the slightest sign of disloyalty?

[Spiderman Fanboy]

They would have to blow up more planets in order to cow the population back in line? How many? And on what sort of scale? A few planets? Dozens of planets? Maybe even hundreds of planets? I want to know the scale of the Empire's possible evilness.

That's a complete red herring. We don't need to speculate on what would have happened after ROTJ had the Emperor lived and the DS2 not been destroyed (though for what it's worth, the Mon Calamari homeworld and every other world that either had openly aligned itself with the Rebels, or which Rebel leaders just happened to come from, would very quickly have gone kablooie), we can observe from the Empire's actions when it DID exist and conclude that it was evil.

Just to give you an example of how people who WERE loyal to the Empire were treated, Bevel Lemelisk (the head designer of the Death Star) got executed, resurrected and then executed again a dozen or so times in-between the destruction of the first Death Star and him coming up with a Death Star II design that Palpatine was happy with. Qwi Xux (who was the superlaser's main designer) was put in a training program with ten other young geniuses from her race, and told that only one would pass, and that everyone else would not only die, so would their entire hometowns. And Captain Needa was not only force-choked to death, his entire family - none of whom had ever spoken a single bad word about the Empire - were all executed, just because he allowed the Millennium Falcon to escape in the asteroid field. All of these examples were personally authorised by Palpatine and/or Darth Vader.

So, with all that in mind, how the hell do you think the Empire treated those who showed even the slightest sign of disloyalty?

I, for one, do not base my opinions about "who are the good guys" and "who's the bad guys", on popular culture, the opinions of the fans, or even what the book/movie itself tells me who are the good guys or the bad guys. I interpret a storyline in a very non-biased way. I interpret it however I view the story and the events that happen within it.

Just because Darth Vader is a villian of pop culture and Luke Skywalker is a hero of pop culture, that doesn't mean anything either way to me.

I like indulging in hypotheticals, partially because hypothetical help me understand the non-hypothethicals, what really happened within the story, much better.

In the EU Essential Guide to Warfare, it was mentioned that the death star was preparing to go into hyperspace to destroy the mon calamari planet and chandrila, mon mothma's home planet. WOW! That would be awesome. The death star going into hyperspace. The death star in ANH went into hyperspace, but that happened behind the scenes. How else did it get to Yavin 4?

Anyways, the Empire destroying Chandrila and Mon Calamari would be very evil war crimes, definitely, because of the millions/billions civilians on there, not to mention destroying entire ecoystems. However, that's the purpose that the death star was built for. They were keeping terrorists, ie, people who were using violence for political reasons, in line. Ahh, they would blow up rebel worlds? Right. They wouldn't blow up peaceful non rebel words. Joseph Stalin was a paranoid schizophrenic, who killed millions of people just out of his paranoia of them, even if they were peaceful, in good standing, and law abiding citizens that had no connections to any rebel groups at all.

I think this whole discussion doesn't justify involve if the Empire/Sith is good or evil or not, but it also involves, "were the rebels/jedi really the good guys" or not. This thread is a discussion about all of those things.

And killing Captain Needa and his entire famiyl was definitely evil, OK, we can agree on that one. The Empire/Sith did many morally bankrupt things. But that doesn't justify the rebels. They were responding very harshly to terrorists (people

[Ralin]

I, for one, do not base my opinions about "who are the good guys" and "who's the bad guys", on popular culture, the opinions of the fans, or even what the book/movie itself tells me who are the good guys or the bad guys. I interpret a storyline in a very non-biased way. I interpret it however I view the story and the events that happen within it.

Are you retarded?

In the EU Essential Guide to Warfare, it was mentioned that the death star was preparing to go into hyperspace to destroy the mon calamari planet and chandrila, mon mothma's home planet. WOW! That would be awesome. The death star going into hyperspace. The death star in ANH went into hyperspace, but that happened behind the scenes. How else did it get to Yavin 4?

Are you the kind of retard who is unable to stop himself from saying every goddamn random thought that pops into his head?

However, that's the purpose that the death star was built for. They were keeping terrorists, ie, people who were using violence for political reasons, in line.

You mean terrorists like the Empire and it’s military?

Ahh, they would blow up rebel worlds? Right. They wouldn't blow up peaceful non rebel words. Joseph Stalin was a paranoid schizophrenic, who killed millions of people just out of his paranoia of them, even if they were peaceful, in good standing, and law abiding citizens that had no connections to any rebel groups at all.

You mean like Alderaan?

I think this whole discussion doesn't justify involve if the Empire/Sith is good or evil or not, but it also involves, "were the rebels/jedi really the good guys" or not. This thread is a discussion about all of those things.

You haven’t discussed a goddamn thing. You’ve spewed out random claims that you’ve done jack and shit to back up.

And killing Captain Needa and his entire famiyl was definitely evil, OK, we can agree on that one. The Empire/Sith did many morally bankrupt things. But that doesn't justify the rebels. They were responding very harshly to terrorists (people

Hey, dumbfuck, still waiting for you to demonstrate that the Rebels were terrorists. Please, by all means, list some of the major Rebel atrocities.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

I, for one, do not base my opinions about "who are the good guys" and "who's the bad guys", on popular culture, the opinions of the fans, or even what the book/movie itself tells me who are the good guys or the bad guys. I interpret a storyline in a very non-biased way. I interpret it however I view the story and the events that happen within it.

Are you retarded?

In the EU Essential Guide to Warfare, it was mentioned that the death star was preparing to go into hyperspace to destroy the mon calamari planet and chandrila, mon mothma's home planet. WOW! That would be awesome. The death star going into hyperspace. The death star in ANH went into hyperspace, but that happened behind the scenes. How else did it get to Yavin 4?

Are you the kind of retard who is unable to stop himself from saying every goddamn random thought that pops into his head?

However, that's the purpose that the death star was built for. They were keeping terrorists, ie, people who were using violence for political reasons, in line.

You mean terrorists like the Empire and it’s military?

Ahh, they would blow up rebel worlds? Right. They wouldn't blow up peaceful non rebel words. Joseph Stalin was a paranoid schizophrenic, who killed millions of people just out of his paranoia of them, even if they were peaceful, in good standing, and law abiding citizens that had no connections to any rebel groups at all.

You mean like Alderaan?

I think this whole discussion doesn't justify involve if the Empire/Sith is good or evil or not, but it also involves, "were the rebels/jedi really the good guys" or not. This thread is a discussion about all of those things.

You haven’t discussed a goddamn thing. You’ve spewed out random claims that you’ve done jack and shit to back up.

And killing Captain Needa and his entire famiyl was definitely evil, OK, we can agree on that one. The Empire/Sith did many morally bankrupt things. But that doesn't justify the rebels. They were responding very harshly to terrorists (people

Hey, dumbfuck, still waiting for you to demonstrate that the Rebels were terrorists. Please, by all means, list some of the major Rebel atrocities.

You aren't even directly arguing against what I'm saying. Your mom, your mom, your mom.

How is that retarded? I view the good guys and the bad guys from their actions in the story, and I'm not biased by what the story tells me to believe or what the fans/pop culture wants me to believe. Now, the rest of you arguements=ad hominem attacks against me, with a few exceptions, but even those non ad hominem arguements are just simplyfying things and they aren't directly arguing against what I was saying before!

LOLZ! I PANWED YOU! I OWNED YOU! YOURE SO OWNED! YOUR MOM, LOLZ!

[Ralin]

Per the rules of this forum I ask that you respond to the points I made and justify your own.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Per the rules of this forum I ask that you respond to the points I made and justify your own.

OK. What specific points do you want me to respond to? Let's focus on one or two of them at a time, only.

[Ralin]

Demonstrate that the Rebels were terrorists using a definition that would not encompass the Empire as well.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Demonstrate that the Rebels were terrorists using a definition that would not encompass the Empire as well.

What do you mean by a definition that would not encompass the Empire as well?

OK, fine, let's focus just on the rebels for now. And on the definition of terrorism. Which can be very subjective. Somebody could technically use the definition of terrorism to argue that the allied soldiers that fought the nazis during ww2 were terrorists, which we know is obviously NOT true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

[Ralin]

What do you mean by a definition that would not encompass the Empire as well?

They were keeping terrorists, ie, people who were using violence for political reasons, in line.

Cue 50 million examples of the Empire using violence to accomplish its political ends.

OK, fine, let's focus just on the rebels for now. And on the definition of terrorism. Which can be very subjective.

Despite the fact that you just defined it on your own authority three posts ago?

Somebody could technically use the definition of terrorism to argue that the allied soldiers that fought the nazis during ww2 were terrorists, which we know is obviously NOT true.

And how is that obviously not true?

[Spiderman Fanboy]

What do you mean by a definition that would not encompass the Empire as well?

They were keeping terrorists, ie, people who were using violence for political reasons, in line.

Cue 50 million examples of the Empire using violence to accomplish its political ends.

OK, fine, let's focus just on the rebels for now. And on the definition of terrorism. Which can be very subjective.

Despite the fact that you just defined it on your own authority three posts ago?

Somebody could technically use the definition of terrorism to argue that the allied soldiers that fought the nazis during ww2 were terrorists, which we know is obviously NOT true.

And how is that obviously not true?

The Allies saved millions of lives in the long run from Nazi genocide, despite their evil war crimes in Japan. That may not have been the main goal of the Allied Powers (their main goal was just to stop the axis powers from taking over their land), but it was a very pleasent side effect of defeating Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler was a terrorist, for genocide and taking over lands through war. Not the Allied soldiers.

[Ralin]

The Allies saved millions of lives in the long run from Nazi genocide, despite their evil war crimes in Japan. That may not have been the main goal of the Allied Powers (their main goal was just to stop the axis powers from taking over their land), but it was a very pleasent side effect of defeating Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler was a terrorist, for genocide and taking over lands through war. Not the Allied soldiers.

How does that in any way prove that the Allies weren't terrorists according to the definition you posted?

[Spiderman Fanboy]

The Allies saved millions of lives in the long run from Nazi genocide, despite their evil war crimes in Japan. That may not have been the main goal of the Allied Powers (their main goal was just to stop the axis powers from taking over their land), but it was a very pleasent side effect of defeating Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler was a terrorist, for genocide and taking over lands through war. Not the Allied soldiers.

How does that in any way prove that the Allies weren't terrorists according to the definition you posted?

Quoted straight from the Wikipedia terrorism definitions article.

As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3] For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.[9][10]

The Nazis/hitler were terrorists, the Allied soldiers were not.

[Ralin]

So, what...the Nazis were terrorists because otherwise they would be more sympathetic and the Allies weren't because the Allies can't be terrorists?

Truly, you have a dazzling intellect.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

So, what...the Nazis were terrorists because otherwise they would be more sympathetic and the Allies weren't because the Allies can't be terrorists?

Truly, you have a dazzling intellect.

Now, I can tell what your arguementative strategy is. You just want to nitpick and argue about all of the sematics and details of what I was saying. You are arguing just for the sake of arguing with me. You probably do have a certain opinion, but you're arguing it in a way that personally attacks me and my intelligence, not my opinions. I love debates, but your debating is get a bit silly now!!! :roll

[Stark]

What's sad is his quote is specifically talking about the American trend to use subjective, emotional terms in the media to let people know how to feel about xyz group of foreigners.

The idea that freedom fighters are often also terrorists is probably beyond him (or 'subjective').

Dude, you don't love debates. I'm not sure you know what the word means. You're all over the place and clearly unable to examine the ideas you've accepted to be true. You just want a certain result and will contort any which way to get it.

That's wrong. Sorry.