Star Wars:The Clone Wars S3......so far

[ProtoAvatar]

Then the jedi were suicidal idiots for striving for for light/dark "equilibrum" with that prophecy in the PT, Set Harth.

The jedi - the light - were essentially striving for the renewed ascendance of the sith - the dark.

 

[Hound of UIster]

There is no "light side of the Force". It's just the Force when used by the Jedi.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

I think balance of the force is the light side prevailing. But balance needs to be achieved by free will.
Manipulation is what the dark side is all about.
That's why the force was balanced the moment Anakin freed himself from all the manipulation he endured all his life from both Jedi and Sith.
For the first time in his life he made a choice of his own for something good.

There... solved it...

 

[fett51]

Unless what they want is to separate.

Oh, so that's why they were planning the death star! After they got the Republic to agree to peaceful coexistence, they were going to build it in secret so Poggle could surprise the galaxy by blowing up a few planets in the biggest fireworks display ever to celebrate their mutual love and respect!

That's what I thought.

...sticking with the established canon counts as an assumption? Buh?

If it was so easy to get rid of Palpatine, there never would have been a Sith order in the first place.

So there's something about dark side users that makes them completely immune to the will of the force, to the point that everyone around them is immune as well. So an individual dark sider is able to counteract the will of the force, and two of them at a time were able to do it for a thousand years running. That's a very weak will.

But balance needs to be achieved by free will.

Then it would've been nice of it to ask Shmi before knocking her up.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The force was depicted inconsistently in the movies.

In the OT the force was taoist in nature, it was all about equilibrium, with a dark and light side.
Joda used the light side, Palpatine the dark side. The 'will of the force' was not exclusively light nor exclusively dark, but encompassed both.

Then came PT and the 'balance of the force' prophecy. Lucas saw too late that only idiot jedi would want light/dark equilibrium when they, the light, were dominant.
So the force was retconed: the force is only 'light'.

That's the problem. Lucas took an interesting idea that was outside the Western mentality and shoved it into Western mainstream us-vs-them thought. Not as interesting as what he had before because the original conception was more challenging to the default sensibilities of the audience.

Manipulation is what the dark side is all about.
That's why the force was balanced the moment Anakin freed himself from all the manipulation he endured all his life from both Jedi and Sith.
For the first time in his life he made a choice of his own for something good.

So manipulation is what the light side is about, too? There does seem to be evidence for that line of thought, but I doubt it's intentional. My favorite interpretation is that the Force is striving for balance in the dark and light sides, but both the Sith and Jedi, being petty, aggressive, confrontational humanoids, find it impossible to comprehend the deeper meaning of the Force - to stop fighting! - and are locked in an eternal cosmic joke, and the joke's on them.

Every victory of your own side means that the Force is less balanced on your side. All victory means is that you set the Force against you, and nobody can fight the Force. Jedi and Sith alike are fools who will never understand that victory means surrender, and surrender means victory.

 

[JD]

^That does make sense. I love the whole SW saga, but the whole balance of the force thing bothered me. It seems like most people assume that for their to be balance one side would have to be dominant or even alone, but really that doesn't make it balanced. For it to be really balanced wouldn't both sides need to be even? Maybe that's why there are always new Dark Siders popping up all the time. In order for their to be real balance there must be people using each side.

 

[DarthPipes]

I found it funny that Naboo is a water world and the planet's people are having water shortages.

 

[O'Dib]

supposedly as the senator's aide, she lives on Coruscant?

 

[DarthPipes]

Padme would have been better off showing the cost of the war by showing people who had been affected by the devastating battles.

 

[Set Harth]

Then the jedi were suicidal idiots for striving for for light/dark "equilibrum" with that prophecy in the PT, Set Harth.

The jedi - the light - were essentially striving for the renewed ascendance of the sith - the dark.

Which is it? Were they striving for equilibrium or the ascendance of the dark? Make up your mind. Still not hearing any canonical proof of this alleged Force retcon. Calling the Jedi idiots doesn't suffice. ( It's a hopeless quest anyway, since duality is alive and well in the script and novel for AOTC. All the retconners have is pure speculation that Lucas might have gone over to their side sometime in the last ten years, but there's no indication of such an occurrence in ROTS. )

...sticking with the established canon counts as an assumption? Buh?

Nice try, but your assumption is still not "established canon" just because you say it is. You need to have proof of it in the films.

So there's something about dark side users that makes them completely immune to the will of the force, to the point that everyone around them is immune as well. So an individual dark sider is able to counteract the will of the force, and two of them at a time were able to do it for a thousand years running. That's a very weak will.

It's almost as if... the outcome of the plot depends upon the actions of characters. Shocking!!!

Then it would've been nice of it to ask Shmi before knocking her up.

You only reveal your own assumption that free will was not involved.

Every victory of your own side means that the Force is less balanced on your side.

Unfortunately that doesn't fit with the situation depicted in the films, probably because you made it up. The Force is balanced in ROTJ when a certain side wins.

Lucas took an interesting idea that was outside the Western mentality and shoved it into Western mainstream us-vs-them thought.

Which happened in the OT ( to thunderous applause ). Stopped they must be; on this all depends. But wait - why pass up the chance to fabricate an imaginary OT-vs-PT divide?

Not as interesting as what he had before because the original conception was more challenging to the default sensibilities of the audience.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I found it funny that Naboo is a water world and the planet's people are having water shortages.

Maybe it's mostly salt water and/or locked up in polar ice. After all, Earth is a "water world" too - and water shortages are going to get even worse in the near future.

 

[fett51]

Nice try, but your assumption is still not "established canon" just because you say it is. You need to have proof of it in the films.

I see. So someone in the films has to state specifically no secret force user was babysitting Anakin and Leia their entire childhoods. You know, it also wasn't specifically stated yoda isn't a frog that was mutated by radioactive ear fungus, or that underneath all the buildings the planet Coruscant isn't actually made of cheese, or a million other whacked out things either one of us could pull out of our butts that seemingly run contrary to what's in the films, but aren't explicitly denied. I myself will stick with what the films heavily imply.

It's almost as if... the outcome of the plot depends upon the actions of characters. Shocking!!!

If ridding the galaxy of the Sith depends upon the actions of the characters then the forces will IS so weak as to be inconsequential, which was my whole point to begin with.

You only reveal your own assumption that free will was not involved.

There was no father. I carried him, I gave birth, I raised him. I can’t explain what happened.

 

[Set Harth]

If ridding the galaxy of the Sith depends upon the actions of the characters then the forces will IS so weak as to be inconsequential

An all or nothing scheme: it either does auto-kill or it is of no consequence. You'll find that the plot depends on the actions of the characters in other fiction as well.

There was no father. I carried him, I gave birth, I raised him. I can’t explain what happened.

Seen it. That doesn't prove your assumption that no free will was involved.

 

[fett51]

No, someone in the films has to support your theory. That's why making things up is known as the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

No. The films say all the Jedi except Yoda and Obi-wan are dead or hiding by the end of RotS, and the Sith have no idea Leia is Anakin's daughter. The films also say the Republic doesn't exist on Tatooine, and the council didn't know about him, so no Jedi were following Anakin around, and they also say the Sith didn't know about jack about Tatooine either. Suggesting that there were other force users running around protecting them as kids is completely baseless as far as the films are concerned. What you're doing is placing the burden of proof on the person doubting a claim, not on the person making it.

An all or nothing scheme: it either does auto-kill or it is of no consequence. You'll find that the plot depends on the actions of the characters in other fiction as well. It happens!

Because this is a binary choice. Is the force manipulating characters, or do they have free will? If they have free will, the force's will is inconsequential because the characters will do what they want whether the force wants them to or not. What Obi-wan said in ANH had Luke opening himself to the force - that's a choice, and one anyone not a force user couldn't make. If on the other hand the force is able to manipulate everyone, then it's really bad at this whole "getting rid of the sith" thing.

That doesn't prove your assumption that no free will was involved.

So she can't explain that something asked for her consent? Must have a pretty poor grasp of English then.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If the Force has no will of any sort, then it's kinda useless as a story element. It's gotta want something, or represent something that the characters should want.

If the Force is maneuvering characters like a puppetmaster, then it's wrecking the story.

That's why the best solution is that the Force has a will, but it's not something either the Jedi or the Sith are willing to accept: that to win, they must lose. Both sides are so locked into their conflict mindset that they can't comprehend the Force at all.

That's why Luke is an interesting character. He seems to be the most likely to finally comprehend the true meaning of the Force at long last: victory through surrender.

Forgiving Anakin was a good example of that - after all of his crimes, it's not "right" or "just" that he be forgiven, unless you've accepted that you must abandon the conflict-oriented mindset, even if it means abandoning the search for "rightness" and "justice."

That's not something that's easy for anyone with a self-image as a "good guy" to accept, but if the answer were easy and obvious, the Jedi would have found it without spending eons flailing around, fighting the Sith and getting nowhere, since the Sith keep coming back - shouldn't that alone be a sign they're doing something wrong?!?

Anakin falling to the Dark Side was a message from the Force, you idiots! Ah what fools these mortals be...

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Then the jedi were suicidal idiots for striving for for light/dark "equilibrum" with that prophecy in the PT, Set Harth.

The jedi - the light - were essentially striving for the renewed ascendance of the sith - the dark.

Which is it? Were they striving for equilibrium or the ascendance of the dark? Make up your mind.

Already addressed in my posts. Despite what you obviously think, Set Harth, reading selectively is NOT a viable argument.

In the PT, there were many jedi and one sith.
Dark/light equilibrium means a few jedi and a few sith.

Meaning the jedi were suicidal idiots who wanted to sith to rise when they worked towards 'equilibrium.

Still not hearing any canonical proof of this alleged Force retcon. Calling the Jedi idiots doesn't suffice. ( It's a hopeless quest anyway, since duality is alive and well in the script and novel for AOTC. All the retconners have is pure speculation that Lucas might have gone over to their side sometime in the last ten years, but there's no indication of such an occurrence in ROTS. )

Again, already addressed, Set Harth. Selective reading is obviously your hobby.

If the force was not retconned and is still both light/dark, the PT jedi are suicidal idiots who, despite they, 'the light', being dominant, want the 'dark' to rise so that there's a dark/light equilibrium in the force.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

So how about that last episode? Explored the morality of sending clones into battle, Palpatine's patient machinations, the effects of sponsoring large-scale wars, etc. Plenty of action. And a Twi'lek stripper. Just your typical episode of Clone Wars.

 

[Christopher]

^That does make sense. I love the whole SW saga, but the whole balance of the force thing bothered me. It seems like most people assume that for their to be balance one side would have to be dominant or even alone, but really that doesn't make it balanced. For it to be really balanced wouldn't both sides need to be even? Maybe that's why there are always new Dark Siders popping up all the time. In order for their to be real balance there must be people using each side.

Only if you buy into a Manichaean view of a universe ruled by opposing forces of good and evil. Another way of looking at it is that the so-called "Dark Side" is a consequence of the Force being out of balance -- being used in a way that creates imbalance by bringing power and advantage to a few at the expense of suffering for many. By that definition, to restore balance would be to eliminate any unbalanced, abusive use of the Force, to use it only in a way that preserved the balance of nature, society, etc. In other words, eliminating the "Dark Side" would restore balance.

Padme would have been better off showing the cost of the war by showing people who had been affected by the devastating battles.

No, because that wasn't the political point she had to make. She was specifically speaking against a bill that would divert more of the Republic's funding toward combat. So she had to demonstrate the fact that diverting that money toward the war would take it away from social programs and infrastructure, and thus would in itself do harm regardless of the consequences of the war. The problem is that the Senate has become so fixated on the war that they've forgotten that everyday life still has to go on, and the ordinary citizens of the Republic are suffering as a result of that neglect from their leaders. So basing her argument purely on the war itself would've done nothing to make her real point, which is that the Senators have to stop thinking only about the war and start remembering that there's other stuff they're responsible for.

 

[Set Harth]

Dark/light equilibrium means a few jedi and a few sith.

Wrong. That's not balance of the Force, it's balance of the organizations. Attempting to rewrite the meaning of the term and ignore its context in the films doesn't make the Jedi stupid or retcon the Force.

If the force was not retconned and is still both light/dark, the PT jedi are suicidal idiots who, despite they, 'the light', being dominant, want the 'dark' to rise so that there's a dark/light equilibrium in the force.

Except the "light" isn't dominant at the time of the PT: the "dark" is dominant. That the Jedi "want the dark to rise" is your own nonsensical rewrite. You can't argue an imaginary Force retcon into existence, especially through misstatements of the facts. Duality is right there in the AOTC script.

Suggesting that there were other force users running around protecting them as kids is completely baseless as far as the films are concerned.

I never suggested that particular strawman. I questioned the assumption that the action of the Force itself would be needed to protect them from harm.

Because this is a binary choice. Is the force manipulating characters, or do they have free will?

Characters have free will but the Force still has influence. No choice is required.

So she can't explain that something asked for her consent? Must have a pretty poor grasp of English then

Seemed okay to me. Her consent has nothing to do with it.

 

[fett51]

I never suggested that particular strawman. I questioned the assumption that the action of the Force itself would be needed to protect them from harm.

Let's not forget that it was often a user of the Force who kept Anakin ( and others ) safe, rather than the Force itself.

Characters have free will but the Force still has influence. No choice is required.

Influence is ambiguous. Can its will change a person's choice from what it would be without it?

Seemed okay to me. Her consent has nothing to do with it.

All right, let me ask as directly as possible then: how can it be she says there's no father and she can't explain what happened if something asked for her consent?