who'd you kiss on LF

[Junket]

Well no, see the problem with the movies is that they don't put enough emphasis on the manipulation of the masses to achieve power. See, it's not really about being "evil" as much as it is doing what it takes to get what you want, regardless of the means.

Sometimes you do what you gotta do.

EDIT: And by linking "evil" with kissing, I was referring to my teasing game with Ames.

[Gigabitch]

It's Dark under the covers.

[Sooky]

Kissing leads to relationships. Relationships lead to evil. Evil leads to the Dark Side.

Awesome statement! So very true and Star Wars-esk at the same time! Genius! Relationships do tend to lead to evil. Well in my experience anyway.

Well no, see the problem with the movies is that they don't put enough emphasis on the manipulation of the masses to achieve power. See, it's not really about being "evil" as much as it is doing what it takes to get what you want, regardless of the means.

Isn’t “doing what it takes to get what you want, regardless of the means” kind of like a definition of evil if the means involve inflicting suffering on others?

It's Dark under the covers.

Love it! Kissing leads to the dark side of the duvet! Cool...

[Junket]

Isn’t “doing what it takes to get what you want, regardless of the means” kind of like a definition of evil if the means involve inflicting suffering on others?

No, brute force rarely gets you what you want.

You need to be sneaky about it.

Notice how the Emperor pitted all of his enemies against eachother.

Notice how he used democracy as a means to get people to unanimously back him so that he could achieve full control.

He didn't want power to create more war, he did it to create peace.

Everybody wants peace, some are just willing to go to war to achieve it.

You can easily apply that statement to the real world.

Evil suggests doing bad simply to do bad, when the Dark Side doesn't really work like that. In many ways the "Light" Side is just as questionable as the Dark Side.

[Junket]

Fras, wasn't aware of your philosophic side!

That's simply because I never showed you that face.

C'mon, you didn't really believe I was sarcastic and obnoxious all the time did you?

And when I referred to myself as a sweet guy, I wasn't kiddin'.

[Mathias]

It's Dark under the covers.

Shhh. Don't tell Sooky my evil plans.

[Sooky]

Definitions of Evil-

Morally wrong.
Causes harm or injury.
Characterised by anger or spite.
Causes suffering or destruction

No, brute force rarely gets you what you want. You need to be sneaky about it. .

I didn’t say “evil” always referred to using brute force. Evil deeds can also be sneaky. Devious people can still be morally wrong and cause suffering/destruction without resorting to brute force directly.

Notice how the Emperor pitted all of his enemies against each other. Notice how he used democracy as a means to get people to unanimously back him so that he could achieve full control. He didn't want power to create more war; he did it to create peace. .

Where’s the evidence that the Emperor wanted peace? Didn’t he destroy a whole planet for essentially no reason? Sounds pretty evil to me. I’d say ultimately he wasn't so interested in peace, but more in gaining power. And he deliberately wiped out all the people who'd oppose him (Jedi, Alliance etc), so that he could achieve total power.

Everybody wants peace, some are just willing to go to war to achieve it. You can easily apply that statement to the real world.

I don’t think everybody wants peace. I think some just want war to destabilise societies and make them easier to dominate/control. I’d say its the control that so called "evil" people seek and not peace.

Everyone wants to be in control, but some are willing to do whatever it takes (sacrifice lives etc) to gain this power and control.The more evil a person is, the more harm/suffering they are willing to inflict in order to get control.

Evil suggests doing bad simply to do bad, when the Dark Side doesn't really work like that. In many ways the "Light" Side is just as questionable as the Dark Side.

I don’t think there is such a thing as pure “evil” in the way you seem to define it. I'd say most of the time peoples end intentions are good, or at least so they think. EG - Maybe the Emperor truly believed that in some way his dominance would bring an overall order to the Universe, and that once he achieved power he could maintain this order. However, by inflicting suffering on others to essentially achieve his own desires (desires for control and power) I’d say the Emperor should be defined as evil. As the Dark Side leads to anger and suffering I’d also say that the Dark Side should be defined as evil.

I agree that the Light Side is also questionable, as it can cause harm and suffering too. However, generally the Light Side acts to try and reduce harm and suffering, and is certainly self-less compared to the selfish nature of the Dark Side. The Dark Side relies on emotions of anger and fear, but the Light Side seeks to avoid these emotions. So I'd say "evil" is a relative thing, and compared to the Light Side the Dark Side is definitely evil.

Shhh. Don't tell Sooky my evil plans.

Mmm... So… you have evil plans… interesting…

[Junket]

Definitions of Evil-

Morally wrong.
Causes harm or injury.
Characterised by anger or spite.
Causes suffering or destruction



I didn't say "evil" always referred to using brute force. Evil deeds can also be sneaky. Devious people can still be morally wrong and cause suffering/destruction without resorting to brute force directly.



Where's the evidence that the Emperor wanted peace? Didn't he destroy a whole planet for essentially no reason? Sounds pretty evil to me. I'd say ultimately he wasn't so interested in peace, but more in gaining power. And he deliberately wiped out all the people who'd oppose him (Jedi, Alliance etc), so that he could achieve total power.



I don't think everybody wants peace. I think some just want war to destabilise societies and make them easier to dominate/control. I'd say its the control that so called "evil" people seek and not peace.

Everyone wants to be in control, but some are willing to do whatever it takes (sacrifice lives etc) to gain this power and control.The more evil a person is, the more harm/suffering they are willing to inflict in order to get control.



I don't think there is such a thing as pure "evil" in the way you seem to define it. I'd say most of the time peoples end intentions are good, or at least so they think. EG - Maybe the Emperor truly believed that in some way his dominance would bring an overall order to the Universe, and that once he achieved power he could maintain this order. However, by inflicting suffering on others to essentially achieve his own desires (desires for control and power) I'd say the Emperor should be defined as evil. As the Dark Side leads to anger and suffering I'd also say that the Dark Side should be defined as evil.

I agree that the Light Side is also questionable, as it can cause harm and suffering too. However, generally the Light Side acts to try and reduce harm and suffering, and is certainly self-less compared to the selfish nature of the Dark Side. The Dark Side relies on emotions of anger and fear, but the Light Side seeks to avoid these emotions. So I'd say "evil" is a relative thing, and compared to the Light Side the Dark Side is definitely evil.


Mmm... So… you have evil plans… interesting…

What more evidence do you need than the Emperor simply stating that he wanted peace? Would you say that President Bush is evil? He definitely fits the criteria you laid as as what you defined as "evil" acts as does any leader who has gone to war.

The emperor didn't kill for the sake of killing or the sake of doing "bad". Like I said, it was all a means to achieve a goal. The Light Side wanted to stay in power, so what did they do? They hunted down the Sith almost into extinction. Their ideology may differ but their methods were quite similar.

Not to mention the "Light" Side didn't only avoid emotions of anger or fear, but virtually almost all emotion at all. They saw things in black and white. In a sense they were the "conservatives" of the Star Wars universe.

The problem with either ideology is that they are both far too extreme. They were both highly intolerant of eachother, both used violence as a means to achieve or hold power. One is all about virtually having no emotion, to one that embraces self destructive emotions.

I know I may take some hits for bein' a dork, but a Star Wars game I played really opened my eyes as to what it meant to be part of the "dark side". It went much deeper than, "bad totalitarian guy killing everything in a quest for power" vs "good noble socialist guy saving the galaxy" and more into how humans behave and how either side will manipulate others to achieve what they want to achieve.

I agree that the Light Side is also questionable, as it can cause harm and suffering too.

So, can it be safely said that the Light Side does evil things to achieve it's noble goals? Does the end really justify the means?

Exactly.

[Gribble]

Honestly, I think you're looking too far into it, Fras. George Lucas is a wholly inept moron and Star Wars is a fluke. I mean, Howard the Duck... that's the stuff Lucas comes up with. All that really intriguing stuff you mention is the result of sloppy story-telling. Boba Fett? Nothing more than a panzy bit character, but Lucas' awful dialogue made him out to be a badass. Vader should have force-curbed him for not watching his mouth.

Isn't it amusing that a seemingly innocuous thread such as this becomes a Star Wars debate?

[Junket]

It's not about the movies.

The movies are dumb in how shallow they are.

The games I've played are so much better, ironically more relevant to current society.

And is the "intriguing" things I mentioned the result of "sloppy story telling", I really don't understand that statement.

[Gigabitch]

Honestly, I think you're looking too far into it, Fras. George Lucas is a wholly inept moron and Star Wars is a fluke. I mean, Howard the Duck... that's the stuff Lucas comes up with.

Does Raiders of the Lost Ark ring a bell? How about American Graffiti?

[Gigabitch]

SMACK!

Don't make me get out the peanut butter.

[Junket]

Actually.

I think I could safely say that all of us here do feel that the means can be justified so long as we're satisfied with the end product and we were done no personal harm.

Why? Because life goes on and most people don't dwell on how they got where they are.

[Junket]

Most people lack of conscience.

And it depends how bad those means really were. I'm sure you wouldn't feel good If you killed, raped, destroyed to get to where you are. Just a hypothetical situation, of course.

Yeah, but if you're leading on a scale of that proportion you probably wouldn't be the one who's personally doing the killing, the raping, the destroying. You turn a blind eye.

Do you think Leaders really know what their subordinates are up to?

Hell no.

Just get the job done, if I don't see it, and if I won't hear about it, then it didn't happen.

If you've ever been in a leadership position, it's pretty easy to assume this kind of responsibility.

If you've ever been in a subordinate position, it's pretty easy to take on that kind of mentality. What the boss don't know can't hurt him right?

[Junket]

So wrong I don't even know where to start. So I won't.

You're looking on too great a scale.

I'll simplify it for you, bring it down to the real world, the world we deal with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're no Angel.

Last year in AmeriCorps I had this TeamLeader, he was a pretty lax guy but was strict with the rules.

If I asked him "Hey Neal, is it okay if I just take the van by myself and grab somethin' from the store?" Now according to the rules you have to have at least 2 people driving the van, of course he'd say no, because now he would officially be liable for any accident I got into and held accountable for the fact I didn't have somebody sitting shotgun.

So say I'm on a project where our van is, I don't know, needs to be backed up, or moved 5 feet, and all my team mates are elsewhere. Do I tell the project sponsor "No, I can't move the van, it's against the rules for me to do so by myself."? **** no, I'm not a ****in' pussy, and I ain't stupid either. And I know if I ask my TL if it's okay just this once he'll say "no", and if he says "no" and I do it, then I'm directly disobeying him which will automatically result in some form or punishment. So I just do it, and get the job done, without mentioning any of that to my TL.

You see how innocent that is?

Now that is just one little scenario out of many that occurred during my 10 months of service. I knew, my teammates knew, even Neal knew, if you ask him if you could do something that you know you're not supposed to do, he has to say no. But if you just do it, and he doesn't know about it, you're golden. If he does know, or sees you do it, he can reprimand you (more likely if it is in public) or let it pass (because it simply isn't worth creating an issue over).

Ever leave work early?

Or come in half an hour early for that much more extra pay?

Ever break procedure for a shortcut that you know will get your job done faster?

Ever just toss the manual aside and do it your way?

I know you and every other person how here has had the battle between procedure and common sense.

As simple and silly as that.

That kind of mentality isn't only reserved for the General and his grunts.

You gotta be real about these things, that's simply how the world works whether you consider it morally wrong or not.