[civilian_number_two]

...
I'm merely attempting to correct an uneducated ramble about the definition of a word.

... Absolute means complete. ...

... You take absolute to mean that a statement is one-sided. That isn't the meaning of absolute. If I were to command someone they were to kill everyone they love or I was going to kill them, that is an absolute.

This seems to be resolved now, but can I just point out that you used "abslolute" as a noun right after insisting that "absolute" is an adjective only and never the noun as Obi-Wan uses it (to mean a statement unqualified by other statement, in this case something akin to Kant's Categorical Imperative). I mean, right after. To restate the quote above, you are saying that "If I were to command someone they were to kill everyone they love or I was going to kill them, that is a complete." It seems that your original complaint is that Lucas used the word incorrectly when he put it into Obi-Wan's dialogue, but your method is all over the place, beginning with an incorrect assumption about the meaning of the word and ending with an insistence that your opponent is using hallucinogenic drugs.

I agree that "do or do not; there is no try" is not an absolute statement. It is an object lesson. Absolute statements might include "no Jedi may give in to Love, or Fear, or even a moment of Anger, etc." All the b.s. rules thrown on to the Jedi just made them the most idiotic secret society in the history of adventure fiction. I prefered the lifestyle of the warriors in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON.

Anyway, this whole topic of whether Anikin speaks of his opinions while Obi-Wan insists that all of his statements are pure facts has been handled and with more humour before. Please limit the personal insults. I will arbitrarily set the limit at the number of personal insults already made. No more; that is an absolute.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 02 May 2006 - 01:17 AM

[Harmonica]

Yes. The only possible definition of absolute is complete. Total. Absolute does not mean one-sided.

Well, according to the same page, the definition of definition is "A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry." Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, if a dictionary has multiple (and different) statements about the meaning of a word, it has multiple definitions.

No. I am not being... absolute about that. I am stating a fact. Absolute means complete. Any other meaning that you make up on your own is irrelevant.

Given that I drew my meanings from a little-known source called "Dictionary.com", it can hardly be said that I made up my own.

"There is only one definition of the word. Just because the dictionary shows several "definitions" for the same word, they are all derived from the same definition. Complete, completely, total, totality, absolutely, positively: They are synonyms and are not different meanings."

This is where we differ, I suppose. One of the reasons I like words is the fact that they have such an amorphous, context sensitive nature. For instance, one synonym to complete is "unabridged" and another "unquestionable". I say that those two words mean different things. If a definition is "what the dictionary says a word means", (and if we go by the logic that all words have only one indisputable definition, then that is it) says that a word has more than one of these, then the word has multiple meanings/definitions/synonyms whatever you wish to call it.

If you want to get into semantics, a synonym is "A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language." It needs to require different meanings. And if we go by the dictionary, meaning is "what a word denotes or conveys." If different uses of the word convey different things, then it has different meanings, doesn't it?

For example: Tell me in one definition what the word "cool" means.

He told Anakin he was prepared to fight to defend his own life, which is how the Jedi are trained... defensively. He didn't battle Anakin to the death, he warned Anakin that he had the high ground and he could easily defeat him. Anakin jumped at Obi-Wan trying to be heroic and Obi-Wan didn't stand there and let him attack... again, defensive. Sets him on fire? So, Obi-Wan poured gasoline on Anakin and lit a match? I don't remember Obi-Wan setting Anakin on fire. I remember the clothing Anakin was wearing spontaneously combusting because he was so close to the lava.

I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek when I said "set on fire". I apologize that that was not apparent. But anyway, the fact is Obi-Wan cut off one arm and two legs, nabbed Anakin's lightsaber, let him drop down near the molten rock, and then walked away. Wouldn't "defensive" indicate a desire to try your hardest to avoid killing? Obi-Wan could just have easily have cut off one arm, grabbed the saber, and then levitated Anakin out of the pit. It's well within his abilities. Instead, he took the low route and walked away, leaving the confused, flaming, unarmed, one-armed guy. "Anakin Flambe" was hardly going out of his way to help Anakin out/talk him back to his senses.

The Sith do kill those they are in conflict with. To reply to your statements, Grievous wasn't a coward, he was following Sidious' orders. Mace Windu was borderline Sith. Obi-Wan didn't dump anyone in hot lava.

Perhaps so, but my main point in each of those examples was the Jedi, like the Sith, used lethal force in instances where they could just as easily have avoided killing/ their foes or leaving them to die. Sure, Maul, all those guys on Geonosis, Jango Fett, Grievous, etc were all badguys who technically deserved to die or something, but they did not have to. In most of those cases, the Jedi killed them simply because they were in conflict with them, despite it being well within their skills to disarm/disable. Even high-minded Yoda killed those Clone Troopers and presumably Palpatine's guards when he could have just as easily bypassed them entirely.

He didn't tell Anakin that. He warned Anakin that he had the high ground, but Anakin saw things in his favor. He was an idiot for jumping at Obi-Wan like a bewildered spider monkey. No, I didn't miss the triple-dismemberment. However, it wasn't like Obi-Wan to stand there and let someone chop him up with a lightsaber.

Yeah, but technically, it also wasn't like Obi-Wan to be needlessly sadistic. Okay, Anakin's trying to kill him, he fights back. I understand that. However, why did he choose to take out Anakin's arm and two legs instead of just two arms? Did he think that Anakin was going to wield his lightsaber with his two feet and battle while standing on his head? Heck, why not just slice his lightsaber into pieces? Cutting off his legs just seemed like it added insult to injury. I mean, come on. He reduced Anakin to a rather angry stump of flesh and hatred with a freaky clawed arm and left him in a barbeque. Was that entirely necessary?

Stop. "That is not to be doubted or questioned" is the long way of saying "complete" as in:
The answer is complete. It is not to be doubted or questioned because it is totality.

So you're telling me that if I have "unquestioning" (complete) loyalty, that I have "wide-ranging" (complete) loyalty, even if it's only to one person?

"Not liable to modification" meaning it's "absolutely" Anakin's way or the highway.

Or, it's "absolutely" Obi-Wan's way or being left defenseless, flailing, and flaming?

That is precisely what I meant when I say Anakin's statement will not falter, no matter what. If we go by that definition, then "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is not an "unconditional" statement. It is a matter of Obi-Wan making a simple observation. He is not dictating to Anakin that he must change, but he knows Anakin can change. Can change, meaning Anakin is not above being "final", "unconditional", "complete", "not liable to modification", "that is not to be doubted or questioned", or any other similiar definition of the word absolute that can be found. Obi-Wan then says, "I will do what I must" and he means he will do exactly as he can do to prevent Anakin from killing him. Obi-Wan's not out to kill Anakin, Anakin's out to kill Obi-Wan.

Perhaps so, but you neglect that he later screams "You were supposed to destroy the Sith!" Which, sure, Anakin sorta later does. But whether or not he's using that to try to talk Anakin down or not doesn't change the fact that in making a statement about the Sith, he indicates that he possesses the view that all Sith are (unconditionally, unquestioningly, absolutely) "Evil" and should be "destroyed". Sure, we as the audience know that the Sith are all one-dimensionally nefarious, backstabbing, murdering bastards, but that doesn't change the fact that in the movie, they couldn't possibly prove that 100% for sure.

You can interpret the word "absolute" any way you want to, but in the end, it still doesn't change in definition.

Even absolute zero?

This post has been edited by Harmonica: 05 March 2006 - 01:08 AM

[Sailor Abbey]

I don't think you could handle a nice fresh inhalation of reality. My only drugs of choice are caffeine, nicotine, and an occasional beer and it makes me wonder what you are smoking if you still don't understand the difference between dictatorship and diplomacy... wait, let me clarify for you (that means make it easy to understand) absolute and realization. I have come to the realization that if you still don't understand the difference between the two, it must be very hard to put down whatever it is you are smoking. Absolutely hard, that is.

I am going to make up a statistic that I feel reflects reality: 99% of people who can read, write and speak the English language, are probably smart enough to understand that a word may have multiple meanings.

And by multiple I mean more than one.

[Gobbler]

Abbey, stop it, you're killing me.

[Despondent]

Good stuff, Sailor Abbey. Pass it on.



"Only the PT deals in Obsoletes."

[Jejef Thgaron]

In no way did you, personally make up your own meaning. I apologize if you took it that way. However, I believe there are some people who take words out of their literal, intended context, and this is why the English language is imperfect. Not because the language itself is imperfect, but the fact that some words are taken in a metaphorical, or rhetoric sense.

I do not disagree that some words have different meanings, or definitions, or multiple synonyms. If we analyze the different definitions/synonyms of the word absolute, however, the meanings remain identical. Unquestionable, unabridged, unconditional, complete, final, total, etc. - all have identical meanings. They are all synonomous with the definition of absolute. There are different meanings for words, just as there are different words which share the same meaning. In the context of all of these meanings, Anakin's statement is final, and can not be modified. Given the same context of these definitions, Obi-Wan's statement is not final. It can very well be modified with different conditions. For instance, "Only Hutts deal in absolutes", would be an abridged statement, which contains a necessary alteration that would prove said statement to be nothing more than a simple observation and not an unconditional statement. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" can not be an absolute because of the parameters in which said statement can be modified. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"... we all know the Sith are not the only ones who deal in absolutes. Take Lando Calrissean for example. He turned Han Solo over to Darth Vader in ESB and said to Han that he had no choice. In this context, it seems as if Lando was given an ultimatum by Vader to turn Han in, or suffer the consequences. I'm not sure exactly what Lando was told by Vader, but I'm sure it very authoritative... possibly an "absolute". When used in this context, an absolute is an unconditional order, or mandate from a tyrannical character. If I remember correctly, Lando gave in to Vader's command and surrendered Han Solo. This means Lando, an ordinary human being, also deals in absolutes because he has surrendered, not only Han Solo, but to Vader's mandate as well, making Lando just as guilty of dealing in absolutes as a Sith Lord. In this context, it makes sense to ascertain that Obi-Wan's statement can not be final. What Vader actually said to Lando is irrelevant given the fact that Lando had his hands tied in this situation, which is evident in ESB. He was given a mandate or an ultimatum of some kind from Vader. Darth Vader was not one to be questioned, so he was very much a character of absolute authority.

If we take the word out of context, then, absolute has different metaphorical inversions. However, the word absolute is solidified in its original definition as it is used. Are we to believe absolute is used to establish a different meaning than the one intended?

Cool has quite a few meanings. It can mean cold, calm, or unfriendly. Absolute has many definitions, but they all refer back to the same singular meaning. Complete. Unconditional, unchanging, unaltered, final, total, not to be modified - they all mean literally the same thing. If we were dealing with the word "cool", which has several different meanings, each from several different definitions, I wouldn't debate this statement, but we're not dealing with the word "cool", now are we?

You have a valid point. Why did he have to cut off all three of his remaining human limbs? He did leave Anakin for dead. I'll agree with that. He didn't kill Anakin, though. Anakin screamed, "I HATE YOU!", therefore, making Obi-Wan aware of the brotherhood between the two of them to be non-existent. The only reason Obi-Wan walked away is because he didn't want to see Anakin like this. It hurt Obi-Wan to stay there and try to help Anakin (now Darth Vader) because of Anakin's hatred and anger towards Obi-Wan, but at the same time, Obi-Wan had to walk away because it hurt him to see that he had damn near killed Anakin. They say that once you go to the dark side, it is difficult to come back. Obi-Wan did try to talk Anakin back to his senses... from a certain point of view... and Anakin viewed the entire Jedi Order as a bunch of traitors (primarily because of Mace Windu) that were out to destroy the Republic.

I halfway agree with you. I don't think the Jedi killed their foes just because they were in conflict with them. It was also a matter of self-defense. If someone were attempting to end my life, I'd want to fight back. No, that doesn't necessarily mean I have to kill the person attempting to kill me, but it stands to reason why I would leave somebody alive so they could come back and try it again. I can't say that I justify killing someone, even out of self-defense. However, if I were a Jedi and everyone that opposed me were dangerous, I would feel safer knowing that my enemies had been vanquished. Remember, these Jedi characters are knights, which means they are chivalrous and live and die by the sword.

I can't answer why Obi-Wan cut his remaining limbs off. Maybe for continuity? Maybe so Kenobi's line in ROTJ makes more sense? "He's more machine now, than man." The only thing I can think of is the fact that Obi-Wan did not kill Anakin. He only took away any chance of Anakin fighting back.

If you have complete loyalty, then you do not question or doubt the person to which you have loyalty. Wide-ranging is a an all-encompassing phrase. If you have wide-ranging loyalty to only one person, it means exactly that - absolute. Wide-ranging doesn't necessarily mean you have loyalty to more than one person, it depends upon the context used. If I were to say my loyalty were wide-ranging, it would mean it is all-encompassing, which means I'm covering all my bases. If I have wide-ranging loyalty, I take in all facets of loyalty and combine them together into one unquestionable singular loyalty, which would make that loyalty complete, or absolute.

So, you're saying we all know the Sith are completely one-dimensional, but they couldn't prove that to be 100% accurate? I think you're onto something here. But then again, when Obi-Wan screams, "You were supposed to destroy the Sith!", doesn't he then add, "Not join them!"? A prophecy misread it could have been, indeed. A prophecy misunderstood by an arrogant group of old men running the Jedi Council. Nowhere in the prophecy does it say: "Destroy the Sith". It states that there will be a Chosen One born to bring balance to the Force. It doesn't say anything about destroying Sith, or joining the Sith for that matter. Obi-Wan obviously doesn't know exactly what the prophecy says... otherwise we may not have been slapped with this ridiculous line. I think old Obi-Wan said it best in ROTJ: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Complete coolness... totally cool.

[Jejef Thgaron]

No more insults from me. Promise. Civilian Number Two has brought something else to my attention. If black is black and white is white are absolute as they are fact... in this context, we see that they are absolute truth. In the same context, Obi-Wan can't be stating an absolute based on fact. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" may sound like an absolute, but in reality it isn't the absolute truth. Sith are not the only ones who deal in absolutes, so this is not completely the truth. The Hutts deal in absolutes. The t'landa Til deal in absolutes. The Yuuzhan Vong deal in absolutes. My point is Obi-Wan uses the word "Only", and by the utilization of this word he is expressing an observation... from a certain point of view and not the complete truth. It is based in truth, but the word "only" throws the theoretical "absolute" out the window.

[Harmonica]

I do not disagree that some words have different meanings, or definitions, or multiple synonyms.

Ah, my mistake then. I was incorrectly assuming you were arguing that words were constrained to but a single, fundamental meaning. Glad to have that cleared up.

Complete coolness... totally cool.

Except that would imply that it would be impossible to become any more cool. Scientists have surpassed absolute zero and reached lower temperatures before.

I do not disagree that some words have different meanings, or definitions, or multiple synonyms. If we analyze the different definitions/synonyms of the word absolute, however, the meanings remain identical. Unquestionable, unabridged, unconditional, complete, final, total, etc. - all have identical meanings. They are all synonomous with the definition of absolute. There are different meanings for words, just as there are different words which share the same meaning.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they all have precisely the same definitions, but I can understand what you mean, so I'll concede that.

There are different meanings for words, just as there are different words which share the same meaning. In the context of all of these meanings, Anakin's statement is final, and can not be modified. Given the same context of these definitions, Obi-Wan's statement is not final. It can very well be modified with different conditions.

Perhaps not, but whether or not the specific statement is itself an absolute, it does seem indicative of a belief system which is absolute in itself. Namely, the belief that all Sith are automatically evil. They pretty much are, but we can only definitively say that because we possess knowledge of their training, history, and future actions. Obi-Wan doesn't have a comprehensive knowledge that such judgements should be based upon. For all he knows, Palpatine could end up a benevolent despot who brings harmony to the universe who forsakes murder and the like. For all he knows, there could be Sith around who are really only Sith because they wish for reform. He makes no attempt to show Anakin anything to make him believe that Jedi are not evil. Instead, he hacks off Anakin's remaining biological limbs, even his legs which didn't really factor into Anakin's ability to fight, and walks away, leaving him completely defenseless and on fire. If he believed that Anakin was not beyond redemption, shouldn't he have at least tried to have put out the fire? Or heck, display that the Jedi are above needless violence by saving Anakin instead of leaving him? Wouldn't that be a much better way to show that the Jedi have compassion and mercy that the Sith do not? Anakin may have been trying to kill him and may have hated him, but shouldn't helping everyone, even those who have wished you harm, be what separates the Jedi from the Sith?

However, if I were a Jedi and everyone that opposed me were dangerous, I would feel safer knowing that my enemies had been vanquished. Remember, these Jedi characters are knights, which means they are chivalrous and live and die by the sword.

I imagine Order 66 made Palpatine feel much safer when it vanquished all the Jedi who opposed him. After all, all those Jedi were strong and dangerous, and if they all attacked him, he would be rather hard-pressed to defend himself. Or look what he did to a disarmed Mace Windu. Or how Anakin lopped off Dooku's head. That doesn't make any of those instances right.

Let's look at Episode II. When the female bounty hunter tries to kill Obi-Wan, all he does is take out her hand and effectively disarms her. In the arena, he took out a couple Geonosians. The woman, he wanted to question for information. The Geonosians? Disarming them would have been slightly inconvenient. When Dooku tries to kill Yoda, Yoda goes out of his way to avoid killing him. But then when those Clone troopers try to do the same, it's an Alice In Wonderland-esque moment: Off with their heads. The difference? One instance had Yoda fighting his former apprentice and the other, he was just mad. The Sith kill for convenience or by giving into their emotions. It's not justified when they do it, and it shouldn't be justified when the Jedi do it. If anything, democracy, open-mindedness, the ability to question things, things which are all in opposition to things that are Absolute can only exist in a universe where a group of people seeks to understand instead of remove those that are their foes. A group which actually works, no matter how hard, to avoid destroying dissent. Sure, it's easier to kill your foes. But isn't it also easier to give in to the Dark Side of the Force? Isn't it easier to grind all who oppose you into dust as an Absolute Dictator? Isn't it easier to use the Force to kill those who fight you?

Frankly, I think it's all *too* easy. Strength, valor, and honor come from the ability to take the high road, no matter how difficult. Especially when you have powers and advantages that others do not.

Whether or not the Prophecy actually states that Anakin will destroy the Sith instead of joining them, it still seems evident that Obi-Wan believed that, as he understood the prophecy, Anakin was going to remove the Sith from the equation. Even if we assume Obi-Wan was being figurative and meant "destroy the Sith" in that Anakin was supposed to convert *all* Sith to good, kindly Jedi, it still indicates that at the very least, he does not wish to permit any Sith to even exist in any form. In my view, the complete suppression of any group of people is the antithesis of democracy and completely in line with absolute ruling.

[Jejef Thgaron]

Whether or not the Prophecy actually states that Anakin will destroy the Sith instead of joining them, it still seems evident that Obi-Wan believed that, as he understood the prophecy, Anakin was going to remove the Sith from the equation. Even if we assume Obi-Wan was being figurative and meant "destroy the Sith" in that Anakin was supposed to convert *all* Sith to good, kindly Jedi, it still indicates that at the very least, he does not wish to permit any Sith to even exist in any form. In my view, the complete suppression of any group of people is the antithesis of democracy and completely in line with absolute ruling.

That's a good way of looking at it. I never thought of it that way myself. One thing still comes to mind though... the Jedi don't run the government. They are peacekeepers, not politicians. They merely abide by the "Constitution" of the Republic. It is true that the antithesis of democracy would be to suppress a certain group of people for whatever reason, be it religious beliefs, or freedom of speech, etc. However, the Jedi are living in a time when democracy seems to be fading into obscurity as the Emperor takes control. Yes, the Jedi are suppressing the Sith, but on the other side of the coin, the Sith have become more corrupt than the Senate. Keep in mind that the Sith, under Palpatine, are in control of that democracy as it quickly falls to its knees. Palpatine's intention all along was to crush the Republic from within, and declare himself supreme ruler of the entire galaxy. The absolute ruling that you speak of is taking shape in the form of an Empire. It is created during the waning days of the Clone Wars. I've been reading the Han Solo Trilogy recently, and it talks about how Emperor Palpatine despises any other species but humans. There aren't many "alien" officers or Stormtroopers in the OT and that may explain why. The Emperor has turned the Democracy into a Monarchy (read, dictatorship) in which only he is absolute ruler. I think you may be on to something with your theory of "Destroying the Sith". I think that may be what Obi-Wan meant... from a certain point of view.

[Harmonica]

One thing still comes to mind though... the Jedi don't run the government. They are peacekeepers, not politicians.

They may not be in charge of the government, but my point is that that does not prevent them at any point from working to stifle anyone of differing beliefs. For instance, when we're first introduced to them as 'mediators' in Episode I, they're acting like hired guns that don't receive any money; they're only called in to intimidate the spineless leaders of the Trade Federation into folding. Even from the offset, it's quite clear that they're not objective in that they favor Naboo, despite having little knowledge of the politics at work anyway. They're as blindly faithful to the Republic as it is as the Clonetroopers are to Palpatine. That's not the way one keeps peace. It's not surprising that the consequences included the forming of the Separatists.

However, the Jedi are living in a time when democracy seems to be fading into obscurity as the Emperor takes control. Yes, the Jedi are suppressing the Sith, but on the other side of the coin, the Sith have become more corrupt than the Senate. Keep in mind that the Sith, under Palpatine, are in control of that democracy as it quickly falls to its knees. Palpatine's intention all along was to crush the Republic from within, and declare himself supreme ruler of the entire galaxy. The Emperor has turned the Democracy into a Monarchy (read, dictatorship) in which only he is absolute ruler.

That may be so, but the ends to which he achieved that dictatorship were by crushing (both literally and figuratively) any dissent or disagreement that he perceived as threatening to himself, his way of life, or his beliefs. To that extent, Obi-Wan wasn't any better when he ditched Anakin on Mustafar. Sure, he didn't deliver a killing blow to Anakin. But the fact is, a fireman can't allow your house to burn down simply because he disagrees with your political views, a doctor cannot decline to give you treatment for a pressing medical problem just because he doesn't like you, and policemen cannot refuse to protect you from murder just because they consider you radical or evil or whatever. That's because each of those instances is coercion. Anakin sides with Palpatine and joins the Sith; as a result, Obi-Wan opts to leave Anakin to burn to death. So much for little things like ethics or open-minds, I guess.

This post has been edited by Harmonica: 06 March 2006 - 10:58 PM

[barend]

this whole conversation is retarded...

'only a sith deals in absolutes' is most definatley an absolut because by starting with only, it i in fact stating that there is only one way this situation can be...

it so much an absolute that he is fact stating that ONLY a sith would deal in absolutes... so not schools headmaster, or a cop, or hut you owed money... but a sith and nothing else.

it's the biggest absolute i've ever heard.

why are people arguing it? it's just retarded...

go to dictionary.com if you have to but, bringing this down to such semantics is just useless... it was just a funny observation... but people go fucking crazy when someone insults a piece of shit like ROTS.

[Despondent]

Mace fell out of the windu and caught big air, as if playing guitar.

Bren bran; nice topic dude.

This post has been edited by Despondent: 07 March 2006 - 02:17 AM

[ion eon]

Oh i get it, AIR guitar, ha ha haha...

[Jejef Thgaron]

this whole conversation is retarded...
'only a sith deals in absolutes' is most definatley an absolut because by starting with only, it i in fact stating that there is only one way this situation can be...
it so much an absolute that he is fact stating that ONLY a sith would deal in absolutes... so not schools headmaster, or a cop, or hut you owed money... but a sith and nothing else.
it's the biggest absolute i've ever heard.
why are people arguing it? it's just retarded...
go to dictionary.com if you have to but, bringing this down to such semantics is just useless... it was just a funny observation... but people go fucking crazy when someone insults a piece of shit like ROTS.

The movies established that it isn't a fact. Jabba the Hutt deals in absolutes. He wants Han to pay him his money, or else he's putting a price on his head. That's an absolute. Han doesn't have the money to pay Jabba back, so he's one of Boba Fett's targets. What choice does Han have? Boss Nass banished Jar Jar Binks (for being clumsy?). Did Jar Jar have a choice? Yeah, I guess he could have been killed for disobeying the order to go into exile. Some choice. Boss Nass had absolute authority over his people (Gungans). The Sith are not the only ones who deal in absolutes. I don't care if you insult the films. If you don't like 'em, you don't like 'em. Nobody said you had to. Only a sci-fi fan likes Star Wars. <--- Not an absolute. It isn't completely true. I know a plethora of sci-fi fans that hate Star Wars. I know just as many nonsci-fi fans who love Star Wars. I'm more into comedy movies myself. If it isn't the complete truth, it can't be an absolute. It's not a funny observation, it's sad. By all means, insult the movie. I'm not going f****** crazy because you're insulting the film. I'm merely puzzled as to why there were 2 different threads about this same topic. Nobody seems to get it. It's really not that complicated. I thought we've already established that. I don't need Dictionary.com to tell me how to discern absolute truth from an observatory remark. The proof is in the pudding. If you think it is, as you say "retarded" to argue this point, then don't reply. If the Jedi (Obi-Wan) speaks in absolutes, then the statement "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is a contradiction in and of itself. It isn't completely true. It would prove that Jedi deal in absolutes also, and it would therefore nullify any arguement for the statement to be considered an absolute. I don't see how I could possibly clarify this any more. Does anyone else see the error in defending this statement as an absolute? I really hope so. I do not intend to make anyone like the prequels, I'm just trying to show how utterly ridiculous it is to defend a contradiction such as this, and use it as a basis for completely hating a film. I honestly don't see how Lucas could have written this line any better. Please, tell me how it is "retarded" to argue this point. It's alright to be philosophical about a line out of a movie. It's alright to argue your point. Funny observation, indeed. It's a shame you think it's "retarded" to debate over the definition of certain words in the English language.

[ion eon]

I concur.