Rebuttal to darkstar's website

[StarWarsStarTrek]

By that logic, the ICS is canon because it's supposed to be written by a 3rd person omniscient perspective, aka essentially the word of god. Obviously such a source would know what he'she is talking about.

[Lucky]

By that logic, the ICS is canon because it's supposed to be written by a 3rd person omniscient perspective, aka essentially the word of god. Obviously such a source would know what he'she is talking about.

Are you responding to someone's comment?

Star Wars canon doesn't work that way.

[User1462]

By that logic, the ICS is canon because it's supposed to be written by a 3rd person omniscient perspective, aka essentially the word of god. Obviously such a source would know what he'she is talking about.

Are you responding to someone's comment?

Star Wars canon doesn't work that way.

Canon, hell-- REALITY doesn't work that way!
Let's examine:

the ICS is canon because it's supposed to be written by a 3rd person omniscient perspective, aka essentially the word of god. Obviously such a source would know what he'she is talking about

So if some idiot plays God, then he must BE God.
Sorrry, that's just nonsense. If Lucas doesn't expressly approve it, then it's non-canon.

Note: this does NOT mean that everything Lucas approves IS canon-- I've exposed that horrendous knee-jerk logical fallacy already.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

What blatant misdirection, as you cut out the "by that logic" phrase. Lucky's idea is to examine visuals vs dialog on a case by case basis, which aka means "keep all the high end dialog implying powerful technology and throw out the low end ones!". That is, throw out the ones that imply half a kiloton shields and keep the ones that imply 100 megaton torpedos, according to darkstar/other trekkies! Oh, and I suppose the Lucky wants to throw out the visuals that imply <1 km ranges, cause that doesn't help his argument.

His "dialog > visuals" argument is one of the most blatant examples of hypocrisy he's shown so far, made even more blatant when he denies the same treatment for Star Wars.

Let's use his idea for Star Wars, though, ok?

I'll admit that Star Wars canon evidence can have many varying implications for technology level. There are two "extremes":

1. Teraton and gigaton level turbolasers, teraton and petaton level shields, etc.
2. Turbolasers on par with bunker busters...shields can't stop minor asteroids.

Number 1, however, is more accurate. Why? Reasons:

1. They're more consistent. Number 2's contradict themselves within their own publications. For example, some comics show turbolasers causing sub kiloton explosions from one perspective...and then switches to another perspective, typically from orbit, that shows megaton level explosions.

2. The authors of the high end examples are, coincidentally enough, the ones that actually care about stuff like weapon yield and power output. That's why they more blatantly state it, show more consistency and explain the setting better. Meanwhile, an author like Troy Denning contradicts himself. In LOTF: Inferno there are what appear to be sub kiloton turbolasers. Then, in FOTJ: Vortex, turbolasers can vaporize 10 km^2 orbital mirrors "instantly"...which turns out to be over 1 megaton if we assume a 1 meter width and that the mirror's composition is no more heat resistant than modern mirrors, even though those orbital mirrors are designed to reflect/absorb sunlight. Conclusion: Troy Denning is a great author, most of the time, but when it comes to technical stuff he doesn't really care.

3. Believe it or not, but the ICS and other high end feats are more realistic than the lower end feats. Why? Because the lower end feats suggest that a space age civilization uses a 3 million man army, that they use sub kiloton weapons as heavy bombardment despite canonically having access to high megaton/low gigaton nuclear weapons, that a planet destroying weapon would actually run on fusion, and a bunch of other ridiculously stupid things. Fact is, that although the ICS statistics seem wanked out from our perspective, Star Wars is a civilization that has been spacefaring for over 100,000 years. Does it make sense that giant turbolasers; giant as in the size of a superfortress bomber, would have sub kiloton yields? Why not simply use nuclear weapons then, which Star Wars has shown to have, and versions far more powerful than ours today? That implies energy efficiency far lower than ours, which is ridiculous because even the lower end Star Wars has fusion reactors...which we don't have. In Star Wars: Millennium Falcon, fossils fuels are described as extremely primitive energy sources by Star Wars standards.

4. The ICS and other high ends feats are more supported by G canon than the low end feats. Before you object to this, note that G canon does not really establish any upper limits. It merely establishes lower limits. For example, the asteroid vaporization scene establishes a lower limit for light turbolasers as being in the kilotons. However, it does not mean that heavier turbolasers couldn't be more powerful, or that light turbolasers weren't being turned down to conserve energy. The "vaporize a small town" establishes a lower limit of about a megaton for an unspecified turbolaser, because said lower limit is assuming that a Star Wars small town is on par with a modern small town, when logic and common sense would indicate that a 100,000 year spacefaring civilization would have small towns quite a bit larger than our small towns. These lower limits essentially override any and all claims that turbolasers have max yield that are somehow sub kiloton, because such claims go against both logic and G canon. The only real upper limit in terms of yield that G canon establishes is the asteroid impact scene, which establishes an upper limit on the the durability of a star destroyer's bridge tower against kinetic impacts. Since ST weapons don't typically rely on kinetic energy for damage, and they wouldn't be able to get past the shields, and are doubtful in the ability to actually consistently hit the bridge tower...this doesn't hurt Star Wars that much.

5. The low end feats are easier to rationalize as the power being turned down, while the higher end feats really can't be dismissed from...what, the power being turned beyond maximum? For example, the LOTF: Inferno fire creating scene can be rationalized as the commander's quite blatant unwillingness to fire at Kashyyk. But what about Star Wars Death Star several main sequence stars weekly output quote? That's high end, and quite blatant. The AOTC and ROTS ICS's are also quite blatantly high end and hard for pro Trek debaters to possibly rationalize, especially since they're written from a 3rd person omniscient perspective.

6. About that, many of the high end Star Wars showings are 3rd person omniscient perspective. Hard to rationalize past that, isn't it? If you'd take dialog over visuals, then you'd have to take 3rd person omniscient dialog over dialog spoken by fallible characters. Duh.

7. There are more high end feats than low end feats. Any publication with the Death Star or any other superweapon is basically high end. Any publication with "turning planet's surface to slag" implication is high end.

Basically, higher end feats for Star Wars make more sense, are more consistent, are more absolute, have more numerous and are written by authors that actually seem to care about technical stuff.

[Picard]

And both number 1 and number 2 contradict G-canon, which means they're invalid even if we take "it is canon unless its contradicts canon" thing as being truth.

[User1462]

And both number 1 and number 2 contradict G-canon, which means they're invalid even if we take "it is canon unless its contradicts canon" thing as being truth.

Not according to SWST, who just keeps on blabbling out garbage from the EU as "proof" of his every argument-- which is why the site needs a policy on it, since otherwise he'll go on attacking us, for stating the FACT that Lucas even said so, since the SDN cult-leader has decreed that we're simply agenda-driven infidels who think we know more than those who work most closely with Lucas.

He's even called us "'EU isn't canon' Trekkies," thus proving that he's a cult-member.

[2046]

I'll admit that Star Wars canon evidence can have many varying implications for technology level. There are two "extremes":

1. Teraton and gigaton level turbolasers, teraton and petaton level shields, etc.
2. Turbolasers on par with bunker busters...shields can't stop minor asteroids.

Number 1, however, is more accurate. Why? Reasons:

1. They're more consistent. Number 2's contradict themselves within their own publications. For example, some comics show

You just put the cart before the horse. Your job is to show that the comics and other EU material is canon. Claiming that the EU is canon because only then is Star Wars tech consistent with the EU is silly.

But frankly, barring some major reversal, the canon debate is in a remarkably settled state right now. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that the TCW show is part of the movie universe, and pretty much everyone acknowledges how Lucas and others point to the EU being separate.

We've got quotes and video of Lucas making it all very clear for years and years, and unless he changes his mind and we suddenly end up with newer videos and quotes of him saying the exact opposite of what he's been saying for years, there's really no debate.

There is simply reality and those who oppose it.

The authors of the high end examples are, coincidentally enough, the ones that actually care about stuff like weapon yield and power output.

Funny . . . I always considered the Saxton-and-Friends mailing list quotes about how they wanted to make sure Star Wars tech was comparing favorably to Trek's to be a lovely little lagniappe against the ICS wankery, not a reason to support it.

I would've assumed that was a bipartisan idea, too. I mean, I could buy all the rights to Star Trek tomorrow, make my own canon policy, and then immediately canonize a few back-of-the-napkin calculations that show a Federation ship as capable of outputting 1E50J. I could even have it say "haha, we win Saxtards!!!1shift1", too.

But I don't think any true fan actually wants their franchise warped for the express purpose of having greater tech than some other franchise. I don't want Star Wars warped to make it have greater tech than Andromeda or Battletech or some other franchise I don't know or give a crap about . . . I want Star Wars to be Star Wars.

Similarly, I wouldn't want Trek to be warped into some ICS-defeating franchise, because I know little about it and don't give a crap about it . It's not the Star Wars of Lucas.

If you're the sort who does want his franchise wanked, then you really need to rethink your life, because your priorities are all out of whack. I mean, it's bad enough we're spending time on this mess to begin with, but if you hate Star Wars so much you want it abused like that and yet you still persist in arguing for it . . . I don't know, chief, but that's a huge confusion of ideas to muddle through, there.

{...} the lower end feats suggest that a space age civilization uses a 3 million man army, that they use sub kiloton weapons as heavy bombardment {...}, that a planet destroying weapon would actually run on fusion, and a bunch of other ridiculously stupid things.

So it seems you do understand what the Lucas canon represents . . . you just don't like it.

Does it make sense that giant turbolasers; giant as in the size of a superfortress bomber, would have sub kiloton yields?

It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. Oh, sure, when it comes to single examples it's best to default on the side of reason, but when we have clear evidence up and down the spectrum that the firepower of X is Y, then Y it is.

It is what it is, not what we want it to be or expect that it should be.

At the end of the day, we are not dealing with reality. We are dealing with TV and movie fakery produced in cheap metal buildings in California by people who, almost to a man, have absolutely no concept of anything scientific.

[User1462]

You just put the cart before the horse. Your job is to show that the comics and other EU material is canon. Claiming that the EU is canon because only then is Star Wars tech consistent with the EU is silly.

But frankly, barring some major reversal, the canon debate is in a remarkably settled state right now.

Not on SDN; that's why every Warsie comes here and claims it's canon- i.e. since there's no counter-policy here. It's like the kid who burns down the house and says "nobody tole me I COULDN'T." Murphy's law.
TCW also isn't canon, just becaue Lucas is involved and it continues from the movies; that doesn't mean diddly, since Lucas is involved in Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the EU follows from the movies as well. That doesn't make them SW canon.

[Trinoya]

You have a very unusual perception of cannon. It's reasonable clear that canon policy is:

G: Trumps All
T: Trumps All below G
C: Nearly Everything else
No longer cannon: Things deemed to not be part of cannon.

That means even the most obscure piece of EU material, as long as it doesn't contradict T or G cannon... is cannon. Now then: To what degree something must contradict to be invalidated, or to how invalidated it becomes (a word, sentence, entire book?) is always up for debate. What isn't up for debate is whatever is DIRECTLY contradicted isn't cannon. The largest point of this contention just happens to be the AOTC: ICS. Which since the guns were proven to not exist on the ships in the movie they simply do not exist period.

While we can argue validity of EU materials, we can never simply disregard them...

[Admiral Breetai]

how about if it's not shown in the movies..its in direct contradiction with the primary canon and thus should be considered acceptable eu material to use in debates?

easily avoid flame wars thar

[Lucky]

how about if it's not shown in the movies..its in direct contradiction with the primary canon and thus should be considered acceptable eu material to use in debates?

easily avoid flame wars thar

If it's not shown in the movies/novelizations, and there is no implicit contradiction then it is canon.
For example suppose a peace of S-canon material said Obi-won liked to wear silk boxers(I don't know of any source that says this. I'm just being silly). There is nothing in higher canon to contradict it. We don't know what kind of if any underwear Obi-won likes to wear from higher canon.

[Admiral Breetai]

If it's not shown in the movies/novelizations, and there is no implicit contradiction then it is canon.
For example suppose a peace of S-canon material said Obi-won liked to wear silk boxers(I don't know of any source that says this. I'm just being silly). There is nothing in higher canon to contradict it. We don't know what kind of if any underwear Obi-won likes to wear from higher canon.

that implies "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" clause which is a complete cop out..and a horrible justification in any vs debate it should never be indulged

if some EU material said sidious could punk out superman..are we to entertain it?

[Lucky]

If it's not shown in the movies/novelizations, and there is no implicit contradiction then it is canon.
For example suppose a peace of S-canon material said Obi-won liked to wear silk boxers(I don't know of any source that says this. I'm just being silly). There is nothing in higher canon to contradict it. We don't know what kind of if any underwear Obi-won likes to wear from higher canon.

that implies "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" clause which is a complete cop out..and a horrible justification in any vs debate it should never be indulged

if some EU material said sidious could punk out superman..are we to entertain it?

Well from G and T canon we don't know if Obi-Won wears underwear. If there is no contradiction then it's pretty much canon unless it comes from a N-canon source. There is also no point in arguing somethings.

That would fall under implied contradiction. We see sidious fight in episode three at least twice in life and death battles where he would be doing his best to kill the other guy.

It's like how the fact that theaters shield that cover kilometers at most are expected to protect what is under them from planetary bombardment puts an upper limit on firepower, and a few other capabilities. Half a gigaton is more energy then what is released by a magnitude 9 earthquake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

[Admiral Breetai]

[
Well from G and T canon we don't know if Obi-Won wears underwear. If there is no contradiction then it's pretty much canon unless it comes from a N-canon source. There is also no point in arguing somethings.]

one would think such things are obvious though..not him having fine tastes in under garments..but him wearing them

[
That would fall under implied contradiction. We see sidious fight in episode three at least twice in life and death battles where he would be doing his best to kill the other guy.

we also see the level that Sidious operate at in the EU luke yoda mace etc..which blatantly contradicts the movies

we should entirely dismiss then EU jedi feats yes?

[
It's like how the fact that theaters shield that cover kilometers at most are expected to protect what is under them from planetary bombardment puts an upper limit on firepower, and a few other capabilities. Half a gigaton is more energy then what is released by a magnitude 9 earthquake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

the battle over the capital in ep 3 seems to contradict both massive fire power figures and planetary shields

[Lucky]

one would think such things are obvious though..not him having fine tastes in under garments..but him wearing them

Well for all we know there is some unmentioned rule in the Jedi code that forbids a Jedi to wear underwear.^_^

we also see the level that Sidious operate at in the EU luke yoda mace etc..which blatantly contradicts the movies

we should entirely dismiss then EU jedi feats yes?

You'd have to be more specific.

the battle over the capital in ep 3 seems to contradict both massive fire power figures and planetary shields

Well I don't recall any of the turbolasers or what ever hitting the planet on screen figuratively or literally.