Why so many bleeding-hearts?

[Verbose]

I'm just asking. The proportion of leftists here compared to other forums I've been on is quite high.

Well, be glad you found it then. It might broaden your contact with a wider spectrum of opinions than you would apparently otherwise have access to.

It might come as a shock I guess, but quite large parts of the world doesn't operate according to precepts of US right-wing internet forums. For a certain value of the observations, for practical purposes, you might think yourself to be "in Europe" around here.

I regularly frequent internet forums that I would describe as dominated by "crazy American cowboys", since it's actually a useful exercise to check them out on occasion.

 

[Leoreth]

Last time I used Lincoln I put "Tyrant" as my user title

I liked your Darth Vader avatar, it suited you.

Adheres to a fundamentalist branch of an outdated religion? Check.
Considers death an adequate punishment for almost everything? Check.
Follows a philosophy of individualism but in fact supports an authoritarian status quo? Check.
Worships an evil senator blindly and wishes to give him absolute power? Check.
Being ultimately on the wrong side of the conflict? Check.

(On the other hand, what you refer to as bleeding-heartedness may just be common decency - or civility, if that means anything to you.)

"Bleeding heart" isn't actually a thing. It's a label that right wingers like to use to appear rational and paint everyone who disagrees with them as an irrational, emotion controlled do-gooder so that nobody notices they don't actually care about other people.

 

[bhsup]

Being ultimately on the wrong side of the conflict? Check.

Just to play devil's advocate, was Vader really on the wrong side, or just the losing side? The Empire, from what I can tell, was a well oiled machine and efficient administrator of a galactic-wide civilization. Were the Sith truly evil, or just misunderstood victims of a dogmatic religious mystical power cult?

 

[WindFish]

Just to play devil's advocate, was Vader really on the wrong side, or just the losing side? The Empire, from what I can tell, was a well oiled machine and efficient administrator of a galactic-wide civilization. Were the Sith truly evil, or just misunderstood victims of a dogmatic religious mystical power cult?

People with infinitely more time on their hands have debated about both the morality of the Empire and the morality of Rebel Alliance.

My own opinion is that the Empire was evil and the Alliance were terrorists.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I don't particularly see how the rebels were terrorists.

However, the empire flat out destroyed another planet.

 

[WindFish]

I don't particularly see how the rebels were terrorists.

What about all the contractors on the second death star just trying to make a living?

Hit and run attacks on freighters

etc

However, the empire flat out destroyed another planet.

Thats why they are evil

 

[holy king]

 

[Mr. Dictator]

What about all the contractors on the second death star just trying to make a living?

I would say contractors are legitimate targets.

 

[WindFish]

I would say contractors are legitimate targets.

Only terrorists consider civilians to be legitimate targets.

 

[Leoreth]

Just to play devil's advocate, was Vader really on the wrong side, or just the losing side? The Empire, from what I can tell, was a well oiled machine and efficient administrator of a galactic-wide civilization. Were the Sith truly evil, or just misunderstood victims of a dogmatic religious mystical power cult?

Narratively he was.

The original trilogy has a very simple, almost black and white conflict, which imo is one of the reasons it works so well. The prequels and especially the EU have added shades of gray to both sides, although imo in a very clumsy way that ruins much of the OT in context, one of the reasons I dislike them so much. I don't really want to get bogged down in a debate about the pros and cons of a fictional political regime though

And of course, I was exaggerating for comedic purposes.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Only terrorists consider civilians to be legitimate targets.

Are you still a civilian, when you actively aid a power?

Are the rebels forced to fight the empire-on-paper, or the empire-in-fact?

And what of the clones? Surely they had less of a choice to be put on the battlefield than a contractor.

 

[WindFish]

Are you still a civilian, when you actively aid a power?

Yes.

Are the rebels forced to fight the empire-on-paper, or the empire-in-fact?

And what of the clones? Surely they had less of a choice to be put on the battlefield than a contractor.

They didn't make any new clones after the Empire bombed Kamino.

 

[Leoreth]

The Empire is like Hamas, always keeping enough civilians on board of their doomsday devices to force the Rebellion into the immoral corner.

Edit: also, stormtroopers aren't clones because that's stupid.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Should the rebels have opted not to blow up the death star because Pete the plumber was installing Vader's new four jet spa at the time?

 

[WindFish]

Should the rebels have opted not to blow up the death star because Pete the plumber was installing Vader's new four jet spa at the time?

They should have considered it.

Pete the plumber may have had 5 kids to feed.

 

[Borachio]

I did see the original Star Trek movie when it first appeared on TV. (Naturally I wouldn't go to the cinema to see it. What do you think I am? Made of money? And with too much time on my hands?)

I don't suppose it was an especially bad movie, as such. But it in no way encouraged me to go and see any of the other sequels or prequels or people dressed in costumes or stuff. So I'm pretty much at sea with all this talk about Darth Vader, Death Stars, and contractors. (It's for kids, right? Not to seem patronizing about it, and all. Just an observation.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, "why so many bleeding-heart liberals?"..... Why so many fascist b*stards?

(You know who you are. )

To be frank, you think the world is yours to do exactly as you wish with, for your own nefarious ends?

 

[Leoreth]

Who cares if Alderaan gets blown up?

Rule through fear is basically the Empire's standard MO, so despite their status as organized state they're already engaging in a literal terror campaign.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

They should have considered it.

Pete the plumber may have had 5 kids to feed.

But how is that different from Pete having no kids? I suppose the scale of the tragedy differs but the moral dilemma is the same.

What if they had intel that Vader was getting trigger happy and Tattouine was going up in smoke that day?

I dont have the answers but I think "only terrorists consider civilians to be legitimate targets" belies the reality of ancient interstellar warfare.

 

[WindFish]

But how is that different from Pete having no kids? I suppose the scale of the tragedy differs but the moral dilemma is the same.

The fact remains that the Empire was the best place for people like Pete to get a jobs.

What if they had intel that Vader was getting trigger happy and Tattouine was going up in smoke that day?

You would try to disable it first?

I dont have the answers but I think "only terrorists consider civilians to be legitimate targets" belies the reality of ancient interstellar warfare.

Nah it doesn't.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Nah it doesn't.

So a policy of never engaging non military targets in no way inhibits the ability to wage war successfully to the degree that this policy wouldn't require exceptions?

Using the Tattouine example, Vader's gonna blow it up in two hours, Pete the plumber is on site and all attempts to disable the death star have failed. Luke's suited up, R2 is crapping himself in that dicey back seat, Han is doing bugger all. Do you sacrifice Pete to save the planet (and more importantly that really cool bar) or stand by the policy?