17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not really. Yes, Luke was crushed when Vader told him the "real truth", but he had the maturity to get over it and, wasn't angry with Ben or Yoda

Yes he was, you can clearly see it in his face when he sees Ben's ghost after Yoda dies. He might not be yelling and ranting, but he's clearly pissed off.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Luke even apologized.

Are you referring to when Luke says "I'm sorry" to Yoda, after he tells him that he must confront Vader to complete his training. I think you are misreading his intent with that phrase. He's shaking his head and apologizing, because he's basically saying "I'm sorry, I can't do that." Not "I'm sorry I questioned you."

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And, Ben's "lie" did indeed inspire Luke to be a hero, not hate Vader. So, no. I wouldn't really say it "backfired".

Not really sure Ben's or Yoda's opinions on the matter of Vader inspired Luke at all. Seeing as Luke's idea was completely in contradiction to them, it's more that he was representing the mindset of Lucas at that time, that the answer to violence isn't more violence, which is why Luke's path was ultimately one of non-violence. Despite the 2 elders (representing the established ways of the previous generation) urging him to violence.

Ben's lie in fact, was what made Luke more than happy to attempt to kill Vader, because he thought he was avenging his slain father. The entire fight in Empire in Bespin is Luke being flush with emotions, trying to live up to the fantasy in his head about his father, and being swept up in the allure of the idea of hurting the Empire and avenging his father, all in one stroke. All of his actions are that of someone eager for bloodshed. Once he knew the truth of it, he picked a path in direct opposition to Ben and Yoda's goals, and urging.

So no, the only thing Ben's lie "inspired" Luke to do, was to attempt fratricide, and only when the truth was revealed did he choose the Heroic Path of Redeeming the Father, despite everyone else's opinion to the contrary.

Of course all of this is fan wanking BS, because we all know the real reason for this inconsistency is that the decision for Vader to be his father didn't happen until after the first movie was completed, so the dialogue had to be bent in such a way that a contortionist would be uncomfortable to make it work. Just like the crap with parsecs.

3 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Yes he was, you can clearly see it in his face when he sees Ben's ghost after Yoda dies. He might not be yelling and ranting, but he's clearly pissed off.

Are you referring to when Luke says "I'm sorry" to Yoda, after he tells him that he must confront Vader to complete his training. I think you are misreading his intent with that phrase. He's shaking his head and apologizing, because he's basically saying "I'm sorry, I can't do that." Not "I'm sorry I questioned you."

Not really sure Ben's or Yoda's opinions on the matter of Vader inspired Luke at all. Seeing as Luke's idea was completely in contradiction to them, it's more that he was representing the mindset of Lucas at that time, that the answer to violence isn't more violence, which is why Luke's path was ultimately one of non-violence. Despite the 2 elders (representing the established ways of the previous generation) urging him to violence.

Ben's lie in fact, was what made Luke more than happy to attempt to kill Vader, because he thought he was avenging his slain father. The entire fight in Empire in Bespin is Luke being flush with emotions, trying to live up to the fantasy in his head about his father, and being swept up in the allure of the idea of hurting the Empire and avenging his father, all in one stroke. All of his actions are that of someone eager for bloodshed. Once he knew the truth of it, he picked a path in direct opposition to Ben and Yoda's goals, and urging.

So no, the only thing Ben's lie "inspired" Luke to do, was to attempt fratricide, and only when the truth was revealed did he choose the Heroic Path of Redeeming the Father, despite everyone else's opinion to the contrary.

Of course all of this is fan wanking BS, because we all know the real reason for this inconsistency is that the decision for Vader to be his father didn't happen until after the first movie was completed, so the dialogue had to be bent in such a way that a contortionist would be uncomfortable to make it work. Just like the crap with parsecs.

No, he's says he's sorry after Yoda tells him that he had rushed for face Vader, that his training was incomplete, and that he wasn't ready for the burden of knowing Vader was his father. That is when he said he was sorry.

To quote:

Luke: "Is Darth Vader my father?"

Yoda: Rest thy need. Yes, rest."

"Luke: Yoda, I must know."

Yoda: Your father he is. Told you did he?"

Luke: "Yes"

Yoda: "Unexpected this is, and unfortunate."

Luke: "Unfortunate that I know the truth?"

Yoda: "No! Unfortunate that you rushed to face him; that incomplete was your training; that not ready for the burden were you."

Luke: "I'm sorry."

That is when Luke says he's sorry. He's not saying he's sorry, he refuses to kill his father like you think. He's sorry for disobeying Yoda and running off half-cocked.

And, no, Ben's "lie" did not inspire Luke to commit fratricide. In fact, both Yoda and Ben repeatedly warn Luke about giving in to hate, even hate of Vader. Ben specifically does so right before Luke leaves Dagobah for Bespin. There is nothing in their statements goading or trying to manipulate Luke into killing Vader. They want him to become a Jedi, to let go of hate, anger, and fear, and not let it consume him. If there is anything that would have made Luke hate Vader it was the murders of his aunt and uncle , people that he knew intimately, not an unknown father he only knew from stories. What Ben's "lie" did was inspire Luke to follow in Anakin's footsteps to become a Jedi ; to live up to the hero that he believed his father was. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, was Luke "hurt" when he confronted Ben over the "lie"? Yes. A little. But not nearly as much as you think. And once Ben explains things in detail, he understands that Ben told him that for his own good, and lets go of any hurt feelings he may have had.

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That is when Luke says he's sorry. He's not saying he's sorry, he refuses to kill his father like you think. He's sorry for disobeying Yoda and running off half-cocked.

And yet in the next scene he clarifies what he meant by "I'm sorry".

Luke Skywalker: I can't do it, Ben.

Obi-Wan: You cannot escape your destiny. You must face Darth Vader again.

Luke Skywalker: I can't kill my own father.

On 11/3/2018 at 9:29 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

IF it's selfish, it's not for the benefit of others. That's the problem with your viewpoint. A lie is either selfish or selfless.

I think this is the core of the issue. Your argument is that if a lie is selfless it can not be selfish, but there are of course lies that can be both (or neither, but let's not get into that).

Say for argument's sake that I cheat on my girlfriend, or even boyfriend (it's hypothetical so I might as well experiment ). I realize what a grave mistake it was, and to treasure what I have. When I see my gf/bf next time, they're upset because a close friend of them just got cheated on and they'd be devastated if the same thing happened to them. Naturally, the question "You haven't ever cheated on me have you?" comes up.
Well now, I don't want them to be devastated, so to spare them, I lie, perhaps intending come clean at a later time when the topic is less raw. Quite selfless of me. Also quite convenient for my own interests not to ruin my relationship which I've just learned to appreciate. So... also maybe just a tad bit selfish. Perhaps not the best example, but perhaps good enough to illustrate my point.

So, even we accept that Ben lied to spare Luke's feelings, he did also phrase it in a way that played into his own interests. First, it covers up his own involvement in Anakin's... "happy accident" and secondly it pushes Luke to join him on his mission.

So this is where it gets tricky, as you can argue both it being selfish and selfless, your argument is that any selflessness should override any selfishness... and you seem pretty alone in that assessment. Of course, one could argue that selfishness is only OK if there is no other way, but when it comes to lies, that is very hard to justify. I mean, considering the way you've bent over backwards to justify Obi-wan's response I get the idea that you think of it as the only possible answer to give that would spare Luke's feelings, but with 20/20 hindsight, if you're completely honest, you must be able to think of something, anything Obi-wan could have said to placate Luke without lying or pushing Luke towards his own agenda.

Of course, you can hardly expect Obi-wan to make the right choice 100% of the time, but yeah, honest mistakes and momentary lapses of reason should not be exempt from conflict. This doesn't make him bad guy. And we have to consider the benefit of hindsight, it's not like Obi-wan magically could predict the future ...

...

?

Also, hypothetical penpenpen is just awful. Don't date hypothetical penpenpen.

So the way I am reading @penpenpen 's scenario, he would have received conflict for the act of cheating, conflict for lying to cover it up, and it sounds like he's conflicted whether he has a girlfriend or boyfriend.

17 minutes ago, Varlie said:

So the way I am reading @penpenpen 's scenario, he would have received conflict for the act of cheating, conflict for lying to cover it up, and it sounds like he's conflicted whether he has a girlfriend or boyfriend.

That's hypothetical penpenpen. Completely different person, who should have neither a boy- or girlfriend , because that guy is just the worst . Hypothetically speaking, of course.

...

But funnily enough, cheating on your significant other isn't mention in the rules. I guess you could say that breaking a promise of fidelity is retroactive lying or "inflicting emotional abuse" but the latter seems to be more geared towards doing things just to hurt someone else, so it doesn't quite fit.

So yeah, by strict RAW, sleep around as much as you like with no conflict.* ?

*You know who plays blindly by strict RAW in any and every case? Hypothetical penpenpen. Don't be like hypothetical penpenpen. That guy is just a ****, a ******* *****, an ****** and a complete ****-******.

15 hours ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

And yet in the next scene he clarifies what he meant by "I'm sorry".

Luke Skywalker: I can't do it, Ben.

Obi-Wan: You cannot escape your destiny. You must face Darth Vader again.

Luke Skywalker: I can't kill my own father.

Different scene and the response to a different person to a different situation. Luke did not tell Yoda "sorry, I can't kill my own father." That is not what he was apologizing to Yoda about. His response to Ben had nothing to do with his apology to Yoda . He told Ben he couldn't kill his own father immediately after Ben told him he had to face Vader again. HE didn't say, "I'm sorry, I can't do that" to Ben. He didn't apologize to Ben about not being willing to kill Vader. He told ben he couldn't kill his own father, no apology. His earlier apology to Yoda was unrelated to his refusal to kill Vader. His earlier apology to Yoda was for not listening to him and taking off rashly before he was ready. That is what he apologized for. You are conflating two different scenes and scenarios.

3 hours ago, penpenpen said:

I think this is the core of the issue. Your argument is that if a lie is selfless it can not be selfish, but there are of course lies that can be both (or neither, but let's not get into that).

Say for argument's sake that I cheat on my girlfriend, or even boyfriend (it's hypothetical so I might as well experiment ). I realize what a grave mistake it was, and to treasure what I have. When I see my gf/bf next time, they're upset because a close friend of them just got cheated on and they'd be devastated if the same thing happened to them. Naturally, the question "You haven't ever cheated on me have you?" comes up.
Well now, I don't want them to be devastated, so to spare them, I lie, perhaps intending come clean at a later time when the topic is less raw. Quite selfless of me. Also quite convenient for my own interests not to ruin my relationship which I've just learned to appreciate. So... also maybe just a tad bit selfish. Perhaps not the best example, but perhaps good enough to illustrate my point.

So, even we accept that Ben lied to spare Luke's feelings, he did also phrase it in a way that played into his own interests. First, it covers up his own involvement in Anakin's... "happy accident" and secondly it pushes Luke to join him on his mission.

So this is where it gets tricky, as you can argue both it being selfish and selfless, your argument is that any selflessness should override any selfishness... and you seem pretty alone in that assessment. Of course, one could argue that selfishness is only OK if there is no other way, but when it comes to lies, that is very hard to justify. I mean, considering the way you've bent over backwards to justify Obi-wan's response I get the idea that you think of it as the only possible answer to give that would spare Luke's feelings, but with 20/20 hindsight, if you're completely honest, you must be able to think of something, anything Obi-wan could have said to placate Luke without lying or pushing Luke towards his own agenda.

Of course, you can hardly expect Obi-wan to make the right choice 100% of the time, but yeah, honest mistakes and momentary lapses of reason should not be exempt from conflict. This doesn't make him bad guy. And we have to consider the benefit of hindsight, it's not like Obi-wan magically could predict the future ...

...

?

Also, hypothetical penpenpen is just awful. Don't date hypothetical penpenpen.

In your hypothetical situation, the liar is lying because he doesn't want to get caught having done something wrong to begin with. Ergo, the lie is inherently selfish. Ben's "lie" is not. Ben did nothing wrong that the needs to hide out of shame. He "lied" to Luke about his father to save Luke the pain of knowing what his father had become. He did it purely for Luke's benefit, to save him from a terrible burden that the boy was not ready to bear. Different scenario and different circumstances. You're talking apples and wolves here.

2 hours ago, Varlie said:

So the way I am reading @penpenpen 's scenario, he would have received conflict for the act of cheating, conflict for lying to cover it up, and it sounds like he's conflicted whether he has a girlfriend or boyfriend.

Precisely.

2 hours ago, penpenpen said:

That's hypothetical penpenpen. Completely different person, who should have neither a boy- or girlfriend , because that guy is just the worst . Hypothetically speaking, of course.

...

But funnily enough, cheating on your significant other isn't mention in the rules. I guess you could say that breaking a promise of fidelity is retroactive lying or "inflicting emotional abuse" but the latter seems to be more geared towards doing things just to hurt someone else, so it doesn't quite fit.

So yeah, by strict RAW, sleep around as much as you like with no conflict.* ?

*You know who plays blindly by strict RAW in any and every case? Hypothetical penpenpen. Don't be like hypothetical penpenpen. That guy is just a ****, a ******* *****, an ****** and a complete ****-******.

That's not the point. Your scenario is about a person who committed a sin he (or she) doesn't want to get "punished" for, and thus, wants to hid it from his or her significant other. That is inherently selfish. It's a completely different situation than Ben's and Luke's.

10 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's not the point. Your scenario is about a person who committed a sin he (or she) doesn't want to get "punished" for, and thus, wants to hid it from his or her significant other. That is inherently selfish. It's a completely different situation than Ben's and Luke's.

Not completely different. Ben [would have] killed Luke's father [if the emperor hadn't stepped in]. Whether this is a sin or not is a different discussion altogether as Anakin needed killing at the time. If you look at it from a certain point of view , Anakin died at that moment and was reborn as Darth Vader so, in all actuality, Ben killed Anakin. Just like PenPenPen's cheating, Ben obviously did not want Luke to know this while he was trying to convince him to join him to find and help the princess so his lie is both selfless - he needs Luke to become the Jedi he is expected to be - and selfish as he didn't want to say "No, I killed your father but I had good reason" and possibly push Luke away

3 minutes ago, Varlie said:

Not completely different. Ben [would have] killed Luke's father [if the emperor hadn't stepped in]. Whether this is a sin or not is a different discussion altogether as Anakin needed killing at the time. If you look at it from a certain point of view , Anakin died at that moment and was reborn as Darth Vader so, in all actuality, Ben killed Anakin. Just like PenPenPen's cheating, Ben obviously did not want Luke to know this while he was trying to convince him to join him to find and help the princess so his lie is both selfless - he needs Luke to become the Jedi he is expected to be - and selfish as he didn't want to say "No, I killed your father but I had good reason" and possibly push Luke away

I disagree. Regardless of if Vader had or had not died at Mustafar, the story Ben told Luke still has the same inherent intent. To protect Luke from knowing that his father had become a monster. That is what Ben was protecting Luke from, not what Ben himself had done to Anakin. Ergo, the "lie" was a totally selfless act told for Luke's benefit. He wanted Luke to believe that his father was a hero , someone to be looked up to. He didn't want to burden Luke with the horrible truth that his father had become one of the most evil men in the galaxy, a mass murderer who has slaughtered hundreds, perhaps thousands, in cold blood. That is what he was protecting Luke from.

3 minutes ago, Varlie said:

Exactly. And the "truth" is that Ben wanted to protect Luke from finding out his father was a monster. The "truth" that Ben and Yoda believed was the "Anakin" was dead, consumed by "Darth Vader", as Yoda himself put it in RotS. The "truth" that Luke would later come to believe was that "Anakin" was still alive somewhere inside of Vader. What is not the "truth" is that Ben was hiding the fact that he maimed Anakin in their battle on Mustafar out of shame or selfish reasons.

And that is your point of view. With or without quotes others can and do see it differently. I partially agree with you. We also have the benefit of looking back on the whole story.

22 minutes ago, Varlie said:

And that is your point of view. With or without quotes others can and do see it differently. I partially agree with you. We also have the benefit of looking back on the whole story.

Yes, we do. But Ben and Luke didn't . That's my point.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

In your hypothetical situation, the liar is lying because he doesn't want to get caught having done something wrong to begin with.

*sigh*

Did you just claim to be an authority on the motives of the hypothetical people in my hypothetical scenario? Because I could swore I claimed the motivation to be both, but hey, who am I to decide that. It's not like it's a situation I made up. ?‍♂️

Also... I'm pretty sure I pointed this out:

4 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Perhaps not the best example, but perhaps good enough to illustrate my point.

Apparently not. I didn't think I need to point out the potential variables of this scenario and find the perfect, exact sweet spot for you to imagine that there are situations where a lie can be selfless and selfish at the same time. My bad, I should not have expected that of you, but you know, I can't help but believing in you, Trampy.

I mean, it's not like you're being willfully ignorant so you you won't have to give an inch. I mean that mean you'd rather look like an idiot than admit to not being 100% completely in the right the whole time. I mean, what kind of stubborn, prideful fool would do something like that? Well, I know it's not you, Trampy. You'd never act dumber than you are just because you planted your flag on a hill and decided to die on it.*

*The hill is a metaphor. The flag too. And the actual dying.

5 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

*sigh*

Did you just claim to be an authority on the motives of the hypothetical people in my hypothetical scenario? Because I could swore I claimed the motivation to be both, but hey, who am I to decide that. It's not like it's a situation I made up. ?‍♂️

Also... I'm pretty sure I pointed this out:

Apparently not. I didn't think I need to point out the potential variables of this scenario and find the perfect, exact sweet spot for you to imagine that there are situations where a lie can be selfless and selfish at the same time. My bad, I should not have expected that of you, but you know, I can't help but believing in you, Trampy.

I mean, it's not like you're being willfully ignorant so you you won't have to give an inch. I mean that mean you'd rather look like an idiot than admit to not being 100% completely in the right the whole time. I mean, what kind of stubborn, prideful fool would do something like that? Well, I know it's not you, Trampy. You'd never act dumber than you are just because you planted your flag on a hill and decided to die on it.*

*The hill is a metaphor. The flag too. And the actual dying.

My point is that the situation you're putting forth, I wouldn't consider selfless at all . That is my assessment of the scenario. As such, it does not change my viewpoint that a Lie is either Selfless or selfish, never both. It all depends upon the primary intent of the "liar".

Tramp, your continued adherence to purely binary couplings is nothing short of astounding. Right or wrong, yes or no, selfish or selfless. These dicotomies are not how the world or storytelling function. There exists between all things greyness and nuance. Your relentless willingness to argue otherwise is the precise reason you specifically are singled out as unreasonable. Star Wars absolutely paints in light and darkness, but the real world does not. There is not a pure right or wrong in this discussion, regardless of your efforts to impose one.

4 minutes ago, Vek Baustrade said:

Tramp, your continued adherence to purely binary couplings is nothing short of astounding. Right or wrong, yes or no, selfish or selfless. These dicotomies are not how the world or storytelling function. There exists between all things greyness and nuance. Your relentless willingness to argue otherwise is the precise reason you specifically are singled out as unreasonable. Star Wars absolutely paints in light and darkness, but the real world does not. There is not a pure right or wrong in this discussion, regardless of your efforts to impose one.

Star Wars is a very black and white story, as you already stated. That is the standard I am going by.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

My point is that the situation you're putting forth, I wouldn't consider selfless at all . That is my assessment of the scenario.

That's nice, but I didn't ask you to assess it. I asked if you could imagine a situation where a lie could be both selfish and selfless (both subjective terms) and gave you a jumping off point through an example. Not for you to assess that exact, specific scenario. I said as much in the previous posts, but I'm sorry if you missed it. It was after all expressed in words, so confusion is to be expected.

But hey, I'm here for you. I'm here for your imagination. I'll imagine, so you don't have to. I'll try a slightly modified version of the scenario.

So, hypothetical penpenpen, the scamp, has lost a precious gift given to him by his partner. He is crushed by his own negligence and fully intends to confess, even though he knows it will end the relationship. However, his partner, with a history of mental illness, is having a bit of an episode and is threatening suicide if they find out HPPP was so unappreciative as to lose their gift. In light of this HPPP decides to keep his trap shut and quietly replace the gift with an identical one. Now, he of course does this to spare his partner the potential anguish, but it also means he can continue the relationship like before. So, it's not like it doesn't play to his advantage either.

I know this an extreme example*, but damnit, you deserve better than subtlety! Now, before you assess this specific scenario, have a good long think if you could modify it in any way to make it less clear cut, and ask yourself if there's any way where you could see it as a situation where a lie could be both selfless and selfish? If not from your point of view, than perhaps from some else's, if you can imagine such a thing.

Go on, champ. Take your time. I'll wait.

*This is also a hysterically unhealthy relationship and hardly a fair representation of mental illness. This is purely for the purposes of this post.

As I conceded. That said, you continually take that black and white approach to your arguments beyond the films. When you declare others wrong, you present your way of thinking as the objectively correct one. If you're an adult, you must realize that there is miles of potential space for a variety of opinions on every subiect under the sun. It's as though you're incapable of looking at things from another's perspective or even considering that your point of view may not align with that of others.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Star Wars is a very black and white story, as you already stated. That is the standard I am going by.

Don't sell yourself short! There's no need for false modesty when it's clear to everyone that you've set a standard all for yourself!

And, as I said, no. That is not something I believe can happen. A lie, at its heart is either selfless or selfish. What determines that is the primary motivation for said lie. This means that a selfish lie can potentially help others, but the primary motivation is to help ones self. By the same token, a selfless lie, one told primarily for the benefit of others, may or may not benefit the liar as well. But what matters is the underlying reason for the lie.

Just now, Vek Baustrade said:

As I conceded. That said, you continually take that black and white approach to your arguments beyond the films. When you declare others wrong, you present your way of thinking as the objectively correct one. If you're an adult, you must realize that there is miles of potential space for a variety of opinions on every subiect under the sun. It's as though you're incapable of looking at things from another's perspective or even considering that your point of view may not align with that of others.

Sometimes , this is true, but not always. And, I would hazard to say not most of the time. There is a difference between opinion and facts. Opinions can never be objectively right or wrong. However, when dealing with facts, it has to be either true or false, and if false, it isn't a fact. It's a falsehood. I prefer to deal with objective facts .

23 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Sometimes , this is true, but not always. And, I would hazard to say not most of the time. There is a difference between opinion and facts. Opinions can never be objectively right or wrong. However, when dealing with facts, it has to be either true or false, and if false, it isn't a fact. It's a falsehood. I prefer to deal with objective facts .

You realize that you're arguing the "facts" of a completely fictional universe? Since the universe is fictional, there are NO SUCH THING AS FACTS (apologies for the caps, my phone doesn't let me BOLD)

Even if you argue the "intent of the artist/writer" as the Truth (tm), it is the nature of art to be interpreted differently by different people (including the creator at different points). Why is it so hard to agree to disagree?

I guess wasting time like this is healthier than arguing politics, but next time you hijack a thread for banal nonsense, do you mind doing it in a useless thread instead of a constructive thread that has potential?

Yes, there are still things as “facts” within a fictional story. Specifically, there are “facts” that are true within the context of the story. For example, Tatooine has two suns. This in an in universe fact.

40 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, there are still things as “facts” within a fictional story. Specifically, there are “facts” that are true within the context of the story. For example, Tatooine has two suns. This in an in universe fact.

Actually, Tatooine only has one sun, and one strange orbital station to reflect the sun's light for more efficient solar power generation. Unfortunately, it worked too well and Tatooine became a desert wasteland.

Do you see how this works? There is NO universe, so you cannot empirically PROVE me wrong.

And I'm talking about things we SEE on screen, not unspoken motives or the "will" of a (potentially) sentient (and intentionally vague) Force.

Also, to your point, the Force is incredibly inconsistent when it comes to intent mattering ABSOLUTELY in some matters (lying) and not at all in others. But you might know something about inconsistent logic.

I'm not going to get bogged down in this quagmire, so this is my last post on this topic. Feel free to ignore it as you would any point you don't want to address. Cheers!

Hey, have you people come up with an objective way to measure good and evil yet? Or at least solved the theological problem of evil? The thread's been going on long enough for that!