Master Chief vrs. Luke

[The Grim Squeaker]

snip..

Ha, some damn illogical arguments there, even from comic tards (I've seen much better from people who are apparently too stupid to read and process at the same time).

- Batman could just throw something at Vader to break his concentration when he force chokes him!

Answer: Yeah, because you're really in a condition to throw a batarang or some shit when you have no oxygen going to your fucking brain.

Although at the risk of playing Devils advocate, Batman could retaliate while being force choked (Not that it would do him any good, Batarang+TK=hole in chest) since he has practiced being in space without a space suit or any protection (JLA). Apparently he can do about 43 seconds, nowhere near as long as the minutes for which he can function underwater but still not bad . [/Devils advocate "derailing"].

(the "Jedi can't do more than one thing at a time" falsehood is one of my pet hates)

He, it tis indeed a very highly occurring brain bug (almost as much as "Jedi won't use the force on living beings [At all], though not as much as "Jedi can't deflect bullets").
To be fair though, the number 1 technique for killing Jedi is distracting them. For example Obi-Wan barely used any powers when fighting Jango due to Boba shooting at him, or various Jedi getting shot while focusing on heavy tasks such as heavy duty TK or what not or simply getting blindsided while concentrating on a foe (As was the case on Geonosis, for example the Jedi who got to Dooku and was shot down by Fett).
Before anyone jumps on me under the misapprehension that I agree with the moronic fallacy, Jedi can do multiple things at the same time though to a lesser degree (Precognition for example, or TK [Tyrannus for example is a beautiful example of multitasking in EP3]), so please, no straw manning.

OH, and Ghetto edit on my previous post:
Regardless of whether Luke can smash the MC's throat in a combat situation against a very fast foe with ranged attacks who will force him to deflect the bullets with a constant application of TK (Or his lightsaber in the case of plasma weapons or even against slower moving bullets), he can still smash the gun with TK or lift the chief by the "half ton" (Its a heavy suit, but don't quote me on the exact number, I lack "The fall of Reach" here) suit of MJOLNIR armour and smash him against a wall a few dozen times (After destroying the gun) until the shields give out or he rams a lightsaber through the shields and armour.
In other words Luke wins, yes, But! I wanted to argue the issue since its one of the few points held by certain members (Who vastly exceed my limited debating skills and logical methodological applications of thereof) that I disagree with [Hence my utilizing an argument string of another debator rather than raising the point on my own as I have in the past].
My apologies if I may have inadvertently ranted and for the poor "manners" shown due to my lack of ability in this regard compared to those heralding the point. [I agree with them partially, but its the degree/Shades of grey that I disagree with and that annoys me in almost every single Jedi related thread].
Sorry If I am spiraling and blabbing, I blame it on being sick and extremely pissed off at other RL concerns

[Ghost Rider]

I see DEATH is living up to his namesake easily by wanting us to sift through all his shit to reach his point.

If you're going to argue, do it like everyone else. Make a point, and provide evidence for your side. Not just dabble and go "I kinda sorta don't like this, but I'm afraid of maybe offending the wrong person."

[Darth Wong]

In real-life, if an individual doesn't do something in some particular circumstance even though it makes sense and similar things have been done elsewhere, we say "that was a mistake." For some reason, in sci-fi or fantasy, people say "Aha, that means he CAN'T do it!"

[Vympel]

I must emphasise, DEATH, I am talking Batman Begins Batman. As in, Christian Bale. Not the comic character, I don't argue comics. They're inconsistent and generally too stupid for me to tolerate.

[Darth Wong]

Although at the risk of playing Devils advocate, Batman could retaliate while being force choked (Not that it would do him any good, Batarang+TK=hole in chest) since he has practiced being in space without a space suit or any protection (JLA).

And comic book fans wonder why people think the writing is retarded. The fact that someone can theoretically survive brief exposure to vacuum does not mean he can actually be combat effective under those conditions, for fuck's sake.

[brianeyci]

The level of force required to snap bolts is measured in tons; anyone who knows anything about machine bolts knows this.

How do you know the machine bolts were threaded huh? Huh? Why don't you prove the machine bolts were threaded instead of say, held together by a pin and not really machine bolts! Prove it, prove it, prove it!

Asking to prove carotoid artery is an unreasonable standard of evidence. We'd never see it, because you'd need an MRI. The reasonable thing is to see whether Jedi have manipulated other small masses and body parts before.

As for Batman versus Darth Vader, Spiderman vs Darth Vader, etc., putting any telekenesis equipped opponent against a non-telekenesis equipped opponent is game over. It's the same if it was Jackson's Gandalf versus MC (although if MC gets off first shot dead Gandalf) or Neo with Matrix powers versus MC. I don't know why people bother to set up versus between antagonists with magical abilities like telekenesis, because it usually results in bloody death for the non-magical guy who has utterly no defense at all. So yes Tuxedo, I would think "crush carotoid artery" is sufficient to answer Jedi versus anything with no "magic resistance" or telekenesis, because people have better things to do with their lives than say something long winded like "put up force wall, run up with lightsaber, aim for his heart, cut it off, and game over!"

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

You just don't see it because you're a fucking moron. The level of force required to snap bolts is measured in tons; anyone who knows anything about machine bolts knows this. And if you're going to say that it doesn't work on flesh, you have to provide a fucking reason for this rather than challenging others to disprove your unfounded speculation. Don't give me this "inconsistent with the movies" horseshit. All of the factors that might keep Luke from achieving his full power or concentrating on Master Chief are not present in this hypothetical scenario, but they were present in the movies.

And who the fuck cares how precise the TK is? Let's suppose Luke is out for blood and not pussy-footing around, so he tries to TK Master Chief's throat and instead gets the right half of his neck. You don't think that's going to fuck up Master Chief something awful? Hell, he can just ignore the fact that there's a man inside that suit and just pick up the whole fucking suit.

You're right, I was being a moron. Although in my defense, I never did say that MC actually had a chance against Luke. That makes my argument a thread hijack, of course, which leads us back to the "being a moron" bit. I also accidentally smacked myself in the face with my headphones that day, so I probably took some stupid pills.

[Master_Baerne]

I accept that Luke could kill MC in his sleep with TK, but how come Jedi and Sith never use TK directly against each other? In TESB, Vader throws stuff at Luke but never actually TKs Luke. Is there a Force TK Shield or something?

[Ghost Rider]

I accept that Luke could kill MC in his sleep with TK, but how come Jedi and Sith never use TK directly against each other? In TESB, Vader throws stuff at Luke but never actually TKs Luke. Is there a Force TK Shield or something?

They prevent it with the own power. The opposition has to overpower that to actually affect the Jedi or Sith directly and not just flinging materials at them.

[Cao Cao]

I accept that Luke could kill MC in his sleep with TK, but how come Jedi and Sith never use TK directly against each other? In TESB, Vader throws stuff at Luke but never actually TKs Luke. Is there a Force TK Shield or something?

They prevent it with the own power. The opposition has to overpower that to actually affect the Jedi or Sith directly and not just flinging materials at them.

A good example is in RotS when Anakin and Obi-Wan try to Force push each other and end up both being flung away.

[Master_Baerne]

OK, that makes sense.

[GeneralTacticus]

Actually, there is evidence in the RotS novelisation that using the Force on living things is harder than on inanimate objects. On the bridge of the Invisible Hand, Obi-Wan uses a particular telekinetic trick to mess with Grievous' bionic limbs (a trick he uses against Anakin later in the novel). He notes that it was only possible because, "after all, the nerves and muscles of the bio-droid general were creations of electronics and duranium, not living tissue with a will of its own." And really, this isn't that surprising; as DEATH said, while non-Force-sensitives generate little Force presence and can't consciously use what they're got, they do have some, and you'd expect it to resist something as blatantly violent as a direct telekinetic crushing.

However, given the EU examples posted in this thread, the difficulty increase is clearly not enough to make it outright impossible. The most likely explanation to me is that the technique sees little use because it's just too inefficient compared to the alternatives, and hence it doesn't spring to mind immediately even when it might be useful. I'm not aware of any canon information on that aspect, though, so if someone has some, I'd be grateful if they could post it.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, there is evidence in the RotS novelisation that using the Force on living things is harder than on inanimate objects. On the bridge of the Invisible Hand, Obi-Wan uses a particular telekinetic trick to mess with Grievous' bionic limbs (a trick he uses against Anakin later in the novel). He notes that it was only possible because, "after all, the nerves and muscles of the bio-droid general were creations of electronics and duranium, not living tissue with a will of its own." And really, this isn't that surprising; as DEATH said, while non-Force-sensitives generate little Force presence and can't consciously use what they're got, they do have some, and you'd expect it to resist something as blatantly violent as a direct telekinetic crushing.

However, given the EU examples posted in this thread, the difficulty increase is clearly not enough to make it outright impossible. The most likely explanation to me is that the technique sees little use because it's just too inefficient compared to the alternatives, and hence it doesn't spring to mind immediately even when it might be useful. I'm not aware of any canon information on that aspect, though, so if someone has some, I'd be grateful if they could post it.

Sending a whole person flying is pretty much irrefutable evidence on film that they have little trouble applying large forces to living organisms. However, the kind of precise control we're talking about might only be posible with an android. After all, the control system of an android is going to be made up of nice clean discrete wires rather than the messy nervous system of a living organism.

[Vympel]

Actually, there is evidence in the RotS novelisation that using the Force on living things is harder than on inanimate objects. On the bridge of the Invisible Hand, Obi-Wan uses a particular telekinetic trick to mess with Grievous' bionic limbs (a trick he uses against Anakin later in the novel). He notes that it was only possible because, "after all, the nerves and muscles of the bio-droid general were creations of electronics and duranium, not living tissue with a will of its own."

I don't think that supports anything of the kind- the trick Obi-Wan is using is "reversing the polarity" within the robotic limb to open Grievous' hands- of course such a thing would never work on living tissue- it's entirely not applicable. The reference to "will of its own" is obviously that there is no inadvertent "bug" that will cause the hand of the subject to just spring open, easy-as-pie in an actual real hand. You'd have to use more brute force than that.

[GeneralTacticus]

Sending a whole person flying is pretty much irrefutable evidence on film that they have little trouble applying large forces to living organisms. However, the kind of precise control we're talking about might only be posible with an android. After all, the control system of an android is going to be made up of nice clean discrete wires rather than the messy nervous system of a living organism.

I don't think that supports anything of the kind- the trick Obi-Wan is using is "reversing the polarity" within the robotic limb to open Grievous' hands- of course such a thing would never work on living tissue- it's entirely not applicable. The reference to "will of its own" is obviously that there is no inadvertent "bug" that will cause the hand of the subject to just spring open, easy-as-pie in an actual real hand. You'd have to use more brute force than that.

Hmmm. Both valid points. I was thinking more along the lines that telekinetically crushing someone's internal organs is a more direct attack (along the lines of "being pushed off a building didn't kill him - falling a hundred metres onto concrete did"), but that's a rather fuzzy and arbitrary distinction, and failing that, your interpretations look much more credible. Pointed conceded for now; I'll have to give the matter some more thought.

[petesampras]

In real-life, if an individual doesn't do something in some particular circumstance even though it makes sense and similar things have been done elsewhere, we say "that was a mistake." For some reason, in sci-fi or fantasy, people say "Aha, that means he CAN'T do it!"

If, in some situation, a trained character doesn't use a certain power which makes sense to use in that situation, it raises questions. I mean, you can't seriously claim that Obi-wan didn't contemplate the possibility of using the force against the creatures in the Arena in episode 2. He isn't a retard. Of course he has demonstrated force powers against living things on other occasions, so we know he is capable. The question is why he didn't in that battle. There must be a better reason than - 'he made a mistake'. Yes, even trained professionals make mistakes, but for a trained Jedi to not contemplate the possibility of using the force in a scenario that calls for it, that is pushing that idea too far in my opinion.

[Ghost Rider]

In real-life, if an individual doesn't do something in some particular circumstance even though it makes sense and similar things have been done elsewhere, we say "that was a mistake." For some reason, in sci-fi or fantasy, people say "Aha, that means he CAN'T do it!"

If, in some situation, a trained character doesn't use a certain power which makes sense to use in that situation, it raises questions. I mean, you can't seriously claim that Obi-wan didn't contemplate the possibility of using the force against the creatures in the Arena in episode 2. He isn't a retard. Of course he has demonstrated force powers against living things on other occasions, so we know he is capable. The question is why he didn't in that battle. There must be a better reason than - 'he made a mistake'. Yes, even trained professionals make mistakes, but for a trained Jedi to not contemplate the possibility of using the force in a scenario that calls for it, that is pushing that idea too far in my opinion.

Who was there?

Count Dooku?

Sith Lord of immense power in the art of the Force. So yes, we do have a logical reason.

The entire point of Mike's assertion is you should never ask to prove a negative, nothing more.

[petesampras]

Who was there?

Count Dooku?

Sith Lord of immense power in the art of the Force. So yes, we do have a logical reason.

OK, that seems reasonable.

The entire point of Mike's assertion is you should never ask to prove a negative, nothing more.

You can't in general prove a negative of an existential statement. Anyway, that wasn't the point of the assertion I was replying to.

It was about a character not doing something they are capable of in a certain situation doesn't mean they can't do it.

I don't see how that is saying you shouldn't ask someone to prove a negative, except in that it is saying a negative existance of something in a specific instance doesn't prove a general negative existance.

Which I agreed with, but pointed out that it can't always be explained away with the 'they made a mistake' line. You may need to look for alternate reasons why they didn't use it when the situation called for it.
[/quote]

[Ghost Rider]

The point isn't the "They made a mistake", but the assumption that with real life, people find another reason then "They cannot do it."

Literally we weigh real life events as they must be doing something else, but when someone really wants to be a fucktard in analysis of fiction they proclaim that said feat is impossible instead of doing what they would with a real life situation. So if you understood that it doesn't always follow the mistake angle why be picky about it?

[petesampras]

The point isn't the "They made a mistake", but the assumption that with real life, people find another reason then "They cannot do it."

Literally we weigh real life events as they must be doing something else, but when someone really wants to be a fucktard in analysis of fiction they proclaim that said feat is impossible instead of doing what they would with a real life situation. So if you understood that it doesn't always follow the mistake angle why be picky about it?

The original post I answer said.....

In real-life, if an individual doesn't do something in some particular circumstance even though it makes sense and similar things have been done elsewhere, we say "that was a mistake." For some reason, in sci-fi or fantasy, people say "Aha, that means he CAN'T do it!"

To me that is setting up a false dichotomy. It's is not necessarily a 'picky' point. For example, it may be that the fact they didn't use a power in a certain situation places limits on the situations that they can use the power. You have to decide upon an explanation for not using the power in a certain situation that makes the most sense. 'They made a mistake' is not always the best answer.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Sending a whole person flying is pretty much irrefutable evidence on film that they have little trouble applying large forces to living organisms. However, the kind of precise control we're talking about might only be posible with an android. After all, the control system of an android is going to be made up of nice clean discrete wires rather than the messy nervous system of a living organism.

Not to start this whole thing up again, but isn't this basically what I've been saying all along? I just never hypothesized a reason.

[Ghost Rider]

The point isn't the "They made a mistake", but the assumption that with real life, people find another reason then "They cannot do it."

Literally we weigh real life events as they must be doing something else, but when someone really wants to be a fucktard in analysis of fiction they proclaim that said feat is impossible instead of doing what they would with a real life situation. So if you understood that it doesn't always follow the mistake angle why be picky about it?

The original post I answer said.....

In real-life, if an individual doesn't do something in some particular circumstance even though it makes sense and similar things have been done elsewhere, we say "that was a mistake." For some reason, in sci-fi or fantasy, people say "Aha, that means he CAN'T do it!"

To me that is setting up a false dichotomy. It's is not necessarily a 'picky' point. For example, it may be that the fact they didn't use a power in a certain situation places limits on the situations that they can use the power. You have to decide upon an explanation for not using the power in a certain situation that makes the most sense. 'They made a mistake' is not always the best answer.

And thus you're picking soley upon that post. The entire point of this arguement is that it was wanting an example that they can and that the implication that they have the ability to do said feat was not good enough. The whole point of Mike's post was that people give excuses and reason why a person in real life cannot or did not do an action they were capable of, but when it comes to fantasy more then a few people assume that said person cannot do it.

So yes, you're essentially nitpicking this particular post to make a mountain out of a molehill.

[petesampras]

And thus you're picking soley upon that post. The entire point of this arguement is that it was wanting an example that they can and that the implication that they have the ability to do said feat was not good enough. The whole point of Mike's post was that people give excuses and reason why a person in real life cannot or did not do an action they were capable of, but when it comes to fantasy more then a few people assume that said person cannot do it.

So yes, you're essentially nitpicking this particular post to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I picked on that particular post because it clearly illustrated a situation I see a lot on this forum.

There will be a versus battle of some sort.

Person A will claim that combatant x will use power y against combatant z.

Person B will point out that x didn't use y in some particular situation thus claim they won't be able to use it in this battle. -> which is a fallacy

Person A will respond that the fact they didn't use it in that situation doesn't prove they can't do it since it has been demonstrated. -> which is true

Person A will, almost always, then claim it was a mistake and the fact that a power wasn't used in a certain situation is essentially ignored. -> this is often a fallacy, since a mistake isn't always the obvious answer.

I don't think it is 'making a mountain out of a molehill', because this happens a lot. When characters don't use powers they have in certain situations it deserves a lot more analysis than it gets in these kinds of discussions.

[Darth Wong]

Person A will claim that combatant x will use power y against combatant z.

Person B will point out that x didn't use y in some particular situation thus claim they won't be able to use it in this battle. -> which is a fallacy

Correct; it is a non sequitur.

Person A will respond that the fact they didn't use it in that situation doesn't prove they can't do it since it has been demonstrated. -> which is true

Correct; no argument can disprove an observation.

Person A will, almost always, then claim it was a mistake and the fact that a power wasn't used in a certain situation is essentially ignored. -> this is often a fallacy, since a mistake isn't always the obvious answer.

Why don't you explain precisely what kind of logic fallacy this is, since "not always the obvious answer" is not a fallacy? Are you one of those dumbshits who just calls anything he doesn't like a "fallacy", even if he can't show what's wrong with the logic?

[Darth Wong]

Sending a whole person flying is pretty much irrefutable evidence on film that they have little trouble applying large forces to living organisms. However, the kind of precise control we're talking about might only be posible with an android. After all, the control system of an android is going to be made up of nice clean discrete wires rather than the messy nervous system of a living organism.

Not to start this whole thing up again, but isn't this basically what I've been saying all along? I just never hypothesized a reason.

I was under the impression that you said Luke couldn't simply crush MC's throat, which is not remotely comparable to manipulating his central nervous system.