SteveThaiBinh

Yes. And it wouldn't be so bad if it kept him from making new ones. That's true, and has always been true, ever since the time when it wasn't.

Don't know. What does it look like? (A quick google later). Yes. Yes, it does. Plus I always thought green was a very ectoplasmic kind of colour. The whole XBox image is looking decidedly suspect now. I'll stick with my PC, and steer clear of haunted consoles.

Can you have crime without punishment and still call it justice? Perhaps you can have guilt, so long as there's also a means of discharging the guilt (which you propose to be changing the system that led to the actions that caused the guilt to exist). So reparations (the speeding fine) are effective so long as they are not disproportionate or seen as unjust. In the context of international affairs, unlike with traffic violations, reparations may always be seen as unjust. So, societies can have guilt, but that does not entail an obligation to make reparations, either in the form of apologies or money. The only obligation is to reform the society so the 'crimes' of the past are never repeated. With reparations out of the picture, collective guilt in this form is less likely to cause harm, and more likely to provoke positive reflection. Perhaps you and ShadowPaladin are edging toward agreement?

It's a big galaxy. No-one's going to miss the odd planet here and there. Besides, Revan's no better, and don't forget who chose Malak to be number two.

For 'interesting', read 'cringe-enducing'. I feel a little better about seeing the film, knowing that at least this attrocity won't be present. I should finally get to see it in the coming week.

On the question of collective guilt: Link. If a society has guilt, then should it be punished or make reparations? You could argue that the reparations forced on the Germans at Versailles were both justified and utterly disastrous in their outcomes. A problem with collective punishment is that even if you accept that there are some guilty members of society, perhaps enough to make the whole system guilty, you cannot impose a punishment without also harming the innocent. In the case of a murder committed by one of identical twins, without any way of knowing which is the guilty one, both are released, because it's better to let the guilty get away than to risk punishing an innocent party. Who decides whether a country is guilty or not? Foreign commentators? Historians? Perhaps democracy is the key, and only members of a society can judge the innocence and guilt of their own system. I believe that my country owes a debt to the people of our former colonies, because of the crimes committed by my fellow countrymen a hundred or more years ago. That's my choice, and I might try to persuade others to share it and take action upon it, but I don't see how a verdict of guilt, or a punishment, could be imposed from an outside source.

Well, dualism has been a feature of some heretical Christian groups, so I guess that's understandable, but did you really like them before? The movies show the Jedi as arbiters of justice in a galaxy where justice is all but absent, yet the Jedi remain in their smug arrogance, doing little or nothing. Shiny sticks aside, there's not a lot to commend them.

As a place to live, Dantooine. Apart from the Sith bombardment and mercenary invasions, of course. It's rural and temperate, and that suits me fine. As a place to visit, probably Telos during reconstruction. Imagine a planet where the whole environment is fresh out of the box, and everything is still shiny.

Maybe the Jedi are closet dualists, believing that both good and evil have their place in the universe, and neither should be strong enough to eclipse the other. In theory, they should react with equal hostility to someone who attempted to do great good, thus also upsetting the balance.

Would this be a spear-holding or non spear-holding chimp? Plus there's the nature of the audience to consider. Home crowd always gives an advantage.

A fine sentiment, beautifully expressed.

So the question boils down to whether a nation can commit crimes and bear responsibility itself, or only the individuals who inhabit and lead it. In one view, the nation endures, and therefore so do the guilt and the responsiblity, until later generations discharge them. In the other, the individuals who committed the crimes do not endure, so neither does the guilt. Individual responsibility vs. societal responsibility. I'm afraid I don't have any answers, not tonight at least. Edit: I noticed that in the above post Azarkon says pretty much the same thing.

The way he said 'Bastyula' instead of 'Bastilla'. The fact that he chose Darth Bandon as his apprentice. The fact that he terrorises his bridge crew and allows Bandon to slaughter them randomly - not likely to improve staff performance. I could go on and on.

The silver crystal isn't worth getting, in my opinion. It's too bland. Primary colours are the way to go.

It's one thing to say that Japanese racists should be subjected to greater scrutiny because of the country's history. It's another to say they deserve greater hatred. Racism, xenophobia, militarism and ultranationalism can spring up in the most unexpected of places. I don't think I necessarily disagree with what you've written, but I'm uneasy about some of the implications. There's the problem of victor's justice. The same standards must apply to everyone. Also, I've never heard of a nation itself being found guilty of a crime, other than in the court of public opinion, a notoriously unreliable one.

Which war would I like to have lived through? Errr, none of them? Inspired by the famous Chinese curse, I would prefer to live in the unnamed centuries of peace and prosperity between the wars - the kind of century that would barely rate a footnote in the history texts.

All debts will be forgiven when Fidel dies? It provides a strong incentive to Cubans to kill their beloved leader. You should suggest this to George Bush - he might take it up. There has certainly been a lot of pressure from NGOs that African nations which have become democracies should be forgiven the massive (though legal) debts of the former dictators, only a decade or two after they were incurred. So far, the principle has not gained any acceptance in international law, but I think it should. Whether it's right and whether it's likely are two separate issues. I don't think it's either, but then arresting Tony would be punishing an individual. That's not the same as saying the country should pay reparations. Besides, Tony has to stand trial for the invasion of Iraq first. The Germans can get in line.

Hatred leads to the dark side. :ph34r: It's not unreasonable to hate racists, violent extremists or terrorists. However, racism, xenophobia, militarism and ultranationalism are on the rise in a number of countries, and persist in countries where they are in decline. Would it not be irrational to single out Japanese racists for greater hatred, on the grounds of their parents' wartime record, than racists in other countries?

An opinion of when it should expire, if ever. It seems unjust that British taxpayers should now pay reparations to Australian aboriginees, for example, for the crimes of several generations ago, but it also seems wrong that the Cuban government can confiscate assets of foreign firms and get away with it. Can we find a single law or principle that delivers justice in both cases?

Jar Jar's grammar is most likely to interfere with communication, especially with a non-native speaker, so I'd suggest his is worst. Yoda's changes in word order matter little, especially since he speaks so slowly.

In the late fifties/early sixties Fidel Castro nationalised land and industries in Cuba, effectively stealing them from their US parent companies, the legal owners. The US maintains its embargo against Cuba to this day for that reason, and says it will continue to do so until Cuba repays the US companies who lost out. When does Cuba's obligation to make these repayments expire?

So much information, just from some tracks. It looks utterly gormless. I think I may know someone who's a direct descendant.

I don't agree that it ever could be. You can't make history completely neutral and fact-based. Someone has to select which facts to include in the curriculum, and which to exclude, and that person has his own agenda. So the biases are still there, only they're hidden, and the students don't learn the skills to deal with the biases.

(dutifully): History is rarely, if ever, about cold hard facts. The history taught in schools in the UK focuses more on analysing and interpreting sources, and of course, very controversially, 'empathy'. It can be a problem if you go abroad to a country that your own country has messed around and you don't know about it. Local people may take offense. Former/current colonial powers have this problem more than most.

You need force drain, or master force drain, or whatever it's called. The power that lets you drain force from your opponent. It's a really long time since I played this game. Anyway, you need to have it, and I think at 'master' level for it to work reliably. If you're already in the cave, kill a few rounds of beasties with a lightsaber until you can level up once or twice, enough to get this power. And make sure that you never drain your force points down to where you don't have enough to cast force drain, because then you're stuck.