@thevivas:
Says Star Wars Canon. You can’t bring “it’s implied to be a nexus” and expect it to actually be evidence. You’re gonna have to do better than that, so no, she didn’t drive him back on a nexus.
Star Wars Canon never said nexuses don't exist. I'm also unwilling to set aside logical inferences as if you need something to be explicitly stated for you to believe it, you'll find that you'll be unable to argue just about anything. Evidence works in arguments because we frame arguments based on logical inferences from the evidence we provide.
That said, here's some evidence as it seems I'm the only one willing to try to provide some here:
"can you explain/justify/defend the inquisitors being able to fly on their spinning lightsabers"
Henry Gilroy: "There's an A answer and there's a B answer. The A answer is usually my go to easiest answer which is that you have to ask Dave Filoni. The B answer I would say is a longer mythological discussion and it relates specifically to Malachor, and how it is the home of this Sith Temple."
The inqusitors are able to unlock a new ability specifically on Malachor, specifically because of a sith temple. If the inqusitors are amplified to being able to fly, it stands to reason an actual sith would be amplified by a sith temple.
Furthermore, supplementary material regarding the preceding episode tells us temples have extra force energy:
The Jedi temple Kanan brings Ezra to is located in Lothal's highlands. The energy of the Force radiates from the central temple spire. Ezra listens to the secrets of the ruins as he presses his hands upon the icy stone. He senses that the temple will allow both him and Kanan to enter.
Star Wars Rebels: Visual Guide: Epic Battles
So again, I'm going to need you to quote me on star wars canon saying nexuses don't exist in canon.
Why would I take Redheathen’s word as an official source?
Because she's the only source for the claim "nexuses don't exist in canon".
Yeah I’ve seen you regurgitate that quote around for a while now, and it still does nothing to suggest she’s authoritatively above him.
Is Maul a character in the time period of Rebels?
Is Maul mentioned among the "only people" who can match Ahsoka "blow for blow" at this point?
If your answer to the above questions are yes, then this quote does indeed suggest Ahsoka is >Maul. The only context that applies to this statement is it's specifically regarding how to utilize Ahsoka in a story, hence the quote exempts characters like Ben Kenobi or post-rots Yoda who would never be considered to face Ahsoka in a fight.
A. Their duel was inconclusive
B. Their duel was inconclusive
Neither of which prove:
Rebels Maul beats Rebels Ahsoka.
Try to remember what you're arguing here bro.
You can’t seriously expect me or anyone else to believe Ahsoka > Maul because she “pushed him back”.
No, I expect you to believe Ahsoka>Maul because
A. She sent him flailing backwards with superior strength
B. She drove him back despite Maul being the more offensive fighter
C. Maul, unlike Ahsoka, failed to garner any advantage whatsoever despite being on a place implied to boost darksiders.
D. The creator of the show lists the potential opponents who can match her during this time period and leaves Maul off the list
Ahsoka is> Maul by virtue of direct comparison, statements, and explicit holistic intent.
The only way you can arrive at Maul>Ahsoka is if you put your finger in your ears, cry "blah blah blah", and refuse to accept any evidence that doesn't fit an opinion you've already decided on regardless of the evidence.
You literally tried to brush the starwars.com quote aside earlier because it disagrees with your interpretation of Ahoska’s feats, so that for starters.
I brush it aside because it never says Maul is stronger than Ahsoka, only that he's the best choice to protect Ezra. This can be due to a variety off reasons, like Maul knowing the temple. Also, even if we took that inference you're drawing from it to be true, it would only apply to Malachor, not a bout on even footing which Feloni has told us Maul isn't an exact equal for Ahsoka in.
Also, neat double standards here buddy:
You can’t bring “it’s implied to be a nexus” and expect it to actually be evidence.
So is logical inference ok or not? Or does the answer change depending on whether or not it favors your stance?
Log in to comment