United Federation of Planets vs Galacitic Empire

[Jedi Master Spock]

Likewise, there’s the issue of cost; by your logic, every nation could have its own Death Star, too.

I don't even know where to start with that total red herring and absurd claim.

Then I accept your concession, despite the arbitrary ad hominems which mean nothing (other than that you belong on SDN).

...

I already accepted your concession, however I think you already broke the "silly" barrier some 12 par-secs back.

That didn't look like a concession to me. I'd advise you not claim concessions where none were offered. It is at best silly rhetoric, and at worst rude.

Also, for future reference, you may wish to note that him calling your argument absurd and a red herring isn't ad hominem; it's an attack upon your argument.

[KirkSkyWalker]

That didn't look like a concession to me.

He admitted he didn't know how to respond to it, and made no relevant response when given the oportunity; that's a concession.

Also, for future reference, you may wish to note that him calling your argument absurd and a red herring isn't ad hominem; it's an attack upon your argument.

And equally irrelevant to it.

[Jedi Master Spock]

He admitted he didn't know how to respond to it, and made no relevant response when given the oportunity; that's a concession.

He said it was a totally irrelevant and nonsensical comment.

No matter how you cut it, that's not actually a concession. You can take it as a refusal to argue, but that's not the same thing, however often the two are rhetorically confused on SB. In general, claiming concessions where they aren't offered is simply an attempt to provoke your opponent by misrepresentation.

Also, for future reference, you may wish to note that him calling your argument absurd and a red herring isn't ad hominem; it's an attack upon your argument.

And equally irrelevant to it.

Not quite. Saying that an argument is silly is of rather more direct import than saying that the person laying forth the argument is a bad person.

Here is the complete exchange:

What broken logic is that? We see that shields of varying scales can do what you claim theater shields can't do: We know the small ones can do it. We know the big ones can do it. Yet you think the middle ones couldn't?
It's absurd.

That the Endor shield was "specialized" is not important. It was just specialized in casting a powerful force field in a given way. Now imagine that they decide to cast this force field as a bubble over a nation and you're done.

Then why couldn’t the one on Endor protect itself, as well as the Death Star?
Likewise, there’s the issue of cost; by your logic, every nation could have its own Death Star, too.

I don't even know where to start with that total red herring and absurd claim. Like if somehow the setting of a theater shield could only be done if you started a Death Star project at the same time...

Then I accept your concession, despite the arbitrary ad hominems which mean nothing (other than that you belong on SDN).

Let's review, then. You and he were discussing different shields seen in SW. You then claimed that it logically followed that every nation could have its own Death Star.

He says that your comment is both absurd and a red herring. I'm inclined to agree with his description, at least as applies to "by your logic, every nation could have its own Death Star, too." There's no indication a significant fraction of the cost of the Death Star project was tied up with the shield generator protecting Endor - not in Mr. Oragahn's argument, and, for that matter, I can't recall ever seeing anyone make one.

[KirkSkyWalker]

He admitted he didn't know how to respond to it, and made no relevant response when given the oportunity; that's a concession.

He said it was a totally irrelevant and nonsensical comment.

No matter how you cut it, that's not actually a concession. You can take it as a refusal to argue, but that's not the same thing,

Yes it is. It's a conclusion, which he said he didn't know how to argue-- which is thus a concession.

Not quite. Saying that an argument is silly is of rather more direct import than saying that the person laying forth the argument is a bad person.

Not without support.

Let's review, then. You and he were discussing different shields seen in SW. You then claimed that it logically followed that every nation could have its own Death Star.

Yes, from his logic that all theater-shields were the same as the Endor-shield which protected the Death Star-- that's called context.

He says that your comment is both absurd and a red herring. I'm inclined to agree with his description, at least as applies to "by your logic, every nation could have its own Death Star, too." There's no indication a significant fraction of the cost of the Death Star project was tied up with the shield generator protecting Endor - not in Mr. Oragahn's argument, and, for that matter, I can't recall ever seeing anyone make one.

False. It's obviously frivolous to compare the shield protecting the Empire's biggest secret weapon, with the average theater-shield; just because he's oblivious to the logical implications of his statement, doesn't negate them-- and the same goes for you.

It's also equally irrelevant whether anyone else made the argument, since I did point it out.

[Mike DiCenso]

Mr. Oragahn was being sarcastic, and you are being obtuse to other people's counter-arguements, no matter how logical and well presented they may be.
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

Yes it is.

No, it isn't. No concession was offered. Your "concession accepted" claim was therefore simply provocation. I've commented on this topic before, and my opinion is unchanged.

Yes, from his logic that all theater-shields were the same as the Endor-shield which protected the Death Star-- that's called context.

Which is also not his claim.

False. It's obviously frivolous to compare the shield protecting the Empire's biggest secret weapon, with the average theater-shield;

No, it isn't "obviously frivolous."

just because he's oblivious to the logical implications of his statement, doesn't negate them-- and the same goes for you.

It isn't logically implied by his statement. Not even close. There is a complete disconnect between how thorough a shield is and how much it costs to produce a Death Star. If you have an argument that links the two, you're welcome to make it, but I don't see how you could make one with any merit to it.

[KirkSkyWalker]

If you don't see that you get what you pay for, then I guess that's true.

[Praeothmin]

So once again, KirkSkywalker, you fail to provide any evidence to back up your claims, and take offense when people point it out to you.

If the Hoth shield did allow KE to go through, then why not simply fire a few well placed Proton Torpedoes on the generator?
Better yet, send them on the shield generator AND the ION cannon.
But they didn't, when we know they have bombers which were used in the asteroid field scenes, so the logical conclusion is that the Hoth theater shield is both Ray AND Particle shielding, thus the reason for landing the attack formation beyond the shield, and the necessity to go under the shield.

As for the cost of the Endor Shield generator, either provide the quote that says it cost a lot more then the Hoth one, or conceed that cost has nothing to do with this discussion...

How many times must we repeat it?
Your opinion isn't canon, and isn't valid without evidence or logic, which others keep provinding while you aren't...

[KirkSkyWalker]

So once again, KirkSkywalker, you fail to provide any evidence to back up your claims, and take offense when people point it out to you.

No "offense" was taken, I simply said that "you get what you pay for--" i.e. a bigger and better shield will naturally cost more in terms of resources. Since the DS II was the Empire's biggest secret super-weapon, and the Endor-shield was part of that project,then it's clearly also going to have the best shield that the Empire can provide, in order to protect that investment from rebel-attacks. Clearly, this wouldn't automatically be the case for every other shield, but on the contrary would be an exception to them; it's like saying that since the President's limousine is bulletproof, then every other car wil be.

So once again, KirkSkywalker, you fail to provide any evidence to back up your claims, and take offense when people point it out to you.
If the Hoth shield did allow KE to go through, then why not simply fire a few well placed Proton Torpedoes on the generator?
Better yet, send them on the shield generator AND the ION cannon.

Ground-laser defenses-- you know, a "Star Wars" defense-system.

But they didn't, when we know they have bombers which were used in the asteroid field scenes, so the logical conclusion is that the Hoth theater shield is both Ray AND Particle shielding, thus the reason for landing the attack formation beyond the shield, and the necessity to go under the shield.

Except that then they could just fly the bombers under the shield as well; but they didn't. Therefore the logical conclusion is that it was a ray-shield, but the bombers would be shot down by the Rebel-defenses inside the shield. Thus the Empire had to land the AT-AT's outside the ray-shield, so that they could land and deploy them out of range of the Rebel's defenses. AT-AT's, as we saw, were not so vulnerable to rebel-defenses; but they couldn't fly, so they had to be landed in a safe place before they could be deployed.
And that safe place was outside the shield, where rebel ground-laser defenses couldn't shoot, and where the transport-ships could be covered by the Star Destroyers aganst Rebel fighters.

As for the cost of the Endor Shield generator, either provide the quote that says it cost a lot more then the Hoth one, or conceed that cost has nothing to do with this discussion...

You said it yourself: the Empire had to open the Endor-shield in order to let the rebels' shuttle in; they couldn't just go in "under" it, like you claim the AT-AT's did on Hoth.
So which do you think costs more?
Obviously,, the Rebels wouldn't have the same resources as the Empire, but had to work with whatever they could get.

[Praeothmin]

Since the DS II was the Empire's biggest secret super-weapon, and the Endor-shield was part of that project,then it's clearly also going to have the best shield that the Empire can provide, in order to protect that investment from rebel-attacks. Clearly, this wouldn't automatically be the case for every other shield, but on the contrary would be an exception to them; it's like saying that since the President's limousine is bulletproof, then every other car wil be.

I agree that they will use the best shield generator that can protect both itslef and the DS that money can buy, or have it created.
But also remember that the Hoth was capable of repelling any bombardment, not any Turbolaser bombardment, and it also seemed to cover an incredibly big area, since it covered both entrences to the base, plus an entire plain that was used for combat.

Ground-laser defenses-- you know, a "Star Wars" defense-system.

Which weren't seen or even mentioned in the movie, and which I doubt they had, since their ground defense forces were pitiful to say the least.
And I doubt they could have blocked all Proton torpedoes, and only one wouldhave been needed to serioulsy damage at least the generator.
Plus 100 torpedoes would surely cost much less then the three AT-ATs that were lost in the combat...
They had 1 massive shield generator, and 1 massive ION cannon, which seem to paint the picture that they Felt these were sufficient to protect them from any attack.

Except that then they could just fly the bombers under the shield as well; but they didn't. Therefore the logical conclusion is that it was a ray-shield, but the bombers would be shot down by the Rebel-defenses inside the shield. Thus the Empire had to land the AT-AT's outside the ray-shield, so that they could land and deploy them out of range of the Rebel's defenses. AT-AT's, as we saw, were not so vulnerable to rebel-defenses; but they couldn't fly, so they had to be landed in a safe place before they could be deployed.
And that safe place was outside the shield, where rebel ground-laser defenses couldn't shoot, and where the transport-ships could be covered by the Star Destroyers aganst Rebel fighters.

The logical conlcusion is that, since it was both a Ray shield AND a Particle shield, the bombers would have been unable to maneuver fully, since they were under shield, and thus would have been at greater risk from the Rebel speeders.
If it was just a Ray shield, as you say, then bombers flying just above the shield would have been safe from anti-bombers weapons, had there been any...

You said it yourself: the Empire had to open the Endor-shield in order to let the rebels' shuttle in; they couldn't just go in "under" it, like you claim the AT-AT's did on Hoth.
So which do you think costs more?
Obviously,, the Rebels wouldn't have the same resources as the Empire, but had to work with whatever they could get.

Yup, thinking about it, I agree the Endor shield probably cost more then the Hoth shield, but this still doesn't mean the Hoth shield wasn't a Ray and Particle shield.
I should simply have said:
The cost of the shield has nothing to do with its Ray or Particle protection capacity when talking about shields the size of the Hoth one or the size of the Endor one......

[KirkSkyWalker]

If TIE-ships can be sent into asteroid-fields, then they can be sent under shields that are hundreds of feet high. We never saw a single instance of anything crashing into it.

If it was just a Ray shield, as you say, then bombers flying just above the shield would have been safe from anti-bombers weapons, had there been any...

But not the rebel fighter-ships shooting them down; likewise their bombs could be shot once inside the shield by "Patriot laser-cannons" etc.

[Lucky]

If TIE-ships can be sent into asteroid-fields, then they can be sent under shields that are hundreds of feet high. We never saw a single instance of anything crashing into it.

That assumes that there is not something about going through a shield that will make it so ships like TIES just fall out of the sky. There has to be a reason no repulser lift vehicle is ever sent through a shield.

If it was just a Ray shield, as you say, then bombers flying just above the shield would have been safe from anti-bombers weapons, had there been any...

But not the rebel fighter-ships shooting them down; likewise their bombs could be shot once inside the shield by "Patriot laser-cannons" etc.

When has Star Wars forces ever shown the accuries needed to shoot missles, rockets, or bombs out of the air. They can barely shoot down the fighters that are moving in predictable paths.

[KirkSkyWalker]

If TIE-ships can be sent into asteroid-fields, then they can be sent under shields that are hundreds of feet high. We never saw a single instance of anything crashing into it.

That assumes that there is not something about going through a shield that will make it so ships like TIES just fall out of the sky. There has to be a reason no repulser lift vehicle is ever sent through a shield.

I ddn't assume tha tat all, in fact I mentioned it specifically as the reason.
However this is a good point: i.e. the ray-shields would stop the ion-engines-- just like they would stop ion-canons, which are basically the same principle.

However I mentioned that they could fly under the shield just like the AT-AT's walked under it.
But we've seen how crappy that TIE-fighters are in combat-- and of course TIE-bombers would be even worse, as with all bombers.

[Lucky]

If TIE-ships can be sent into asteroid-fields, then they can be sent under shields that are hundreds of feet high. We never saw a single instance of anything crashing into it.

That assumes that there is not something about going through a shield that will make it so ships like TIES just fall out of the sky. There has to be a reason no repulser lift vehicle is ever sent through a shield.

I ddn't assume tha tat all, in fact I mentioned it specifically as the reason.
However this is a good point: i.e. the ray-shields would stop the ion-engines-- just like they would stop ion-canons, which are basically the same principle.

However I mentioned that they could fly under the shield just like the AT-AT's walked under it.
But we've seen how crappy that TIE-fighters are in combat-- and of course TIE-bombers would be even worse, as with all bombers.

I may be misunderstanding you, but in episode on there are the Trade federation repulsor lift tanks that are not sent in under the Gungan army's shield. TIE fighters also use the same technology to fly in atmosphere.

For what ever reason we never see repulsor lift vehicles pass through shields on planets. They always send people on foot, or things like walkers.

What ever the reason, I think we can assume something bad happens to the repulsor lift vehicles if they go through a shield that is on a planet.

[KirkSkyWalker]

The point is, that they CAN pass through it; i.e. it's not like an invisible brick wall; if it were, then they could fly under it just like the AT-AT's walked under it.