Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JadinED

ONAGER and STARHAWK Upgrade Cards

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

This exactly.

"Exception that proves the rule" - it doesn't even make sense in a universe where everything is connected in the Force, and Force ghosts are a thing.  (And one-offs hardly prove anything - Col Tigh exclaimed "Jesus Christ" in the new Battlestar Galactica, a character that flatly does not exist in that setting.  "Lords of Kobol" would have made more sense in context, but actors gonna be actors and make those kind of mistakes...)

This reference in Star Wars is simply extremely uncommon, likely because (as noted), it doesn't fit with the mythology of the universe at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xanderf said:

"Exception that proves the rule" - it doesn't even make sense in a universe where everything is connected in the Force, and Force ghosts are a thing.  (And one-offs hardly prove anything - Col Tigh exclaimed "Jesus Christ" in the new Battlestar Galactica, a character that flatly does not exist in that setting.  "Lords of Kobol" would have made more sense in context, but actors gonna be actors and make those kind of mistakes...)

This reference in Star Wars is simply extremely uncommon, likely because (as noted), it doesn't fit with the mythology of the universe at all.

Hey, they said its in a Galaxy that's Far, Far Away.

Not a different Universe ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, slasher956 said:

rakeh e l l ... is just someone who spell Rakel phonetically after listen to someone with a posh English accent...

Why isn't phonetically spelled with an F? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, xanderf said:

"Exception that proves the rule" - it doesn't even make sense in a universe where everything is connected in the Force, and Force ghosts are a thing.  (And one-offs hardly prove anything - Col Tigh exclaimed "Jesus Christ" in the new Battlestar Galactica, a character that flatly does not exist in that setting.  "Lords of Kobol" would have made more sense in context, but actors gonna be actors and make those kind of mistakes...)

This reference in Star Wars is simply extremely uncommon, likely because (as noted), it doesn't fit with the mythology of the universe at all.

I'm not arguing that the concept of **** is compatible with the Force. I'm just saying that **** is a literally "universal" concept--meaning it exists in Star Wars' galaxy across the universe, as well as our own. Maybe the word "universal" isn't right, because obviously not everyone believes in ****. But clearly not everyone in Star Wars believes in the Force, either. Take a look at Motti and Han's skepticism in ANH. 

I'm not that familiar with the Star Wars Canon and Legends as a whole, but I don't see why there couldn't be multiple incompatible religions, just as there are so many incompatible religions in our own world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

I'm not arguing that the concept of **** is compatible with the Force. I'm just saying that **** is a literally "universal" concept--meaning it exists in Star Wars' galaxy across the universe, as well as our own. Maybe the word "universal" isn't right, because obviously not everyone believes in ****. But clearly not everyone in Star Wars believes in the Force, either. Take a look at Motti and Han's skepticism in ANH. 

This is a funny argument because I was thinking about saying the exact opposite but thought lets not get to religious, but alas here we go.

Heaven and H*ll aren't "universal" at all. They are literally human made up concept and they aren't even "universal" across earth. There are several large religions that do not share the concept of H*ll.

 

Also:

30 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Maybe the word "universal" isn't right, because obviously not everyone believes in ****. But clearly not everyone in Star Wars believes in the Force, either.

The argument "in this fictional universe there is a magical thing that some people do not believe in but it still exists" thus "this other magical, fictional thing that in the real world has people that don't believe in it must therefor also exist" is not a logical argument.

Edited by LordCola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LordCola said:

This is a funny argument because I was thinking about saying the exact opposite but thought lets not get to religious, but alas here we go.

Heaven and H*ll aren't "universal" at all. They are literally human made up concept and they aren't even "universal" across earth. There are several large religions that do not share the concept of H*ll.

That's why I said "universal" isn't really the right word. Not everyone believes in it, or has ever heard of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

That's why I said "universal" isn't really the right word. Not everyone believes in it, or has ever heard of it. 

But the problem is that you still used it. You called it "universal", then said that "universal" might not be the right word but you never clarified what you actually want to say. What am I supposed to make of that. Does that mean I should just ignore the word "universal" that you used previously? 

Then we are left with the statement 

Quote

I'm just saying that **** is a literally concept

I mean that's just a nothing statement. I agree with you. H*ll is in fact a concept.

Or should I myself just make up a meaning for that word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, LordCola said:

But the problem is that you still used it. You called it "universal", then said that "universal" might not be the right word but you never clarified what you actually want to say. What am I supposed to make of that. Does that mean I should just ignore the word "universal" that you used previously? 

Then we are left with the statement 

I mean that's just a nothing statement. I agree with you. H*ll is in fact a concept.

Or should I myself just make up a meaning for that word?

 

19 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Han says "I'll see you in ****" in ESB, I think. So it's apparently a universal concept. 

Correct you are. 

What I meant was this concept exists in one part of the universe (Earth) and another part of the universe (hence Han Solo using the phrase). If there's an actual word for that, I don't know what it is. 

The original question was whether "Rakehell" made sense as a name for a ship in Star Wars.

It's not a question of whether **** actually exists in Star Wars. 

Edited by Bertie Wooster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

It's not a question of whether **** actually exists in Star Wars. 

Ok, I misunderstood you.

When you said:

1 hour ago, Bertie Wooster said:

I'm just saying that **** is a literally "universal" concept--meaning it exists in Star Wars' galaxy [...]

I thought "it" referred to "H*ll" but you are actually referring to "concept". Changing the discussion from arguing that H*ll exists to that the concept of H*ll exist.

 

Edited by LordCola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

 

Correct you are. 

What I meant was this concept exists in one part of the universe (Earth) and another part of the universe (hence Han Solo using the phrase). If there's an actual word for that, I don't know what it is. 

The original question was whether "Rakehell" made sense as a name for a ship in Star Wars.

It's not a question of whether **** actually exists in Star Wars. 

 

I mean, we have precedent indeed that although Star Wars utilises words from English (and other languages), quite often those words are slightly different translations on concepts.

I speak of course, of "Chimaera"

 

For us, its most commonly a mythological creature that essentially blends the parts of 3 creatures together - a Dragon, A Lion, a Goat (there are of course, other variations, so I readily admit I'm taking the one I consider most common).

Whereas we have Chimaera in Star Wars as well.  A Word that isn't even English, and isn't even a necessary translation - but still has a connotation of being, effectively, a mythological creature that blends the parts of other creatures together - we're just not 100% on what those creatures are.

 

****, in the Star Wars concept...  May well exist, but divorced from the blanket concepts that christianity has imparted to us on earth, and the word is merely a convenient translation for us who are watching.   We simply don't know.

And honestly, I feel acceptance of that is about as far as Religious discussion needs to go on the subject here...  Although I wouldn't be adverse to continuing it in a different place and formation, away from topics we don't necessarily want locked :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I mean, we have precedent indeed that although Star Wars utilises words from English (and other languages), quite often those words are slightly different translations on concepts.

I speak of course, of "Chimaera"

 

For us, its most commonly a mythological creature that essentially blends the parts of 3 creatures together - a Dragon, A Lion, a Goat (there are of course, other variations, so I readily admit I'm taking the one I consider most common).

Whereas we have Chimaera in Star Wars as well.  A Word that isn't even English, and isn't even a necessary translation - but still has a connotation of being, effectively, a mythological creature that blends the parts of other creatures together - we're just not 100% on what those creatures are.

 

****, in the Star Wars concept...  May well exist, but divorced from the blanket concepts that christianity has imparted to us on earth, and the word is merely a convenient translation for us who are watching.   We simply don't know.

And honestly, I feel acceptance of that is about as far as Religious discussion needs to go on the subject here...  Although I wouldn't be adverse to continuing it in a different place and formation, away from topics we don't necessarily want locked :)

I 100% agree. I personally do not see the films, or any Star Wars stories as fact. I see them more as a retelling (of the events that happend) and a translation into concepts and languages that we (actual real humans) understand. Sometimes a concept does not have a direct translation (from Star Wars universe into real world) so instead the characters in the films use a word that describes the closest concept (in our coulture) to the one that they want to express.

Sometimes they just use expressions that we easily understand. So when Han Solo says "I'll see you in H*ll" I don't think this necessarily means that the concept of H*ll (as we know it) actually exists in the Star Wars universe. It could just be the closest translations into concepts we understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

****, in the Star Wars concept...  May well exist, but divorced from the blanket concepts that christianity has imparted to us on earth, and the word is merely a convenient translation for us who are watching.   We simply don't know.


And honestly, I feel acceptance of that is about as far as Religious discussion needs to go on the subject here...  Although I wouldn't be adverse to continuing it in a different place and formation, away from topics we don't necessarily want locked :)

Well the thing is, it's that tie in to 'our world' that is (IMHO) the only reason "Rakehell" is a candidate for inclusion at all.  (And it may well be what this ship is named, unfortunately, given there IS a Star Destroyer 'Rakehell' in the old expanded universe, as stupid as that is)

Edited by xanderf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so we're all clear here, "Rakehell" is the longer, almost entirely unused form of "rake", which is a stock character prominent in Restoration drama--a male rascal and general troublemaker, usually primarily in the sense of being a womanizer.

The use of "****" in the term is shorthand for "trouble"--it literally just means "troublemaker," in the same way it's used in "hellraiser." It's no more a literal reference to a place of eternal torment than "millennium" is a reference to a thousand revolutions of Earth around Sol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a discussion I can get behind! We are all being polite and talking about an idea - which is great!

I think when Han says “Then I’ll see you in heck!” (euphemisms aside) he is talking about the world of the dead. Our English word “heck” covers a number of words from both biblical (primarily New Testament) sources and Greek mythology - generally referring to Hades (the abode of the dead), Gehenna (a place of rubbish disposal and despair), and Tartarus (the home of infernal creatures - devils, etc). 

All that to say, words can have multiple meanings, and those can change over time. “Heck” does not automatically translate as “place of eternal conscious torment”. That’s primarily a Greek idea that predates the New Testament and (I would contend) read into the text by Augustine and the medieval western church. 

Han could have said “I’ll see you in the world of the dead!” But rule of cool, etc. Lucas could have saved us all a lot of trouble by not using the word “parsec” that one time as well.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently as I’m thinking of changing denominations (I’m a pastor) and have been wrestling with the new set of articles of faith that define some things using different wording to my current denomination. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ardaedhel said:

Just so we're all clear here, "Rakehell" is the longer, almost entirely unused form of "rake", which is a stock character prominent in Restoration drama--a male rascal and general troublemaker, usually primarily in the sense of being a womanizer.

The use of "****" in the term is shorthand for "trouble"--it literally just means "troublemaker," in the same way it's used in "hellraiser." It's no more a literal reference to a place of eternal torment than "millennium" is a reference to a thousand revolutions of Earth around Sol.

Intriguing! I want to use this word in the future now. 

The tournament was filled with irksome rakehells spamming Moralo Eval and Lambdas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Intriguing! I want to use this word in the future now. 

The tournament was filled with irksome rakehells spamming Moralo Eval and Lambdas...

Oh my, those swindling rakes snuckered me into using Sensor Teams and NK-7s.

Edited by JadinED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Just so we're all clear here, "Rakehell" is the longer, almost entirely unused form of "rake", which is a stock character prominent in Restoration drama--a male rascal and general troublemaker, usually primarily in the sense of being a womanizer.

The use of "****" in the term is shorthand for "trouble"--it literally just means "troublemaker," in the same way it's used in "hellraiser." It's no more a literal reference to a place of eternal torment than "millennium" is a reference to a thousand revolutions of Earth around Sol.

TBH, that's almost worse?

Oh, you mischievous planet-destroying warship, you!  What zany hijinks are you up to, today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...