For a bit of fun...
http://blogs.theage.com.au/schembri/arc ... vs_st.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I like this response:Who would win between a person with a Star Trek phaser (can be one of those phaser rifles too) and a Jedi with a lightsabre?
How would Han and Chewie armed with their blasters do against two seasoned Starfleet officers and their phasers?
How would Yoda do against a Starfleet Klingon?
Or Yoda against Kirk?
Or an old-school Klingon against a stormtrooper?
Could a Star Destroyer survive a face-off with a Federation starship?
Or a Klingon Bird of Prey against the Millennium Falcon?
Could the ion cannon the rebel alliance used on Hoth penetrate Starfleet's deflector shields?
And would a fully operational Death Star stand a chance against a Borg Cube?
Anyway, the journalist raises an interesting question that, I think, connects with a conundrum we face in BuddhismI preface this by stating that I was raised on all things Star Wars. But we will use the Theory of Cinematic Trade Exchange (CTE) to settle this dilemma.
As it currently stands, the latest Star Trek movie is worth much more than the latest Star Wars movie... or the last 2 Star Wars movies... or 3... or even 4. Therefore, Star Trek wins. Not because it has more powerful weaponry or better lasers, but because it doesn't plainly suck anywhere nearly as hard as everything Star Wars has sucked since Episode I came out.
Things that don't suck should always beat things that do suck. There I said it! I can't believe Star Trek has whooped Star Wars' ass, but it's true.
"How would a Jedi and a Vulcan fare if they were at loggerheads? Both have telepathic powers. One uses logic, the other instinct. To be honest, I'm not sure."
We all appreciate how in Buddhism we are encouraged to exercise logic. Yet, we often also talk about how true compassion exceeds logical reasoning--i.e. when we see someone fall, we sometimes react 'instinctively' to give them a helping without 'thinking' twice. Hmmm.....