Access Denied

You do not have permissions to access this page.

Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Knights of Awakening: Jedi Safe Spaces (Charles Mc... (Last post by ren)
    • Quote: Quote: Quote: From what I've heard from POC, ignoring their race is invalidating their culture/experience, be they good or bad. They wish their race be acknowledged, not ignored or persecuted. Although race doesn't exist in DNA, it still exists in culture and cultural experience. Race exists in DNA. The cultural race thing is a load of nonsense. The nazis did it with the jews and the SJWs do it with everyone. Bunch of fucking arseholes, the lot of them. Cultures are cultures, they are not owned and certainly not on the basis of people's physical characteristics. Most importantly, people with certain physical characteristics are not responsible for any particular cultures. nuff said No no, not "nuff said." Are you denying that race-based culture exists? Race-based culture does exist. It's called racism. Quote: And just because the Nazis were obsessed with race to a degree where they believed that one race (and really, only particular characteristics within one race) was superior to the others, that doesn't mean that every who acknowledges race is a Nazi..or a SJW. What the nazis did is mix race with culture. There is no jewish race. The european jews they persecuted were far more european than semitic. European jews do not look like semites, and Yiddish is not a semitic language, it is a germanic language. What the nazis did is associate the culture of a minority of jews with an inexistent jewish race. The nazis showed us how much power could be gathered and used to control and persecute using this method. SJWs use this method to do the same, although they have found more efficient methods of dealing with their undesirables. Quote: And no, race doesn't *automatically* define one's culture. But for many, it does. Why do you think so many immigrants tend to live together in the same neighbourhoods? Because it gives them comfort to be close to those of the same culture (and, depending on the culture, race) as they themselves are part of. I'm an immigrant, and so is my wife. We're from different continents and at opposite ends of the skin colour spectrum. My race does not define my culture (although people never manage to figure me out anyway), and my wife's race most certainly does not define her culture, in fact it severely aggravates her when people believe that it does or suggest that it should. Quote: Acknowledging difference in race/culture only means racism if we choose to be divisive rather than inclusive. Acknowledging a difference in culture has got nothing to do with racism. Race is physical, culture spiritual.
    • Corruption in the Democratic Party (Last post by TheDude)
    • Various reports throughout the primary suggested the Clinton campaign was actively participating in illegal campaigning and even sabotaging vote counts, but the leaked emails regarding the DNC are probably the most outrageous display of corruption within the Democratic party in favor of the Clinton campaign to date. For those of you who aren't interested in reading thousands of emails or googling to figure out what exactly it's all about, simply put the Democratic party in the USA has actively worked within its own ranks to sabotage the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. And although this information has leaked, it's too late. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president of the USA. Nothing is going to change that now, and it really shows how corrupt our political system is -- or at least how corrupt this particular politician is. I think this is merits discussion. I heavily encourage considering this deeply before going to your local voting place this November.
    • Pokemon Go! A generation lost in 1 day.... (Last post by ren)
    • installed it to see what it is, got bored after catching the very first pokemon. With all the people dying as a result of it, I do find it rather funny that our ability to use technology effectively is now becoming a part of the natural selection process.
    • The Grateful Thread (Last post by Connor L.)
    • I'm grateful Zenchi made a double post and got us closer to defeating the rant thread. :whistle: :evil:
    • This Gave Me Hope (Last post by Leah Starspectre)
    • This is just so beautiful....I admit got a little choked up pretty quickly. But as soon as the pipes started, I started bawling. :P
    • Jediism and Karma (Last post by Senan)
    • For me, the idea of karma is better applied on an interpersonal level rather than a cosmic balancing act. If I treat people with respect, I am more likely to be treated with respect. If I walk around being a giant a-hole all the time, people are going to be a-holes right back. I earn my "karma" by trying to treat people the way I want to be treated. This generally results in others treating me well in return. Not always, but more often than not. On a cosmic level, I agree with tzb. Do good things and the world will be a better place. Do bad things, and you make it worse. Either way, you have to live in that world, so you might as well try to make it better. That seems very much in line with Jedi thinking.
    • Jediism... Religion, Chioce or Philosophy.... (Last post by Death, yet the Force)
    • As I have a different religion, I would not count it as that. However it is definitely a choice and a philosophy in my eyes. I believe wholeheartedly in the beliefs of the Jedi and it's teachings have done me well. I can see why it would be considered a religion though, and who knows maybe I will see it like that one day. But for now, in the present, I see it as a life choice and a code in which to live by. Like everyone has different upbringings, everyone can take Jediism the way they want to. I hope, whatever way you see it, the path of the Jedi does you well :)
    • About Police Shootings (in America, Duh) (Last post by Adder)
    • Surveillance technology has come a long way up, and prices down so that is one way to tackle it. The benefits are increased chances of catching any offender through supply of evidence to try to prevent crime, and early detection of crime... not going to stop gun crime though. Might just need to harden up our facilities and vehicles to make them less vulnerable to small arms fire or forced entry. Release the drones with pepper spray, call Police, and go into lockdown!!!!!!!! (not in that order) :lol:
    • Reiki Energy ~ Empathic Abilities & Jedi (Last post by Nike)
    • I appreciate the replies to my query. My learning style is to read lightly, but more learn by doing. When I studied Taoism, I learned a great deal through a continuous practice of qi gong and daily reading by a modern Spiritual Teacher. He's out in California and I would some day hope to study with him. I am concerned about taking on this practice on my own. It is very difficult to find other Taoists. It is considered a solitary practice and highly contemplative. Mostly, learning to observe what is happening around you, especially in nature, including the stars and find yourself a part of it all. Not to separate the human from the natural world around us. And, ultimately, there is so much seen and unseen that words often cannot describe insight. This would appear to be a virtual community. It's hard to sustain interest on my own. My pattern of internet activity tends to be low use. It's hard to find time to read on line. And, that's not doing, that's reading. I cannot learn unless I can actively do something or talk with others. It's not a virtual interest, I want to apply these principles in daily life.
    • On the Nature of Crime vs War - An Open Discussion... (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • Quote: In my opinion, if the Jedi love humanity we should lean to the left as much as we can. the left has been hijacked there are now people who promote traditionally leftist positions but who do it in ways that violate the underlying principles which lead to those positions if you oppose free speech you are not a leftist in my view if you promote racist ideology, you are not a leftist, you are a racist the left that i signed up for, and have always supported, believes in equality and opportunity for everyone, even the people we dont like the left, as i am seeing it today, is just as corrupted by money as the right, and has become just as belligerent and narrow minded as the conservative and fundamentalist right wingers the left used to be noam chomsky and ralph nader, bill moyers, al gore even barney frank (who was more liberal than most) ect ect people who would deliver commentary that was critical and biting, yes, but was also somewhat balanced in the sense that it did its best to be thoughtful and inclusive and to critique in a mature way, which started from the position that we are supposed to all be in this thing together, even though we disagree at least, thats how i perceived it at the time; maybe its me who has changed? now the tide seems to have shifted towards the likes of michael moore and francesca ramsey, and these people seem no different to me at heart than limbaugh or falwel: bigots bigots are bigots whatever side of the isle they stand on, and it is bigotry itself that i oppose
    • Something terrible? (Last post by Ryder)
    • Hmm... I sometimes get those feelings too. Usually it's just something that will happen in my personal life, but today has just been very normal for me until I read this post.
    • Philosophical Defenses for the Force; Common Groun... (Last post by Gisteron)
    • You are assuming that two distinct things need to be differentiable. For the sake of pragmatism I would make that assumption, too, but you do need to postulate that as an axiom if you want to use it. You are also saying that the nature of a thing equates to its identity. In your model two things cannot share a nature. That is also an unstated premise. Lastly, about step 4, and allow me to be a little nitpicky here... you say that there cannot be two substances who share the same attribute. To me that sounds like there cannot be two that have so many as one attribute in common. So ontop of the missing premises mentioned earlier, even granting them, this literal interpretation of step 4 in your argument wouldn't follow. As for step 11, I concluded that considering that we have no axiom stating that it is impossible for a substance to have impossible attributes. So for any substance we propose that is maximally real, we can easily define another one that is more real still by just saying that for every possible property the old one has, the new one has a pair of that property with a matchinig impossible one. The point here is, infinity is not a quantity, it cannot be a maximum. You are basically talking about a convergent thing that diverges. Well, I could at best agree that when we speak of something, we do have some idea of that thing and the thing then exists at least in the form of that idea. But when I describe a two-masted sailing yacht that has the attribute of being my property, that does not actually mean that there actually is a yacht I own. In fact, I might as well describe a roughly sphere-shaped space station with the firepower to blow peaceful defenseless planets to fist-sized chunks and simply by defining an object O with this set of properties S of which existence is an element, I have proven that the Death Star is actually out there. Also, the step 16 I'm reading states that it belongs to the nature of the (infinite) substance to exist, i.e. it has the attribute of existence. And considering how you defined the infinite substance as that which has all the possible attributes, you are basically saying either that existence is a possible attribute or that that which exists, exists. See, tautologies are - in my opinion - valid. Circular arguments are not formally wrong, they are just useless to conclude the non-trivial. If you define something as existent you don't need to spend another dozen lines only to restate it. Would I not know any better, I would have to think you are trying to confuse people, trick them with complicated language to accept a proposition without a proper intellectual justification. And I would also say that with all due respect to language and logic as tools of understanding the world around us, we don't get to ammend that world by just defining things into existence. If we could, we could define two things into existence that are mutually incompatible, thereby proving that logic is utterly unsuitable to understand anything in the actual world, thereby rendering pretty much any and all intellectual inquiry pointless.

There are 116 visitors, 8 guests and 21 members online (one in chat): Guardianofwinds, ren, Adder, Alan, PatrickB, Lykeios, Khaos, Archon, Kit, Avalonslight, Zenchi, Kwalker, TheDude, Tellahane, WRRPhoto, Ke JinnDakken, MadHatter, Dok, Ryder, Codama, x57z12, Leah Starspectre, Rahatha, Kaccani, LukaManuka, Lancer, Everett9, NightHawk108, Soma.

Follow Us