For all those who still did not understand what is the dark side

Senan wrote: "Rebels" are just as easily called "terrorists" depending on who you ask.

Eeeek, yes depending who you ask to an extent, buuuuuut my preferred definition of terrorist has implicit the targetting of civilians while rebel is more akin to insurgent or guerilla which avoid civilian casualties (usually because they are trying to get the local populations on side). The definition of terrorist has been watered down though in recent decades because the media (and even government) have decided to call terrorist groups who attack military targets a terrorist attack... but its not the nature of the attack in that instance but the group's identity. So while technically correct, it leads people to assume anyone or any non-state force attacking someone (even the military) is therefore a terrorist... which I'd disagree with. Such that can a terrorist be an insurgent and still be called a terrorist, yes, if they continue to target civilians; but can an insurgent continue to not be a terrorist if it decides to target civilians, no, it becomes a terrorist. IMO
Sorry for the derail! I better a post an ontopic post to get this page back on track... :S

MrBruno wrote: Discrimination in any form is bad, there is no balance in these attitudes, it does not tend to one side or another, but breaking the order of things as well as many others. For example, there are two sides when you kill someone? No, there is not because you broke the harmony of things, stopped a life, destroyed your side of the story.

The concept of discrimination I guess is about putting ones own values onto another person, as Zenchi said, for ones own purposes... and then backing it up with manipulation to that end. That manipulation a form of engagement, and can be targetted to the victim directly or use the victim to influence other people (including the discriminator themselves ie feel a buzz for seeing suffering).

I guess we could ask what the intentions of the manipulation are, but a first measure might be to ensure that the welfare of all parties are equally represented as a prerequisite to any decision making

But lets be honest, we are required to work within the realm of situational ignorance and future uncertainty all the time, so we are always making assumptions and working to find that balance. So I think its important to use that baseline as an ongoing 'light' in ones path to balanced and fair but also practical action. I guess we just have to be mindful of indicators of selfish behaviour for they might represent an inner nature to instead manipulate not for shared progress, but self progress.

Watching his reasoning, brother, it's like I was thinking. What we call the path of "Light" is nothing more than the common good of all, we may be making relative this problem, but put our personal gain above any consequence does not lead anyone anywhere. That was the point where I was getting at, but you put the words better than me.
Behavior with discrimination is not the kind of attitude we expect from people this century. And I believe that only those who lived in the skin discrimination can speak more properly, in which I myself do not fit.
I would like to emphasize that respect all forms of thought, and I believe that this balance we seek is the actual path to anyone, because realize that these actions always tend to balance to one side, as you said Adder.

Physical harm, unwarrented physical harm to another human being is, within our society, widely considered wrong. Its a given, unless you are in a solitary cell in confinement because of said behavior. There are examples a plenty that I can use to get the point across to anyone with a average intelligence. So why the need to label. The label provides separation. Separation enables discrimination. Somewhere down the line, there Interconnected. Labeling grants me authority over an object, its a catch 22, because as stated it enables me to place separation between me and what or whom I am lableing. Once separation has occured, the player has changed the rules and is now in position to pass judgement.

Garner enough aggreement, and well...

Wars have been declared and started in this very fasion before. Doesn't seem very Jedi in my eyes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKD9anjgcCI

Senan wrote: You can use any example you want, whether it is Hitler or Darth Vader. In PERSPECTIVE after the fact, we agree that Hitler was evil. If you lived in Germany in 1935 post WWI poverty, you would disagree. The majority ELECTED him. Because from their PERSPECTIVE it was right at the time.

American revolutionaries were terrorists from the PERSPECTIVE of the British at the time. It doesn't matter if others thought differently. It is always entirely dependent on an individual's ability to judge at that moment. If they had lost, history would likely paint them in a negative way. Would dropping two atomic weapons on civilian populations make Truman a follower of the "dark side"? Still depends...

It is why I firmly believe in living right now. History will judge us all. The best that can be expected of any Jedi is to knowingly do no harm and be an instrument of peace. You still may not end up being on the side of "light".

What doesn't depend on perspective is the universe's natural tendency toward balance. The Force does not interest itself with good and evil; dark and light. Expressions of the Force will emerge and return. How you judge them is just that, judgmental.

the word "terrorist" was not used at the time of the american revolution - so its not historically correct that the colonials were considered terrorists by the british

also, the british were an invading, occupying force - by definition they did not have non combatant targets, so, again by definition, the colonials were not terrorists

not even to the british

"enemies" for sure, but not terrorists

i agree that we can take the position that "its only judgement and perspective"

but this position eventually asserts that the entire omniverse could collapse or implode and all existence could end and who is to say this is "bad" ? that it would be bad or good is only a matter of perspective

but to make it more local
if my entire family is tortured and murdered in front of my eyes, its only PERSPECTIVE and JUDGEMENT that convinces me that theres anything wrong with this

and we can say that the universe itself does not judge this sort of event to be bad or to be good or that such things even exist, from a certain perspective

but these ideas of BAD and GOOD have logical foundations, and biological foundation, and sociological foundations, which apply to us in real life

there is a history to these ideas http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#HisTheEvi

you can say they are not "real" of themselves, but since they RESULT in the difference between general happiness on one end and horrible wretched misery on the other, i would say they are as real as we are and that they should be taken seriously

and what hitler did was clearly "bad" or "evil" BY DEFINITION

health is not simply a matter of perspective

apples and broccoli are UNIVERSALLY healthier foods than gummy bears and honey buns , regardkess of ones perspective or judgement of "taste" for any of them

and these things are true by definition

also there is psychological health and sociological health, and while there is room for interpretation in the word "healthy" there are points at either end which make for very clear parameters, and what hitler did was ALWAYS recognized as being UNHEALTHY in every sense

it is possible to use any word you want to describe any thing or event that you choose - i can use the word "avocado" to describe darth maul, and i can say "its only after the fact that people deny that darth maul was an avocado" but this is obviously not true
"avocado" and "darth maul" all have specific meanings and histories

hitler was APPOINTED chancellor, not ELECTED president, and there were reasons behind this and also conditions associated with it

he then went on to have a bill passed that gave him even greater power - and yes, there were many who were very much in support of hitler and im not making the case otherwise, but situation in germany at that time was complicated, and there were a lot of factors that went in to the rise of hitler and the nazis

it is an important topic to understand, but it is a very long discussion in and of itself, and a bit more than i am either willing or qualified to take responsibility for, to be honest

in general though i am familiar enough with the events to say that even those who did support hitler were not thinking "i hope we get to exterminate the entire race and culture of the jews and go to war with half of the modern world"

nor was it likely that many of them (THEM meaning the entirety of the german nation) would have thought this would be an OK thing to do

i am not saying that hitler didnt get a lot of support and im certainly not saying that people dont convince themselves of all kinds of nonsense

what i AM saying is that it is nonsense when they do it and very often the evidence of that is present at the time, for those willing to see it

i want to point out here that it is super important to investigate and to speak of things to the highest degree of specificity possible - generalizations about huge historical events usually result in misinformation and assumptions which do not stand up under scrutiny

as for truman - even at the time, people who were well informed understood that it was not necessary to use those weapons on the japanese

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Senan wrote: The best that can be expected of any Jedi is to knowingly do no harm and be an instrument of peace.

this i agree with completely

Senan wrote: You still may not end up being on the side of "light".

this i acknowledge as potentially true, but consider generally unlikely, because of the contextual definitions being used here of the words "instrument of peace" and "light"

First, OB1, I am enjoying this conversation and your insight as well. There is certainly more common ground than disagreement here. I'll admit that I am taking some pleasure in being contrarian just because I am also enjoying your responses. That being said, if I'm just being annoying, let me know

OB1Shinobi wrote: the word "terrorist" was not used at the time of the american revolution - so its not historically correct that the colonials were considered terrorists by the british

Touche. It was not used until the late 18th century to refer to French revolutionaries. Thanks for the lesson

OB1Shinobi wrote: also, the british were an invading, occupying force - by definition they did not have non combatant targets, so, again by definition, the colonials were not terrorists

I would question how the British military attacking British citizens on British soil would make them an invading or occupying force. How do you invade and occupy your own country? It was the Americans (still being British citizens at the time) who were revolting against paying taxes by throwing tea into the ocean. Even so, they would still be considered non-combatant until they identified themselves as a military force.

OB1Shinobi wrote: but to make it more local
if my entire family is tortured and murdered in front of my eyes, its only PERSPECTIVE and JUDGEMENT that convinces me that theres anything wrong with this

and we can say that the universe itself does not judge this sort of event to be bad or to be good or that such things even exist, from a certain perspective

Correct. "Good" and "Bad" exist only as a construct of the human mind. When a gazelle is eaten by lions, the other gazelle do not judge this as "good" or "bad". Only people do that.

OB1Shinobi wrote: but these ideas of BAD and GOOD have logical foundations, and biological foundation, and sociological foundations, which apply to us in real life

there is a history to these ideas http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#HisTheEvi

you can say they are not "real" of themselves, but since they RESULT in the difference between general happiness on one end and horrible wretched misery on the other, i would say they are as real as we are and what hitler did was clearly "bad" or "evil" BY DEFINITION

As people who live together in "civilized" societies, the moral concepts of good and bad, or light and dark as they apply to the Force and this thread topic, do serve important functions. They help us all to agree on how to behave and treat each other. This still does not change the point that "good" and "bad" are subjective based on perspective. Causing a feeling of "happiness" or "misery" certainly shouldn't be a way to judge something "good" or "bad" when those feelings are also dependent on one's perspective.

The overwhelming number of us share the perspective that Hitler was "evil" by definition (which is also subjective), but there are those, misguided as we may believe them to be, that still believe Hitler was right and his actions justifiable. A screwed up perspective, yes, but a different perspective nonetheless.

OB1Shinobi wrote: health is not simply a matter of perspective

apples and broccoli are UNIVERSALLY healthier foods than gummy bears and honey buns , regardkess of ones perspective or judgement of "taste" for any of them

and these things are true by definition

also there is psychological health and sociological health, and while there is room for interpretation in the word "healthy" there are points at either end which make for very clear parameters, and what hitler did was ALWAYS recognized as being UNHEALTHY in every sense

Health is a matter of perspective. Peanuts are a great source of protein. They can also kill you if you are allergic to them. Apples are full of vitamins. And sugar. One could presumably kill a diabetic. Apple seeds also contain cyanide... From my perspective, I am more healthy than someone diagnosed with cancer, but I still might die of heart disease while they live well beyond my years. So who is actually more "healthy"?

How Hitler acted was not ALWAYS recognized as unhealthy in every sense. There were many close to him who wholly agreed with him and willingly participated in his vision. Unless we are to say that every German soldier in his army suffered from the same unhealthy condition, we have to accept that from a certain perspective, he was worth following.

OB1Shinobi wrote: it is possible to use any word you want to describe any thing or event that you choose - i can use the word "avocado" to describe darth maul, and i can say "its only after the fact that people deny that darth maul was an avocado" but this is obviously not true
"avocado" and "darth maul" all have specific meanings and histories

Except that the specific meanings and histories are ASSIGNED labels by people viewing them from a certain perspective. If a martian landed here today, they would not know darth maul from an avocado, and they might decide to call darth maul "avocado" and from that point forward, darth maul would be "avocado" from their perspective. This hits on the point I am making about "light" and "dark" in regard to the Force. The meanings of these labels are interpreted differently by each person who experiences them. This thread was meant to explain what the "dark side" is to those of us who did not understand. I would argue (and I am) that the OP can explain his or her understanding of the "dark side", but should also realize that this understanding does not apply to the rest of us. My perspective is different. I will define "dark side" in a way that reconciles with my own experience.

OB1Shinobi wrote: hitler was APPOINTED chancellor, not ELECTED president, and there were reasons behind this and also conditions associated with it

he then went on to have a bill passed that gave him even greater power - and yes, there were many who were very much in support of hitler and im not making the case otherwise, but situation in germany at that time was complicated, and there were a lot of factors that went in to the rise of hitler and the nazis

it is an important topic to understand, but it is a very long discussion in and of itself, and a bit more than i am either willing or qualified to take responsibility for, to be honest

in general though i am familiar enough with the events to say that even those who did support hitler were not thinking "i hope we get to exterminate the entire race and culture of the jews and go to war with half of the modern world"

nor did most of them think that this would be an OK thing to do

i am not saying that hitler didnt get a lot of support and im certainly not saying that people dont convince themselves of all kinds of nonsense

what i am saying is that it is nonsense when they do it

I agree, and I've hijacked this thread enough with Hitler talk. I'm not a historian either. And for the record, from my perspective he was "bad", "evil" or whatever other word we choose to describe him.

OB1Shinobi wrote: i want to point out here that it is super important to investigate and to speak of things to the highest degree of specificity possible - generalizations about huge historical events usually result in misinformation and assumptions which do not stand up under scrutiny

as for truman - even at the time, people who were well informed understood that it was not necessary to use those weapons on the japanese

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Again, these "well informed" people understood it from their perspective to be unnecessary. The soldiers faced with invading mainland Japan after a year of fighting their way from island to island might disagree with them. Perspective...

You can thank me later.

CryojenX wrote: You can thank me later.

Warning: Spoiler!

Attachment h286391a.png not found

:laugh: Bwahahahahaha :laugh: This is amazing! Thank you for the laugh.

Senan wrote: all that stuff

thank you for starting your post of as you did i see it the same way

once the colonials declared independence, they were officially claiming the legal right to independent status.

thus, to say that they were british would not be technically correct

nor would it be correct to say that n. america was "british" territory any longer

at most, the issue was "being contested" - a sort of limbo until someone wins

- but anyway this is a semantic detour that is unnecessary to the original point, which was that the "redcoats" were not soccer moms with the kids in the back of the minivan - they were active military, soldiers with uniforms and weapons

so even the modern concept of terrorism (without the word) was not applicable to the founders

this is another one of those ideas that get thrown around in the guise of wisdom that simply is not true or wise

the "founding fathers" were not TERRORISTS by any fair interpretation of the word

"rebel" means something other than "terrorist"
and "enemy" means something other than "rebel"
and "villain" means something different from "enemy"

there has been overlap in all of these, but they are distinct ideas and it is disingenuous to use any label indiscriminately

and thats the whole of my point - there are such things as facts and definitions and statistics and they exist regardless of ones "perspective"

people have crappy perspectives all the time because they are ignorant or indignant to the facts

i have every right to the perspective that barack obama is a muslim terrorist from saudi arabia but the facts contradict this and there is no "perspective" where it is factually accurate to say "obama is a muslim terrorist from saudi arabia"

but i do agree that people BELIEVE their perspectives - i certainly belive mine

about "happiness" and "misery"

i did use those ideas to sort of point the way towards something

and i interrelate those ideas with the concept of health

now, again i acknowledge that there is "room for interpretation" - health isnt a linear sequence, more like a web than a line

but as i said there are extremes which serve to highlight the boundaries

some things are clearly UNHEALTHY

you mention peanuts and apple seeds - well its not really "peanuts" that are good for us, it is the proteins and fats and vitamins and anti oxidants and whatever all the other awesome stuff that peanuts have in them that it good for us - and the reality underneath is that our bodies all need the same things to survive - some of us need more of this or less of that, and a lot of people have some thing thats hyper and many have some thing thats hypo and theres type 1's and type 2's and sometimes it burns when you pee and SOMETIMES you can pee on something to stop it from burning but these all count as VARIABLES of the rule, NOT as COUNTERS to it, and the rule is that we (human beings) are essentially made the same way, and essentially need the same things

there is some wiggle room in regards to the precise combinations and amounts and deliveries for these things, but lack of vitamin C leads to scurvy for everyone -

no ones "perspective" gets to just totally redefine what works for optimum health and what doesnt

its clear that certain types of pain are biological indicators of unhealthy experiences

now, once we get started down this road it can go a looooong way and become very nuanced, particularly when we discuss psychological and emotional pain and health and cognitive development - more than anywhere else this is where there arise interpretive differences

but even with that, there are definite rules that apply to all people of all cultures at all times in human history

we can use different words to talk about these things, and the ability to change the words around represents the potential for us to have our different perspectives, but the difference here is superficial, because the realities that the words describe exist before the words themselves, so the individual words are irrelevant - aliens might not know the difference between the words "darth maul" and the word "avocado" but they would see the difference between them, obviously

because the words come AFTER the phenomena - the phenomena, the THING exists first, then we put a label on it so we can understand it better

so if we use this label or that label doesnt matter as much as that the labels we use have accurate and comprehensive definitions, and that we understand those definitions and we understand when and how and why they are appropriate

so if we take something that we would call "poison" and start calling it "nectar" its still going to poison us if we drink it

and it doesnt matter if people ENJOY drinking this poison or if they believe in the poison; its still poison, and they can have their "perspective" all the way to the coroners

in the case of folks who like the words "sith" or "dark"

well it might be that some of these people really are sinister, or really want to be sinister
i have no doubt that there are those who are and those who do

but it might also be that there are some who have taken the words and redefined them to mean "self actualizing" or "self affirming" or something along these lines - something not really sinister at all

and this is where the confusion comes in - there are people who identify with the terminology but may not necessarily do so with the original meanings of the words

so, how many of these people really are DARK by MY definition i cannot say - definitely not all of them, maybe not many of them

but of course if you want to call yourself an avocado i dont know what to tell you except that people are going to look at you like guacamole