Five Questions for Jedi Knights

Additional Fallacies that you have made during this conversation include:

Saying a Jedi Knight is not a knight because a knight from the middle ages (a traditional knight) is what has always been considered a knight. This is called an Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Saying a Jedi Knight is not a knight because most people that think of a knight think about a knight from the middle ages. This is called an Argumentum ad populum.

Assuming that what you believe to be a knight is a knight without having first proven that it is the only definition of a knight. This is uses your strawman argument (also called an Argumentum ad logicum) as well as an Argumentum ad ignorantiam and a circular argument or petitio principii.

From my perspective most of what you have said in this thread, Soulseeker, has been a fallacious argument.

Also, soulseeker, tho I am inclined to think you are simply smarter than the average troll, remember thatif you are attempting to employ the Socratic method or somethin, even Socrates himself was eventually made to drink hemlock.

So, I'd cool it.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: No. An enemy may have incorrect ideals and faulty morals, but one can still respect that person's bravery in battle and discipline in martial arts.

Well, more what I was referring to was your obvious tendency to romanticize Medieval knights indiscriminately,

Where?

FraterDavid wrote: [or without recognition of what made the great ones truly great. I have no disagreement with your above statement. However, respecting bravery in battle or discipline in martial arts, above all other considerations, is deluded. It is making the same mistake as honoring a sword for its sharpness instead of for why it is kept sharp.

No, this demonstrates a lack of willingness to accept other people's points of view. If I'm a black belt and get into a fight with another black belt over something I strongly disagree with, I might even hate him and think his point of view is ridiculous. But the respect is still there. I doubt you'd understand, though, as you don't seem to believe skill in combat is worth any respect whatsoever.

FraterDavid wrote: I'm sure there are plenty of thugs in the world who can be brave in battle, and even revel in it, and who are skilled in martial arts. That does not make them knights by any stretch of the imagination.

Never said it did. Keep to the topic please.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Now keeping all this in mind, my question for Jedi is: do you consider yourself a knight?

To which

FraterDavid wrote: No, I probably will never consider myself such in this lifetime, even if I am granted the title.

To which

SoulSeeker wrote: Thank you. You've just agreed with my point. The *Jedi* knight title is nothing compared to the true, ancient knights, anymore than a toy apple to a real apple or a soldier club to the military.

LOL I've agreed with your point only in your own deludedly overeager imagination. What's your favorite color? Oh, red? Ok, well by saying red, you've admitted that you think color exists, which proves my point that giraffes are purple.

I explained, specifically, in what way you had agreed with my point. It's easy to say "you're wrong" and make a strawman argument (like you did before) but evidently you can't refute this on any basis of actual logic. I said do you consider yourself a knight? You said no. My whole point was "I don't consider you a knight either,", so there was a very clear case of agreement- despite this you've gone completely back on your own argument, effectively contradicting yourself. If you continue in contradictions and strawmans I will have no choice but to conclude that you are incapable of a logical discussion.

FraterDavid wrote: All I have really said is that I acknowledge the title of Jedi Knight as an IDEAL to be lived up to.

And?

FraterDavid wrote: If you'll actually stop and think about it, this does nothing but add more weight to what it means to be a Jedi Knight. It does not make a toy out of it.

Well good then. Titles like "knight" shouldn't be made toys out of... which also agrees with my point that title shouldn't be disrespected and due thought put before taking it on. It seems that when you agree with me you pretend you've disproved me, yet when you disagree you can't explain why other than with consistent strawmen and dodging the initial point before breaking off into lectures... another technique, by the way, which is known as a "red herring".

FraterDavid wrote: Really there are only two possibilities here. Either stagnation in saying, "Yeah, I'm a Jedi Knight. I've arrived!" or continual progress by saying, "I am now called a Jedi Knight, but let me see what value I can actually fill that title with." The same principle applied to Medieval knights as well.

Well, fill the title with value *before* taking it and you wouldn't have that problem.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Your post demonstrates a lack of respect for what it takes to be on a real battlefield against a real, living, violent enemy, on a military battleground.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind.

No, it very well does. "Violence doesn't solve everything" said in reference to military soldiers? Of course it does- but once again you're going back on what you've said.

FraterDavid wrote: We all do what we must. If fighting is necessary to maintain our freedoms, then that is what we must do.

That contradicts what you said before (as shown above) but alright.

FraterDavid wrote: Should we then exalt the willingness or ability to fight above self-control or inner mastery? Absolutely not. "The warrior who abhors violence is fit to work for kings."

The proverb sounds pretty but that's a very general statement for something which can be very case-by-case. If we're strictly logical there have been many situations in history where kings have specifically requested mercenaries *because* of their violent reputations. This is what I mean when I say you should think about things before applying them- the same can be said of proverbs as for titles.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Being "violent", as you put it, keeps your nation safe from invading forces- I wonder if you would say the same to your own national soldiers?

Violence is not the only thing that keeps us safe, not by a long shot.

Once again, you devert the topic to go into a lecture. My point was that in your prior you post implied "all violence is bad", and you are somehow above it, and I certainly quote it for you if you'd like; this was why I posed the question. Yet instead of backing up your initial opinion, as soon as I question "would that be fitting in this context?" you go right around and change it by implying that "there are times when violence is necessary". Again, think about what you say before you post it.

FraterDavid wrote: Proper vigilance and precaution can negate the need for violence in many situations. I respect those who have fought or served militarily to protect our countries (US and UK) but I do not automatically view them as closer to being Jedi Knights because of their ability to physically fight or kill.

I don't think the soldiers here do, either, from what I've read so far. Those here who have those abilities only view them as contributing to Jedi Knighthood by adding to their abilities to be vigilant, defend the weak and innocent, and serve with strength. They do not turn their muscles or training into a false idol. In short, they are humble.

That's nice but you've changed to the topic to "how others perceive Jedi Knighthood" as opposed to the initial comparison of Jedi and Old Knighthood...

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: "We Jedi don't train our members in committing violence, therefore our knights are far better than your monkey-fisted soldiers. And guess what guys, not everything can be solved with violence so there!"

Putting words in my mouth again. I never said "better" or "superior". You've been the one using verbiage like that all along. I think I may have struck a nerve here.

This is exactly the attitude your previous post was full of, and there's my interpretation of it. If you disagree feel free to quote yourself and explain, logically, how this is not so. I already have for my posts so it shouldn't be too hard for you to do it for yours.

FraterDavid wrote: I did not stutter. And it is not evasion to recognize the truth that there is more than one valid application of the word "battlefield",

No, but you weren't recognizing any truths, all you were doing was evading the question by asking for clarification. I mention "honour on the battle-field", you reply "battle-field? Define battle-field" when every sane person already knows what a battle-field is. You can go into excuses about how "oh but there are metaphorical battle-fields too", fine, but you're still evading a question that was given directly and clearly. If you can't answer it, just say so.

FraterDavid wrote: What about cyberterrorism? An ideally placed, skillful cyberterrorist can wreak unbelievable amounts of devastation without ever firing a shot or risking themselves physically.

And now into yet another topic, this time about cyberterrorists, and all to evade the initial question, which was so simply posed, in fair expectation of a logical answer you seem increasingly incapable of giving. The initial question wasn't about "cyberterrorists", it was about "acts of honour on the battle-field". Nothing whatsoever about that statement implies cyberterrorism so why bring it up? Oh, surprise surprise, another red herring. I'm considering keeping a public tally of the amount of logical fallacies I find in your responses...

FraterDavid wrote: And that's just one example.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: we literally do still risk "life and limb" in the process of Re-membering our true Selves.

Uh-huh. Of course you do. So how many people do you know who have lost life or limb in that line of work then?

Several, actually.

Yep.

FraterDavid wrote: Their struggles are documented in the annals of their Orders.

Alright, so you can provide a link for evidence then?

FraterDavid wrote: When you work strongly and deeply enough with your own inner energies and blockages, you risk many things, such as cancer, death, pronounced misfortune from karmic rebalancing, psychosis, or other mental illness (which can be worse than losing a physical limb).

So... "when you explore yourself, you risk cancer." (Lol that makes sense). And what else do we risk? Death, psychosis and, wait what? "Karmic rebalancing"? :huh: Are you kidding me? I think I stopped taking you seriously a few fallacies ago, but for the sake of civil discourse, and out of genuine curiosity about how you're actually going to attempt to justify this one, I'll bite. "When you risk exploring your inner energies you risk death and cancer". Alright. Explain that in more detail please. Some specific examples here would also be nice.

FraterDavid wrote: If you think not,

Which I do.

FraterDavid wrote: ask yourself, which would be worse, not having a left hand to pick things up with, or not being able to tell what's real and what's not,

Well that really brings an entire new angle to everything that's said so far. Because which is worse, not having a hand or (*gasp*!) not being able to tell what's real and what's not!? :laugh:

FraterDavid wrote: or dying slowly and painfully from cancer and not being able to go to the bathroom by yourself for the last months of your shortened life? The Force is the most powerful of all allies, but unregulated or awakened prematurely, it can flow through you like a raging storm, damaging parts of you along the way. This is why the Force is mostly dormant in untrained people; it is for our own protection.

I wish I could put this up to a laughter track, sounds like it belongs in a movie. But in all seriousness, this isn't Star Wars, you don't even have a proper definition for your "Force", and, frankly, this final post has just shown me your head is so up in the air there's no point really attempting to have a logical discussion with you... No offence, just the way it is. And I think most rational, scientific people would agree.

FraterDavid wrote: I don't expect you to understand or believe any of this, though.

No way... You think? :blink:

FraterDavid wrote: And it is irrelevant whether you do anyway.

Good. If you managed to drag me into your fictional Star Wars-fairy-land discussion about the Force that (gasp) is dormant in individuals and literally rips them to pieces so that (shivver) they can't go to the bathroom for the rest of their lives, which is worse than losing your left hand btw, I would be genuinely embarrassed and perhaps slightly more pitying of you than I am already. Thank you.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Well of *course* it's harder for a soldier to come to terms with themselves because they've been in situations and had to make choices you could never even dream of.

You might be surprised by what I can dream of, and by what choices I've had to make. You are very presumptuous. Again, I think I hit a nerve here.

Well, you keep telling yourself that (I've almost given up on trying to bring some reality into your weird mystical world) but, again, even though I'm starting to realise it's pointless getting anything through to you, I'll respond for sake of discussion and not go off-track, which you've been doing constantly.

So let's clarify. You said "you've known war-heroes who can't accept themselves", but I suppose being a magnificent knight or whatever you want to call yourself, you obviously can, and are therefore better than any war-hero. Alright. Now the next step in your argument is:

FraterDavid wrote: Each of us has our own self-transformation to deal with, regardless of how it compares to that of other people with less dramatic experiences.

Alright. That's extremely vague. Let's start with what do you mean "self-transformation"?

FraterDavid wrote: I did not say they were less capable, I said they were less willing. I've also met soldiers who were not less willing.

Alright, well before you never said you'd met any soldiers like that. You simply said "they were less willing/capable", so I think it's understandable that I took this to mean you believed that soldiers in general are less willing/capable to accept themselves in a general sense... now you're adding something else that you neglected to mention before, that there are exceptions to the rule. Alright.

FraterDavid wrote: So no, it does not have to mean it is harder for a soldier in general.

So you *didn't* mean it was harder for a soldier in general? You said they (soldiers) find it harder, now you're saying you *didn't* actually mean soldiers, in general, find it harder. Well what are you actually trying to say here then?

FraterDavid wrote: You are obviously looking into everything everyone says with a spirit of contention. You might want to examine that more closely. If you are willing. Otherwise, you will find what you look for, even if it is not really there.

If you want to quote a response of mine you felt it seemed this way, please don't hesitate to do so and I will either explain why you're wrong or accept you have a point. But if all you're going to do is say "you're being contentious" and not explain why, you can't expect me to feel any merit for the statement. If you look at the way I've been writing up to now, you will see I often very carefully explain what I mean by things, and very carefully analyze others' responses, so that I'm always sure I know exactly what they mean by what they say and I always try to make sure the other poster knows exactly what *I* mean. I hope it's not too much to ask of you that you do me this same courtesy.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: It's very easy for someone who hasn't accomplished anything to be happy with themselves.

I dunno, even within a single day, if I feel like I haven't been accomplishing anything, I begin to feel very restless and unhappy. Even sitting still and meditating is accomplishing something of value.

Now I understand my responses to you have been harsh this post (and let's face it if you're going to go on about the Force killing people and stopping them going to the bathroom in a logical discussion I don't know what you expect) but I want to clarify again, no hard feelings. Just in case you felt that way. Now, in the spirit of curiosity, what do you accomplish by meditating?

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: That's an attempt at dodging the question there. You don't like to consider the question and so you ask for more clarification ("equal in what way?", "define 'equal' ", etc. etc.) You either consider your Jedi Knighthood superior to the knighthood of Old Britain, or you do not. It's that simple. So which is it?

Oh good Lord. LOL It's not an attempt at anything, nor is it dodging anything. I refuse to let you nail me down with any artificial considerations like agreeing or disagreeing with something that is not even well-defined.

But that's my point. It *is* well-defined. Now this isn't the first time I've to explain a concept to you which I thought should be very easy to comprehend, and I admit it if this weren't so amusing it would probably become trying on my patience, but for sake of civil discourse I'm going to do so again anyway. Earlier I mentioned "honour on the battle-field". Now it is true that many things can be referred to as a battle-field, but when the statement "honour on the battle-field" is said, people are going to think of the standard, literal definition of battle-field, namely, the battle-ground on which trained military soldiers do their duty. Therefore, there is no need to further clarify the definition of "battle-field" as it is, simply, a "battle-field", no explanation needed. The statement means "acts of honour on the battle-ground upon which trained military such as soldiers, knights etc. do their duty". To ask, then, what is meant by battle-field, can only be an attempt at stalling for time, as everyone knows what is the topic being discussed.
Let's compare this to when you mentioned "self-transformation" and said I was being "contentious"; now the dictionary definitions are simple, but the context can and is extremely broad and can be in all manner of ways. These words alone, although they convey meaning, will not necessarily convey the specific instance you are recalling at the time you say it. Therefore it would have been appropriate for you to provide clarification on these, and I asked for clarification on these when said clarification was not provided, which is perfectly acceptable. The point is "give clarification where it is due and ask for clarification where it should be asked for", but I'm not going to explain a statement that's meaning is, in itself, intrinsically obvious. I will not explain what the word "battle-field" means to you. Look it up in a dictionary. I will neither explain what I mean by "equal"- you're an adult so don't expect me to treat you like a child. You are an adult. Look at the context. Look at the quote as a whole. Tell me what you think I meant, and more than likely you will be correct. Then we can continue discussion and you can stop evading the question.

FraterDavid wrote: I said they are equal as ideals. Or did your eyes stop working by that point?

That's a first step. As ideals, Jedi Knighthood and Knighthood might well be equivalent. So thanks for that.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: I have not used the words "inferior" or "superior". That would be placing a value judgement where it makes no sense.

Then why bother answering?

Because I realize that not everything has to be forcibly cast into a hierarchy of superior vs inferior.

If I ever said that, feel free to quote me. Again, you are using the technique known as a "strawman". That's over three counts (probably over five) of strawmen, and probably about three, if not more, of red herrings so far.

FraterDavid wrote: so I shouldn't bother with you any further. Reap the bitter fruit of having your own way.

I find it surprising you're the one who feels this way, but I won't stop you. I've been very patient with you but evidently you are not interested in logical discussion (as evidenced by the fallacies and question-dodging I showed above). Bye then.

FraterDavid wrote: You're not starting to wonder anything. You came here with very firmly entrenched, preconceived notions that you are doing your best to force us into somehow admitting, even after we have given you ample reasons why there is no need to view things as you do.

Now who's presumptuous?

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: If there's any logical fallacy I've pointed out that you feel is unfair, feel free to quote it and explain, logically, why this is, and I shall respectfully retract the statement.

I sincerely doubt you would retract any bit of what you've said,

And there it is. The clearest piece of proof yet of your attitude to this entire discussion.
You: "SoulSeekers, you committed a logical fallacy."
Me: "Alright. Where?"
You: "I sincerely doubt you'd admit it even if I showed you. But... but trust me, you did."

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Good. I'm shaking in my boots.

Oh, come on, it's not that cold outside. Did you forget to wear socks? Be honest, now.

I must have. Because I'm litereally shaking in my boots at the "logic" you're going to use to justify yourself. Let's get this over with...

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Firstly, I never said that "greatness" is the "opposite" of humility, only that to claim the title of knight is 1. not humble and 2. a claim to greatness.

Actually, you did say that. And I quote:

Therefore, it is logical that to claim the title of "knight" is *not* a sign of humility, but actually it is the opposite- a claim to the greatness true historical knights (or warriors, samurai, monks depending on what you call yourself) exemplified.

If you can't even remember what you've said, we probably shouldn't continue the discussion.

Ah, but I said that a "claim of greatness" and "arrogance" amount to the same effect. In other words, "it is *not* a sign of humility, but actually it is the opposite- a claim to the greatness of true knights(ie. a sign of arrogance)". Thus, a "sign of humility" is the opposite of a "sign of arrogance".

Now I'm sure you're feeling somewhat embarrassed about how what you saw as a solid argument was debunked so casually, so I'm going to remind you again: look at what's actually being said. *Think* and take time to *consider* before you post, or you end up looking like an idiot. Wait, there's more? Moving onto your next point then.

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Ah, but in line with the above point, to take on the name of knight is also a claim to greatness, and, as you added, arrogance.

To claim a title is different from acknowledging that you have been granted a title. But I see that you have again trollishly taken what I said out of context to try to prove your own point. To no avail, I might add.

Ah, this, I think, is your first valid point in a long, long, and very long series of red herrings, dodges, strawmen, and plain ridiculousness. I'm happy with this, because yes, you're actually correct here, for once. "To claim is not the same as to be awarded". Well, you have the beginnings of an argument- now think about what this implies and means for my previous point. Carry your argument through, if you can, and try to debunk my statement. You see? You're learning.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Now keeping all this in mind, my question for Jedi is: do you consider yourself a knight?

To which

FraterDavid wrote: No, I probably will never consider myself such in this lifetime, even if I am granted the title.

To which

SoulSeeker wrote: Thank you. You've just agreed with my point. The *Jedi* knight title is nothing compared to the true, ancient knights, anymore than a toy apple to a real apple or a soldier club to the military.

LOL I've agreed with your point only in your own deludedly overeager imagination. What's your favorite color? Oh, red? Ok, well by saying red, you've admitted that you think color exists, which proves my point that giraffes are purple.

I explained, specifically, in what way you had agreed with my point. It's easy to say "you're wrong" and make a strawman argument (like you did before) but evidently you can't refute this on any basis of actual logic. I said do you consider yourself a knight? You said no. My whole point was "I don't consider you a knight either,", so there was a very clear case of agreement- despite this you've gone completely back on your own argument, effectively contradicting yourself. If you continue in contradictions and strawmans I will have no choice but to conclude that you are incapable of a logical discussion.

This is a Strawman fallacy on your part too SoulSeeker, kindly remember that in a logical discussion two wrongs don't make a right (Tu Quoque). You took a position of FraterDavid saying "No, I will probably never consider myself a knight" and then attempted to misrepresent that statement to say that "The *Jedi* knight title is nothing compared to the true, ancient knights, anymore than a toy apple to a real apple or a soldier club to the military." None of which was remotely similar to what he had said or even implied. IF nothing else, his statement shows only that HE may never feel worthy of the title. This is also an example of Argumentum ad Hominum because you are attacking the speaker not his words.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: If you'll actually stop and think about it, this does nothing but add more weight to what it means to be a Jedi Knight. It does not make a toy out of it.

Well good then. Titles like "knight" shouldn't be made toys out of... which also agrees with my point that title shouldn't be disrespected and due thought put before taking it on. It seems that when you agree with me you pretend you've disproved me, yet when you disagree you can't explain why other than with consistent strawmen and dodging the initial point before breaking off into lectures... another technique, by the way, which is known as a "red herring".

This is incorrect, a red herring is using irrelevant information to divert people away from the original topic not going off on a lecture about relevant information. For example, "Do you think it is going to rain today?" "No it won't. My dog just messed on the carpet and then ate it. So there's no chance of rain whatsoever." That is a red herring. Simply adding additional points then tying them together with an explanation to form an answer to your question is perfectly logical and valid.

By saying that his statement is a red herring and spending all the time to define it without ever responding to the actual statement used in a substantial way is both a red herring and a strawman in itself. You are distracting from the point of his statement by bringing up a completely irrelevant logical fallacy to distract and then misrepresenting his statement as being that fallacy so that it is easier for you to dismiss.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: Really there are only two possibilities here. Either stagnation in saying, "Yeah, I'm a Jedi Knight. I've arrived!" or continual progress by saying, "I am now called a Jedi Knight, but let me see what value I can actually fill that title with." The same principle applied to Medieval knights as well.

Well, fill the title with value *before* taking it and you wouldn't have that problem.

How does one give credence and value to a title before taking it and giving it any true value?

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Your post demonstrates a lack of respect for what it takes to be on a real battlefield against a real, living, violent enemy, on a military battleground.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind.

No, it very well does. "Violence doesn't solve everything" said in reference to military soldiers? Of course it does- but once again you're going back on what you've said.

FraterDavid wrote: We all do what we must. If fighting is necessary to maintain our freedoms, then that is what we must do.

That contradicts what you said before (as shown above) but alright.

This is yet another strawman argument on your part SoulSeeker. You are once again misrepresenting FraterDavid's position to better attack it. By saying that violence works occasionally, he did not say that it works every time. You are aware of this fact and are just twisting his words now.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: "We Jedi don't train our members in committing violence, therefore our knights are far better than your monkey-fisted soldiers. And guess what guys, not everything can be solved with violence so there!"

Putting words in my mouth again. I never said "better" or "superior". You've been the one using verbiage like that all along. I think I may have struck a nerve here.

This is exactly the attitude your previous post was full of, and there's my interpretation of it. If you disagree feel free to quote yourself and explain, logically, how this is not so. I already have for my posts so it shouldn't be too hard for you to do it for yours.

Red herring...again. You used a whole lot of irrelevant information to say that was your interpretation of it but ignored the point that FraterDavid made in saying that he has never used that terminology (whether you decided to put it in quotes or not).

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: I did not stutter. And it is not evasion to recognize the truth that there is more than one valid application of the word "battlefield",

No, but you weren't recognizing any truths, all you were doing was evading the question by asking for clarification. I mention "honour on the battle-field", you reply "battle-field? Define battle-field" when every sane person already knows what a battle-field is. You can go into excuses about how "oh but there are metaphorical battle-fields too", fine, but you're still evading a question that was given directly and clearly. If you can't answer it, just say so.

You are assuming your point is true that "every sane person already knows what a battle-field is" without first having proven it to be true (Argumentum ad logicum) and using a red herring argument to evade the question of how you define a "battle-field". You are also using an Argumentum ad populum to try and say that your (unknown) definition of "battle-field" is correct because "every sane person" defines it that way. And on top of that, you are using a bifurcation, or black and white fallacy, by attempting to say that there are only 2 alternatives.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: What about cyberterrorism? An ideally placed, skillful cyberterrorist can wreak unbelievable amounts of devastation without ever firing a shot or risking themselves physically.

And now into yet another topic, this time about cyberterrorists, and all to evade the initial question, which was so simply posed, in fair expectation of a logical answer you seem increasingly incapable of giving. The initial question wasn't about "cyberterrorists", it was about "acts of honour on the battle-field". Nothing whatsoever about that statement implies cyberterrorism so why bring it up? Oh, surprise surprise, another red herring. I'm considering keeping a public tally of the amount of logical fallacies I find in your responses...

You are once again assuming that your definition of a "battle-field" is the only correct one and there-by using it to ignore a perfectly valid by again calling it a red herring. Simply using this terminology does not make it true and without actually responding to the statement itself you are also committing the same logical fallacy of introducing irrelevant information.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: Their struggles are documented in the annals of their Orders.

Alright, so you can provide a link for evidence then?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...appearing in yet another topic SoulSeeker.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: When you work strongly and deeply enough with your own inner energies and blockages, you risk many things, such as cancer, death, pronounced misfortune from karmic rebalancing, psychosis, or other mental illness (which can be worse than losing a physical limb).

So... "when you explore yourself, you risk cancer." (Lol that makes sense). And what else do we risk? Death, psychosis and, wait what? "Karmic rebalancing"? :huh: Are you kidding me? I think I stopped taking you seriously a few fallacies ago, but for the sake of civil discourse, and out of genuine curiosity about how you're actually going to attempt to justify this one, I'll bite. "When you risk exploring your inner energies you risk death and cancer". Alright. Explain that in more detail please. Some specific examples here would also be nice.

Same as above. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I also doubt he cares if you are taking him seriously. I am not taking you seriously anymore because of your logic errors...does it matter to you? Apparently not.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: or dying slowly and painfully from cancer and not being able to go to the bathroom by yourself for the last months of your shortened life? The Force is the most powerful of all allies, but unregulated or awakened prematurely, it can flow through you like a raging storm, damaging parts of you along the way. This is why the Force is mostly dormant in untrained people; it is for our own protection.

I wish I could put this up to a laughter track, sounds like it belongs in a movie. But in all seriousness, this isn't Star Wars, you don't even have a proper definition for your "Force", and, frankly, this final post has just shown me your head is so up in the air there's no point really attempting to have a logical discussion with you... No offence, just the way it is. And I think most rational, scientific people would agree.

Argumentum ad populum...again.

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote: I have not used the words "inferior" or "superior". That would be placing a value judgement where it makes no sense.

Then why bother answering?

Because I realize that not everything has to be forcibly cast into a hierarchy of superior vs inferior.

If I ever said that, feel free to quote me. Again, you are using the technique known as a "strawman". That's over three counts (probably over five) of strawmen, and probably about three, if not more, of red herrings so far.

See quoted statement below. Also, Tu Quoque...perhaps before you start jabbing at someone else's fallacies, you should stop using them yourself. Especially in the instances where you have used fallacious arguments to argue about whether his argument is fallacious or not.

SoulSeeker wrote: "We Jedi don't train our members in committing violence, therefore our knights are far better than your monkey-fisted soldiers. And guess what guys, not everything can be solved with violence so there!"

SoulSeeker wrote:

FraterDavid wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: If there's any logical fallacy I've pointed out that you feel is unfair, feel free to quote it and explain, logically, why this is, and I shall respectfully retract the statement.

I sincerely doubt you would retract any bit of what you've said,

And there it is. The clearest piece of proof yet of your attitude to this entire discussion.
You: "SoulSeekers, you committed a logical fallacy."
Me: "Alright. Where?"
You: "I sincerely doubt you'd admit it even if I showed you. But... but trust me, you did."

I have and you have not even acknowledged the post much less retracted anything.

In addition, since this has become a ridiculous discussion about who uses more fallacious arguments, this entire topic starting with this post:

SoulSeeker wrote: In the historical eras throughout which the brave knights of Europe lived and died, becoming a knight could be very difficult. You generally had to be born into the aristocratic class, or at least adopted by a noble- then you had to be trained from a very young age in warfare. Such training procedures would probably have included things like swinging heavy metal axes repetitiously for long lengths of time, as well as mental training so that the Squire wouldn't panic in situations of war.
Generally, knighting was done in an official ceremony, but a Squire could also be knighted on the battle-field by a lord, if he was very impressed with some feat of bravery they did. It might be standing one's ground when soldiers around fled from the enemy, and being victorious. In my personal opinion, the knights were not "honourable" in the a moral sense as history shows that they often abandoned the code of chivalry to protect "women and the weak", "defend the church" etc. whenever it suited them. However, there *is* a sense of honour when you consider their bravery, such as charging into cavalry on the battle-field and risking life and limb, and also their hard work and dedication, so that through training they were able to wear heavy armour many today couldn't even lift, and become professionals in horsemanship. Basically, the title of "knight" was attatched to 1. feats of bravery on the battle-field and 2. the completion and continuation rigorous training throughout childhood that could be compared to the training of modern day boxing-champions (except, of course, with swords).

The point is, being "knighted" in those days was almost like receiving a victoria's cross medal of honour today. To be called a "knight" was like being called a member of Black Ops in America or an S.A.S. soldier in Australia and so on.

Now keeping all this in mind, my question for Jedi is: do you consider yourself a knight? If so, do you also consider yourself an expert S.A.S. soldier, or a member of Black Ops, or some other kind of expert in warfare who has truly earned the title?

My second question for Jedi is: if you consider yourself a knight, what act of valour on the battle-field caused you to be knighted? Or what intense, extreme, rigorous, professional military training did you have to work through before earning that title?

My third question for Jedi is: if you answered "yes" to the first question (you're a knight) and "no" to the second (you have no experience on the battle-field and have never fought for your king, country or church), do you consider your claiming the title of "knight" as disrespectful to those true knights of old Britain and why/why not? After all, to claim to be an "S.A.S." or something else would be seen by many as disrespectul to the respective national army, and saying something like that at their official ceremonies can land you in jail with some pretty hefty fines.

My fourth question for Jedi is: is your title of knight, in your own personal opinion, equal to the traditional title of knight? Or is it superior to the traditional knighthood of Britain, or is it inferior, or would you rather not consider it?

"Knight" is an ancient and honourable title. Have you taken due care and consideration to its history and tradition before applying it to yourself? The same can also be said of "warrior", "samurai" etc. Remember, to take it on is a claim to its history and tradition; therefore, it is logical that to claim the title of "knight" is *not* a sign of humility, but actually it is the opposite- a claim to the greatness true historical knights (or warriors, samurai, monks depending on what you call yourself) exemplified.

In conclusion, the purpose of these questions aren't to intimidate or offend, but I *am* interested in how you see yourselves, especially those claiming the title of "knight" or above. What gives you the right and what makes you modern-day samurai warriors, monks and knights? (I'm going by what I read on the introduction page I can't speak for individual members)

Thanks for taking the time to read (I know this is a long OP) and I'll be interested in your answers. Thanks.

is that of a bifurcation, or "black and white" fallacy, which, in this example, says that the condition of calling oneself a "knight" only has two alternatives (either you are right or wrong based on an outdated definition), when in fact other alternatives do exist or can exist. Knighthood has been granted for many other reasons and is only dependent of military prowess under one definition.

With that being said there is no point in discussing further who is or is not using more agumentums and fallacies when every point you make is based off your assumption of the truth of a fallacious argument.

Concur with resticon. this guy has a refutation for everything, an 'im right and your wrong no matter what' style of 'argument' that i would expect of my precocious six year old. i personally have had enough of it. if he only joined the jedi temple to 'prove his superiority' to its members or denigrate them using above said outdated definition of one aspect of the order, he needs to leave.

People only need to leave if they are breaking rules, or if they want to leave.

Without a change in attitude, I find it hard to imagine that Soulseeker will WANT to stay long, but this thread is 7 pages long and has provoked many and varied responses, so in that way, Soulseeker has been good at instigating discussion...I have no problem with him sticking around.

You cannot demand that people leave on the basis of disagreement...

there was no demand. he simply NEEDS to. but as resticon pointed out, he also needs to stop using fallacious arguments, particularly in conjunction with pointing out someone elses fallacious arguments, a need that soulseeker will also ignore.

Sorry Desolous but I'm with V on this particular point.

I never stated that he HAD/NEEDED to leave or even that he HAS/NEEDS to stop this particular line of discussion. I merely pointed out that there is little point to continuing it any further than it has already gone. He of course, can continue but I will likely not continue in the conversation anymore as I don't see the point. Either his view will broaden or it will stay narrow. Either way, he may believe as he likes but will probably find it unpleasant to remain this way as his words have already started to become (in my mind, at least) repetitive, overly forceful, and closed to alternatives.

I am not attempting to change his mind, just show him how I view his statements and the issue being discussed. I have shared my feelings and he may do as he likes. But I don't HAVE/NEED to listen to him try to shove his view down another's throat. As others have said, I appreciate his original question as it caused us to look inside and consider our own beliefs. I just do not appreciate the WAY he went about his attempt to make others believe as he does by ignoring any reply that differed from his perspective. His approach is basically that of an Argumentum ad Nauseum, ie. The sky is green, the sky is green, the sky is green, the sky is green, etc...therefore it is true because the other party eventually stops trying to prove its falsehood.

As I mentioned, resticon, the example I likened it to while washing the dishes a while ago was if this guy wandered into another temple/church. For arguments sake as well as familiarity, I will use my own. He engages some of the laity, as well as some of the clergy, becoming steadily more strident and dismissive as the conversation goes on, belittling the members as well as their views over and over again.

How long would it take before I (a church elder) or pastor todd says something like 'okay, we've really enjoyed your little visit, but you have wasted enough time ande energy here. Please leave. Come back with (as you stated) a more open mind.'

I have no problem if he wants to hang out like a normal person, but this condescending pseudo-socratic stuff has got to stop.