That's so gay!

There are 2 doctrine that come to mind whenever discussions get to


good. . bad
right. . wrong
logical. . illogical
etc. etc. etc.

1) jedi are wary of attachments, material and personal
2) Morality: the danger of belief, objectivity over subjectivity

Leandros Von wrote:

ren wrote: "I'll follow the doctrine at the cost of my own manifested reality" Jedi.

I would appreciate if you had quoted me correctly on that one, if you found it over zealous that i would happily sacrifice my own life to save that of a child then I really don't know what to say about that.

(I was of the understanding that was a private interview, I personally feel like you have abused your position as a council member by making that statement in the public forum, however it's all good, feel free to post the full interview for everyone to see, I have nothing to hide here, you can post the details of my criminal record also if it will aid in following your bliss)

If you truly believe, then there can never be conflict between your belief and your manifested self: no cost, ever. besides, I don't remember where I read this, anyone could've said it. :whistle:

ren wrote: how you manage to fool yourself into thinking you don't dislike something you would never do yourself.

Who says I haven't tried it and thought "This Isn't For Me" ??, just because I don't eat Brussels Sprouts doesn't mean I'm being discriminate against them.

"I prefer gay to hetero sex therefore I don't have heterosexual sex"
"I prefer women to men therefore I don't employ men"
"I prefer strawberries to brussels sprouts therefore I don't eat brussels sprouts"
"bank A has better rates than bank B therefore I use bank A"

Any choice of one thing over another is discrimination. the choice is (normally) made according to personal needs or taste. Can be sexuality, colour, shape, function, any possible criterion.

ren wrote: And the few non-judgemental members of totjo (some of whom are so gay they're 100% gay) know very well that I don't give a damn about anyone's opinion of homosexuality and would greatly prefer it if everyone could leave everyone else's thoughts in peace by immediately ceasing all attempts at convincing anyone else that it's either good or bad.

So then why even get involved in a discussion that you would rather people just kept to themselves ??.

I'm not discussing the rightness or the wrongness of homosexuality and am not trying to convince anyone of anything in that regard... What i am discussing is the tendency of groups to make demands from other groups. the increase of pack mentality and the slow painful death of freethought.

ren wrote: For if such opinion must exist then the ways of the Force will make it so

You've got me there, I fully trust in the Force and your comment is completely correct, if it is to be so then it shall be.


Perhaps you are seeing this from the same position I've seen the Racist card played all of these years, I've seen guys stand and be smarmy and cocky only to get a beat down, and as soon as the police show up it's "he hit me because I'm "black / chinese / pakistani", white guy gets charged for racial assault, but Racism does work both ways.

I agree with this but it isn't what I'm talking about. Why is it worse to get hit for being black than getting hit for wearing the wrong clothes? Why is it worse to dislike someone for being gay than for being a petrol head?

here is A, and B doesn't like what A is doing. here is B, and A doesn't like what B is doing. Why would one of them be more wrong than the other? Why should the community, the media, a political party point fingers at either A or B considering they are both doing exactly the same thing?

I am not however trying to "set a standard for acceptance", merely failing to see your reasoning behind what appears to be a disregard for what is ultimately a "common courtesy".

Because that is forcing your beliefs onto others instead of accepting the nature of others. ultimately it's incompatible with certain aspects of the Doctrine. There's a difference between choosing for yourself not to call something gay, and expecting others to do the same. It is for you to accept everything else, not for everything else to accept you. It is for you to make the effort and not expect anything in return (see creed).

Now of course I can't expect anyone else to think this way either, after all, my point also is that they have an equal right to make demands (about not "being so gay") as the others have to make demands (about classifying non-gay things as gay).

this really is just an exercise of the mind as nothing I've said will change anything. Except perhaps eventually give me an answer as to why I've been banging on for a few pages about freedom of conscience yet no-one has questioned what it actually means or how it's supposed to fit with the rest of the doctrine.

It's nice to give people what they want. Sure. But that's also what they teach at nursery school, where "why" is neither asked nor answered.

Ren wrote: Any choice of one thing over another is discrimination. the choice is (normally) made according to personal needs or taste. Can be sexuality, colour, shape, function, any possible criterion.[/color]

I do not read "discrimination" as "the choice", just "the recognition of the difference of objects"....

So choosing one over another is not "discrimination" unless you do so based on " the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

I'm not discussing the rightness or the wrongness of homosexuality and am not trying to convince anyone of anything in that regard... What i am discussing is the tendency of groups to make demands from other groups. the increase of pack mentality and the slow painful death of freethought.[/quote]

So then the fact that we Jedi tend to agree is also predicting the death of freethought... :lol:

One group trying to influence another isn't wrong, and isn't the end of freethought (if done through discussion and reason).... Any more than you and I having a discussion, and reaching an agreement is the death of freethought...

[/quote] ause that is forcing your beliefs onto others instead of accepting the nature of others. ultimately it's incompatible with certain aspects of the Doctrine. There's a difference between choosing for yourself not to call something gay, and expecting others to do the same. It is for you to accept everything else, not for everything else to accept you. It is for you to make the effort and not expect anything in return (see creed).[/quote]

Yes, but through conversation, we can hope to understand, if not agree with, the "other side"....

Sticking to your guns, for the sake of not wanting to "kill free thought" is, well, silly...

I don't expect me and my opinions to change your mind....

I expect you to...

So then the fact that we Jedi tend to agree is also predicting the death of freethought...

I don't find it so funny, but, yeah.

Sticking to your guns, for the sake of not wanting to "kill free thought" is, well, silly...

What is silly is to hope for an agreement. exploration is what matters. But that means stepping out a certain zone and people don't like doing that. it's a comfort thing that echoes our natural reward systems.

ren wrote: Any choice of one thing over another is discrimination. the choice is (normally) made according to personal needs or taste. Can be sexuality, colour, shape, function, any possible criterion.

I'm not discussing the rightness or the wrongness of homosexuality and am not trying to convince anyone of anything in that regard... What i am discussing is the tendency of groups to make demands from other groups. the increase of pack mentality and the slow painful death of freethought.

here is A, and B doesn't like what A is doing. here is B, and A doesn't like what B is doing. Why would one of them be more wrong than the other? Why should the community, the media, a political party point fingers at either A or B considering they are both doing exactly the same thing?

Because that is forcing your beliefs onto others instead of accepting the nature of others ultimately it's incompatible with certain aspects of the Doctrine.

Morality: to know danger of belief (see doctrine)

A Jedi knows how contradicting belief of what is right and what is wrong can lead to devastating crimes and conflicts. A Jedi takes a step away from the subjectivity in favor of the peace of objectivity. A Jedi does not force the values on others.



I just looked up the word danger. Interestly, the definition includes the word menace.

When I believe that others should believe as I believe it is dangerous.
When I expect that others should think or do as I do it is dangerous.
When I need others to believe as I believe it is dangerous.

So if I put the demaands of my beliefs, expectations and needs onto others . .then I am a menace to society by way of obstructing free thought, and by interferring with the ways of The Force.

I accept that.

ren wrote: Because that is forcing your beliefs onto others instead of accepting the nature of others.

I'm not trying to force my belief's onto you, I'm trying to understand your lack of compassion and failing to do so.

I don't think anything Ren has said shows a lack of compassion.
This thread is just coming across like an argument against Ren, my opinion, and he is entitled to think however he wishes as anyone else is.

elizabeth wrote: I don't think anything Ren has said shows a lack of compassion.
This thread is just coming across like an argument against Ren, my opinion, and he is entitled to think however he wishes as anyone else is.

Agreed Elizabeth...

This happens all of the time, and not to just Ren...

Someone takes a stance, and it seems contrary to the opinions of the majority, so in the course of the (multiple/criss-crossed) conversation, it does appear as an attack...

I assure you it is not...

But, because it gets... unpleasant, uncomfortable, it takes a strong person to be able to carry on these type of conversations...

elizabeth wrote: I don't think anything Ren has said shows a lack of compassion.

Sorry that was a bad turn of phrase on my part, what I meant to say was "I'm trying to understand why you think it is acceptable under the guise of freedom of speech to use that's so gay as a descriptive for something that isn't actually gay but actually quite the opposite, especially with the knowledge that it pains others to hear this"

Surely the compassionate route of "ok I'll not say that" toward the greater good would be the Jedi path, I however understand that within Ren himself this would cause a conflict as he feels he should say this regardless of the feelings of other people.

In this position I personally would take the selfless route of not saying it and meditating upon why I have the internal conflict over keeping it to myself, as opposed to the selfish route of saying to get it off my chest at the cost of paining another.

I'm also not saying he is wrong in his belief, I'm just failing within myself to get to grips with his perspective on the matter, perhaps when I was doing my training I read things a little differently from my perspective, I'm sure Ren understands that this is me trying to open my mind to his perspective but failing to see the logic in his thinking, I like to bring things to a close so until I can look at it from his perspective it's hard for me to accept what he is trying to say.

Again I've probably worded this badly, but there is no ill will or intent behind my posts and I'm certainly not trying to "prove anyone wrong", merely gain a deeper understanding of a fellow Jedi's feelings on the matter so I can better connect with him in future conversations.

How much cold can a bare bear bear? Context. My personal observation is the generation that most uses terms such as "that's so gay" etc is the same one that's the most accepting of gay people and gay marriage.