Critiquing the boarder wall for ( Br John . )

So now you're equating the continued building of a technology which has already caused discriminatory human death along the lines of a moral code which runs counter to that of the Jedi Doctrine with... eating steak?

Do you really think everyone in this forum/temple is incapable of thinking through this little word problem? Your intent is plain as day.

Your not a Jedi even if you're a member of a church which recognizes you as one.

I could be a potato for all you know.

I gave a comparison to help you understand that arguing how to do something for arguments sake is not necessarily condemning or condoning any possible outcome (and also pointed out, possibly snidely, as is my wont, that people who get caught up in promoting a strong message, be it about a wall, or steak, are usually not asked their views on how to do anything, because it's rarely helpful)....which you tried to turn into me being morally bankrupt. The upside is, that makes me a morally bankrupt potato, and you're the smartest person in the room missing the point.

JamesSand wrote:

I gave a comparison to help you understand that arguing how to do something for arguments sake is not necessarily condemning or condoning any possible outcome (and also pointed out, possibly snidely, as is my wont, that people who get caught up in promoting a strong message, be it about a wall, or steak, are usually not asked their views on how to do anything, because it's rarely helpful)....which you tried to turn into me being morally bankrupt.

KG are you suggesting that if a topic could be construed to be against doctrine it does not merit discussion?

Our members have many points of view and are encouraged to express their views on our discussion forums.

FACT, our entire reality is a potato.
I WIN.
(y'all are ridiculous)

Can somebody please explain to me why these discussions always go from arguing about a specific subject to arguing about arguing itself?

Can somebody please explain to me why these discussions always go from arguing about a specific subject to arguing about arguing itself?

Because we run out of new topics to raise before the second speaker, so we get mired in wondering whether or not speaker one is even in the right room....

Gotta fill time until the bell...

This place mostly seems like this -

Spoiler 'cause profanity.

I love ERB.
Spot on comparison.

Garm wrote:

JamesSand wrote:

KG are you suggesting that if a topic could be construed to be against doctrine it does not merit discussion?

Our members have many points of view and are encouraged to express their views on our discussion forums.

Good question. I do not, in any way, mean that topics should not be discussed thoroughly whenever a desire is present and terms of service are being respected. I am in favor of discussing them more just as it seems you, and surely many fellow Jedi, are in favor of.
However, scanning the previous responses in this topic it is obvious that not all parties involved feel the same. Instead of being berated for going "off topic" while, in fact being very much on topic, i opened a new topic, which is , in fact, the same topic, but without the strings attached that were preventing a fully formed discussion from happening.

Instead of limiting our responses to technical qualifications about what techniques/systems would best target immigrants on the basis of ethnicity and national origin, we can now discuss whether or not Jedi would/should/do or do not support such Radical Agendas. here is the link and I hope to hear more of your perspectives.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/123516-is-trumps-boarder-wall-antithetical-to-jedi-doctrine?start=30

JamesSand wrote:

I gave a comparison to help you understand that arguing how to do something for arguments sake is not necessarily condemning or condoning any possible outcome (and also pointed out, possibly snidely, as is my wont, that people who get caught up in promoting a strong message, be it about a wall, or steak, are usually not asked their views on how to do anything, because it's rarely helpful)....which you tried to turn into me being morally bankrupt. The upside is, that makes me a morally bankrupt potato, and you're the smartest person in the room missing the point.

Well then Potato, lets look at the conundrum you're imagining this to be from another perspective.

Lets say a topic is opened Titled "Best way to kill 10 million Jews"

Within the forum discussion is then limited to specific technical questions attempting to get to the truth of how best to kill 10 million Jews.
When a dissenting perspective arises making the claim that killing 10million Jews is wrong or, at the very least, antithetical to Jedi doctrine,a senior member casually sidelines this objection under the premise that it is somehow "off topic" to question the intent behind finding a best way to kill 10million Jews and that the most important thing to do is continue asking how best to accomplish this task.

Still confused? Didn't think so. Glad to clear this up for you.

Please stay on the topic at hand . which basically is do you think the boarder wall is a good idea ? If not then please elaborate . What solutions do you think would be better than a wall ? Or do you think the wall has a function but we need more than that ? If the latter please explain what else needs to be done . I made this thread so we can figure this out , not to argue about it . If someone's views and beliefs are different that's fine don't make a big deal about it . And please don't call them out on it either . If you think the wall is racist then that's you . If you don't that's fine as well . If you think it's against the doctrine of the order then that's okay , if you think it ain't that's also okay . We all have our own personal definitions , beliefs , philosophies , and perception of this thing we call "reality" . The reason why most of us are here is to search for new knowledge and see if it aligns with our ("reality" ( what I stated in the previous sentence )) .

Most of us did not come here to argue about these things and have people ridicule us over own "reality" . So please don't let's keep everything civil whether it be my threads , yours , or anyone else's . There is a reason why I make pretty much all my threads open discussion topics because I want to learn . Whether it be from the content here or from the people themselves . We try to strive for peace in such a chaotic world , yet what we find are moments of peace then chaos in some form or another . Hold on to those blissful moments , cherish them . As well as the bad moments for no matter what you will always gain wisdom and knowledge . You choose if you want to accept what you learn or not . That's it , a simple choice of yes or no . The maybe that you think of as a third option is just you holding off of the answer of yes and no .

@ KerouacsGhost

I admire your passionate argument that the proposed borderwall is an ethical afront to our beliefs as Jedi. I'm probably in full agreement with you as far as your reasons for being against the wall. And yes, we can debate the merits of "immigration policy..." which I believe we have done in another thread or two. So we've kind of had THAT debate already. I know, because I was involved in debating against the "zero tolerance" approach with kids locked up in cages and all that. So I agree with you but the reason I also agree with Bro John and those saying that this thread is different is because we already had the wider argument about immigration policy. This is an "even if" thread.

And we have to be careful in our discussions because we don't want to confuse the issue. Is a country wrong to have borders? No. Do borders = nazi Germany? No. Is it wrong for a country to enforce its policies? No. But can a country be wrong in HOW it enforces its policies? YES. And so does the larger argument of THE (TRUMP) Border wall also include asides such as targeting brown people, and how people are treated at the border, and the asylum seeking process, and child separation? Yes, THIS particual border wall debate, IN GENERAL, does include all of those facets. In that larger discussion on policy there are many things to talk about.

What this is, is saying, "EVEN IF" none of these other facets where there... "Even if" we weren't even talking about the US-Mexico border, but rather the US-Canadian border... (because there should be no difference if there isn't an intent of discrimination going on), if there weren't "kids in cages", if NONE of these other things were true... is 'a' wall, even a good solution? If the goal is to keep people out, is a wall, in 2020, a good solution? Forget, who is being kept out and why. Separate from the emotional aspect of it. Is "a wall" ever a good modern day solution? Is it efficient in solving this "problem" that exists in the minds of millions of Americans?

Because at the end of the day, you can't solve their "problem" with morality or with the Jedi Code. There are Jedi who see this purely as a debate about immigration policy. And different news sources paint different pictures. So we debate to try and create a bridge between the political spin zones to find a middle ground where we can all agree. There is an answer to this question. Is the wall, in all practicality, a good idea to keep people out? Yea or nay. Why so? Why not?