7
   

Would a jedi order work?

 
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 06:08 am
@hamilton,
by the way, setanta, does this make a valid alternative? no hard feelings, by the way.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 07:07 am
@hamilton,
A small paramilitary force with a fanatic devotion to a religion and superior firepower.

You don't see why this is a problem?
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 07:51 am
@maxdancona,
it opperates on the basis of peace. theres no evidence that they attack for no reason, and try to forego violence as long as possible. havent you seen the movies?
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 08:32 am
Templar, Samurai, and the Roman Legion--the problem with a powerful, benevolent military (warrior priests) is that society as a whole tends to stagnate. Society is like an organism, change is necessary for vitality.

Stagnant societies tend to become decadent, to fester into water monopolies and fall from what are relatively minor impediments--the Incan and Aztec fell to minor incursions by the Spanish. The same happened by Egypt when Caesar invaded and later to Rome by the Vandals. Water monopolies fall when the utility monopoly is shown to be vulnerable and the warrior priests are no longer effective (Japan to Perry).

But this is only a personal hypothesis.

Rap
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 01:40 pm
@raprap,
they all were PROUD and arrogant
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 02:14 pm
@hamilton,
Ah but did the mere existence of these warrior priests cause stagnation?

Would the Jedi perpetuate the status quo to a point where decadence among the non Jedi creates a 'water monopoly'. 'Water monopolies' only look substantial--the infrastructure is on the edge of crumbling. How would the Jedi act here?
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 02:22 pm
@raprap,
i dont understand
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 05:12 pm
@hamilton,
Quote:
it opperates on the basis of peace. theres no evidence that they attack for no reason, and try to forego violence as long as possible.


This is exactly what Muammar Ghaddafi says about his paramilitary groups. How is this different from any real military dictatorship that exists now?

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 05:20 pm
@hamilton,

0 Replies
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 06:06 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
it opperates on the basis of peace. theres no evidence that they attack for no reason, and try to forego violence as long as possible.


This is exactly what Muammar Ghaddafi says about his paramilitary groups. How is this different from any real military dictatorship that exists now?



his paramilitary groups are not trained from birth to ensure no hatred, they are not taught the basics of peace before the basics of combat. jedi and these military groups are so unlike each other. the closest thing in starwars to ghaddafi and his troops is the trade federation and the sith.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 06:30 am
@hamilton,
Quote:
his paramilitary groups are not trained from birth to ensure no hatred, they are not taught the basics of peace before the basics of combat


Of course they are. Just ask them.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 08:12 am
@maxdancona,
the differences between the training that jedi and ghaddafi receave are very unalike. the jedi are counceled and brainwashed into using peace as often as possible. also, they go in as peacemakers and diplomats first. they arent the ones to incite conflict. they try to avoid it at all costs. theyare negotiators.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2011 07:27 pm
@hamilton,
Using peace as "often as possible" is a term with no meaning. Everyone says they use peace as "often as possible". If you are ever face to face with a religious fanatic brandishing a light saber, you might feel disagree with his view of "as often as possible".

Of course, in real life, peace is always possible. The Quakers for instance believe that violence is never necessary. Ghandi used peace as often as possible (which included using peace while being beaten sticks and even shot at), as did Martin Luther King (which included using peace while being attacked with dogs).

Anyone who tells you they use peace whenever possible while carrying a weapon is lying.

hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2011 06:05 am
@maxdancona,
they carried weapons because the people that were attacking them were trying to KILL them. also, when they were being attacked, notice how they only DEFLECTED the attacks on them. they didnt attack back unless they had no choice. also, the enemies had no lives. clones are clones, and unnatural things, while droids dont even have anything resembling a personality. when they kill them, its like clipping toe nails. also, the jedi had diplomatic immunity, that was broken by those who attacked them. killing a sith is like killing a wild beast that has no thought but to kill you. give me one example in the series when it would be unacceptable to draw a blade in starwars that they did.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2011 06:30 am
@hamilton,
Quote:
they didnt attack back unless they had no choice.


This is simply untrue. There is always a choice. There is never a time when you have to attack back. Examples are Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ.

Quote:
give me one example in the series when it would be unacceptable to draw a blade in starwars that they did.


Do you see the problem here? You are using the word "unacceptable". What is acceptable or not is a matter of opionion. Everyone will have a different opinion about what unacceptable is.

Do you think that there in the history of the world there has ever been a person who has "drawn a blade" who didn't believe it was acceptable? This is why I think that a deadly military force of religious fanatics is just a really bad idea.


hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2011 04:18 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
they didnt attack back unless they had no choice.


This is simply untrue. There is always a choice. There is never a time when you have to attack back. Examples are Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ.

Quote:
give me one example in the series when it would be unacceptable to draw a blade in starwars that they did.


Do you see the problem here? You are using the word "unacceptable". What is acceptable or not is a matter of opionion. Everyone will have a different opinion about what unacceptable is.

Do you think that there in the history of the world there has ever been a person who has "drawn a blade" who didn't believe it was acceptable? This is why I think that a deadly military force of religious fanatics is just a really bad idea.




tell that to the islams. but im not asking if the people who drew blades thought it acceptable. im asking if you can find a point in the series that you dont.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 07:30 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
In starwars, the Jedi seemed pretty golden. they had complete fairness, intelligence, and what ever. would this work as a world government?


Technically, they were not the government. The Star Wars government was the Galactic Senate. The Jedi were more like policemen who worked for the government.

But to answer your question, yes, they probably would. However, I'm not sure I like the idea of a world government. Better I think to have multiple governments so that all is not lost if a government goes bad (note Senator Palpatine).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2021 at 06:28:44