Jedi Kidnappers

[LordXantor]

I don't want to split hairs, and I doubt the specific law is conveniently written anywhere that we can see it, but my first instinct is that "Jedi have the right to take Force-Sensitive children into their custody" means that if the parents agree, the Jedi Order become legally responsible for the child.

If that is how it works, and they abide by the parents' decision, then all should be well.

 

If that law means that the Jedi can ignore the parents' wishes and take the kids anyway, then yeah, I'd be sickened by it too. Jorus C'baoth does that aboard Outbound Flight, and it is quite rightly presented as unreasonable, heavy-handed, and a hint to Obi-Wan that Jorus might be leaning towards the Dark Side.

Obi-Wan argues that if the parents say no, it should mean no.

 

In TJP was writen that they believe that's the best way and they must take children, Luke disagree with that. Badotans thinks similar (said that jedi arrived and kidnap) so in new canon they didn't change enything in that way.

Edited April 20, 2016 by LordXantor

[JediAkemi]

What is TJP?

[DallianWyrd]

A book called "The Jedi Path" ? =)

[BlazeTomahawk]

Even if they were not taken for training they would have to be watched. I've read "Carrie" and "Firestarter". I know what happens when kids with powers mix freely with normals

[casirabit]

What is TJP?

 

The Jedi Path and it explains it under Enlisting New Members which begins on page 142-147.

 

One specific point to note is on page 143

 

" The Jedi are Kidnapers"

An all too familiar accusation for Jedi Recruiters, this charge springs from the pain of emotional attachment. It is also technically false. Within the Republic, the Jedi Order has the legal authority to take custody of Force-sensitives and Masters have argued that the force's presence in a child indicates the child's consent to join the Order even before he or she is able to speak."

 

 

This is one thing I disagree with. I think it is arrogance on a part of a Jedi Master who believes this. They are putting themselves above the parents just because a child is force sensitive.

 

Emotional attachment-Who is not attached to their child or what child does not love their parents.

 

 

This is the one of the thing things I disagree with regarding the Jedi.

[JediAkemi]

An elevated midichlorian count means consenting to a specific life path before you can even speak?

And here I was crediting Jedi Masters with brains.

 

Surely only the most arrogant of jerkarse excuses for Jedi (like C'Baoth) actually believe that tripe. The proper Jedi should know better (like Obi-Wan does in Outbound Flight).

 

Yoda: Dark Rendez-vous has examples of children who were given to the Jedi to escape grinding poverty or to escape from a Dark Side family that had gone nuts and killed each other.

[MadDutchman]

An elevated midichlorian count means consenting to a specific life path before you can even speak?

And here I was crediting Jedi Masters with brains.

 

Surely only the most arrogant of jerkarse excuses for Jedi (like C'Baoth) actually believe that tripe. The proper Jedi should know better (like Obi-Wan does in Outbound Flight).

 

Yoda: Dark Rendez-vous has examples of children who were given to the Jedi to escape grinding poverty or to escape from a Dark Side family that had gone nuts and killed each other.

 

This is the nasty part about brainwashing/forced education in a specific ideology. You start accepting things as normal and completely rational even when they could be totally horrifying. They could otherwise be incredibly wise, intelligent and gentle individuals.

 

By accepting individuals when they are young and impressionable, they sacrifice the influx of new ideas that would challenge preconceived notions. Of course the Jedi don't want this, they feel their way is the right and only way. By Yoda's own admission, the Jedi were arrogant, and it led them to be "consumed by the dark side"

 

 

DISCLAIMER: The following uses the real life analogies of religion, politics and social structure, if you are sensitive in such areas, read at own risk.

 

We see it all the time in our own societies and history. For example, orthodox religions, where individuals or groups will deliberately ignore or denigrate evidence of something just because it doesn't conform to the preconceived notions of that particular group. Famous examples being the heliocentric model of the solar system and the resistance by the Catholic Church, or the more modern and ongoing debate between evolution, young and old Earth creationism etc.

It's a fine balance to strike, you need new ideas and old ones in order to have the important debates. To use political terms, if all we had were progressives, we'd be like a bunch of squirrels, charging after every new shiny social fad (for any Canadians here: Leap Manifesto). If all we had were conservatives, we wouldn't be getting anywhere at all, nothing would ever change.

 

Honestly, even if we could agree that the Jedi were not kidnapping, and all parents willingly give up their children, this is still a bad idea. For healthy development, children need to be exposed to different ideas. In most western societies (I can't speak for others, since I'm not very familiar with them), our children receive a certain set of ideologies from their parents, from their teachers/education materials, from their friends (who of course have very different upbringings by their parents) etc. Even if they stick hard and fast to the ideology of their parents, they are still challenged in that by others, they must defend that ideology to both peers and themselves, and they grow as a result.

Now what we see with the Jedi is a single ideology, introduced by the Masters. They do not have the ideology of their parents. Their peers/friends were all brought up in the same ideology. So far as we can tell, Jedi younglings have very little exposure to the outside world until they become Padawans, so friends on the "outside" is pretty much out of the question. All information from the outside is carefully filtered by the Masters. While the Jedi ideology promotes wisdom and calm thought, it only promotes such things within certain boundaries, and this gets perpetuated one generation to the next.

[Audoucet]

As usual, the main problem is people refusing to accept that the Dark Side isn't just a concept but a real thing in the world of Star Wars. They don't accept its corrupting nature, because when they are playing themselves, they keep their free will, since no developers will force a player character's choices, in a RPG.

 

So if you don't accept this basic Star Wars truth, well obviously you will always criticise the Jedi. I can't discuss with you, there is no point.

 

But if you accept this basic truth, then you have to understand that the most easiest way to access the Force, is through anger and the Dark Side. The Jedi training is necessary to avoid that.

[casirabit]

And training is going to guarantee you are not going to fall to the dark side?

[MadDutchman]

As usual, the main problem is people refusing to accept that the Dark Side isn't just a concept but a real thing in the world of Star Wars. They don't accept its corrupting nature, because when they are playing themselves, they keep their free will, since no developers will force a player character's choices, in a RPG.

 

So if you don't accept this basic Star Wars truth, well obviously you will always criticise the Jedi. I can't discuss with you, there is no point.

 

But if you accept this basic truth, then you have to understand that the most easiest way to access the Force, is through anger and the Dark Side. The Jedi training is necessary to avoid that.

 

"basic Star Wars truth." You know, this is exactly what I was talking about in my post above in regards to the dangers of orthodox dogma. THIS is the problem. Jedi training is NOT necessary, in either Legends or Canon, to avoid the dark side. It is a lie the Jedi have believed for millenia because no one ever challenged that belief.

 

Just as you refuse to discuss something counter to your own views.

[CrownofGold]

Think of The Jedi Order as Child Protective Services. The child is no longer in an environment that can provide the protection they need, from themselves and dark force users, as well as ensure that the children do not cause accidental/purposeful harm to their families and society at large.

 

The families of these force sensitive children cannot provide for them in a way that would lead to a proper quality of life due to their gifts. It's not that different than having an unstable home environment where the child is not receiving proper nutrition, upbringing, etc.

 

Just my two cents!

[casirabit]

Think of The Jedi Order as Child Protective Services. The child is no longer in an environment that can provide the protection they need, from themselves and dark force users, as well as ensure that the children do not cause accidental/purposeful harm to their families and society at large.

 

The families of these force sensitive children cannot provide for them in a way that would lead to a proper quality of life due to their gifts. It's not that different than having an unstable home environment where the child is not receiving proper nutrition, upbringing, etc.

 

Just my two cents!

 

Not really. With the Child Protective Services, a family can redeem themselves if they do some things to correct the situation and get their child back. Even while doing that the child is allowed some supervised visitation with the child. The family and the child are not completely cut off from one another.

 

The Jedi completely disallows any contact with the family.

Edited April 22, 2016 by casirabit

[Audoucet]

"basic Star Wars truth." You know, this is exactly what I was talking about in my post above in regards to the dangers of orthodox dogma. THIS is the problem. Jedi training is NOT necessary, in either Legends or Canon, to avoid the dark side. It is a lie the Jedi have believed for millenia because no one ever challenged that belief.

 

Just as you refuse to discuss something counter to your own views.

 

Yes, the existence of the Dark Side is a basic truth. Pretending that it doesn't exist is just like people saying that the first law of thermodynamics isn't necessarily true, and that maybe we can totally produce energy from nothing. You can say that if you want, but it's just ignorance, not opinion.

 

"It is a lie told by Jedi for millennia" Huhu. And, how do you know that ? Palpatine and Valkorion told ya ?

 

Jedi training isn't necessary ? Well, obviously, there are other solutions. Manaan has its own system. Bardotta and Dathomir too. "Do nothing", isn't one of them. And in the Republic, The Galactic Senate chose the Jedi solution.

 

A Force Sensitive, has to be taught self-control. Just like in reality, children have to receive an education. You must understand that the USA are -not-, the only free country in the world. In France, you don't have a choice about it, your children must receive a proper education, and if you choose to do it yourself, the state will actually go to your house to control what you are doing, and if you are incapable to satisfy your obligations, your child will, be taken from you. No "But I am a religious fundamentalist, and I don't want my child to go to the school/the hospital/the doctor". And he will be thaugt things you don't agree with. And, that is not kidnapping.

 

Jedi are so much respectful of the law, that Qui'Gon couldn't even take the freaking CHOOSEN ONE, from his slave master. Anakin wanted to go, his mother wanted to let him go, and still they couldn't take him because of jurisdiction. Who could have stopped them, if they wanted to kidnap him ? Jabba ? The Sandpeople ?

 

The point here is, the Galactic Republic, through its elected representatives, chose an education system for Force Sensitive. You can think that it's not the best way, why not. But saying that it's kidnapping is just utterly hypocrite and false.

[Audoucet]

Not really. With the Child Protective Services, a family can redeem themselves if they do some things to correct the situation and get their child back. Even while doing that the child is allowed some supervised visitation with the child. The family and the child are not completely cut off from one another.

 

The Jedi completely disallows any contact with the family.

 

It depends on your source... And the time period...

[casirabit]

Jedi are so much respectful of the law, that Qui'Gon couldn't even take the freaking CHOOSEN ONE, from his slave master. Anakin wanted to go, his mother wanted to let him go, and still they couldn't take him because of jurisdiction. Who could have stopped them, if they wanted to kidnap him ? Jabba ? The Sandpeople ?.

 

 

Not all Jedi Masters were respectful of the law as the Jedi Path clearly indicates: (page 143)

 

Masters have argued that the force's presence in a child indicates the child's consent to join the Order even before he or she is able to speak."

 

How can a child even consent if they are unable to speak?

Edited April 22, 2016 by casirabit

[JediAkemi]

Oddly, Ki-Adi Mundi seems to be the exception to the idea that you can't learn 'Alter' classified skills (telekinesis, mind tricks, lightning etc) without help.

As I said before, in the majority of cases, clueless Force Sensitives usually only manifest 'Control' (improving their bodies) or 'Sense' (precognition and perception) skills before they get any training. At least that's how it used to be.

 

Even Rey. She may or may not have had any training before she was dumped on Jakuu, but all her conscious Force Use that we see came after finding Luke's lightsabre and then resisting not-Jacen's mind probe.

 

The chief danger of undiscovered Force Sensitive kids is (or used to be) them getting snapped up by someone else rather than them developing spontaneous telekinesis.

[MadDutchman]

Yes, the existence of the Dark Side is a basic truth. Pretending that it doesn't exist is just like people saying that the first law of thermodynamics isn't necessarily true, and that maybe we can totally produce energy from nothing. You can say that if you want, but it's just ignorance, not opinion.

 

"It is a lie told by Jedi for millennia" Huhu. And, how do you know that ? Palpatine and Valkorion told ya ?

 

Jedi training isn't necessary ? Well, obviously, there are other solutions. Manaan has its own system. Bardotta and Dathomir too. "Do nothing", isn't one of them. And in the Republic, The Galactic Senate chose the Jedi solution.

 

A Force Sensitive, has to be taught self-control. Just like in reality, children have to receive an education. You must understand that the USA are -not-, the only free country in the world. In France, you don't have a choice about it, your children must receive a proper education, and if you choose to do it yourself, the state will actually go to your house to control what you are doing, and if you are incapable to satisfy your obligations, your child will, be taken from you. No "But I am a religious fundamentalist, and I don't want my child to go to the school/the hospital/the doctor". And he will be thaugt things you don't agree with. And, that is not kidnapping.

 

Jedi are so much respectful of the law, that Qui'Gon couldn't even take the freaking CHOOSEN ONE, from his slave master. Anakin wanted to go, his mother wanted to let him go, and still they couldn't take him because of jurisdiction. Who could have stopped them, if they wanted to kidnap him ? Jabba ? The Sandpeople ?

 

The point here is, the Galactic Republic, through its elected representatives, chose an education system for Force Sensitive. You can think that it's not the best way, why not. But saying that it's kidnapping is just utterly hypocrite and false.

 

It's not the existence of the dark side that is in question (though in the old EU it was something debated), it's the notion that without Jedi training, they'll be at extreme risk of falling.

 

I know it's been millenia because Jedi have been doing this for millenia, at least in Legends.

 

I'm also not arguing over the term kidnapping. I don't really care. I'm arguing whether it is wrong. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Canadian Residential Schools were a perfectly legal, state sanctioned education system. Anyone in their right mind nowadays would tell you what happened there was wrong. And there are an eerily large number of correlations between the methodologies of the Jedi Order and those schools.

 

You also seem to be assuming that failure to formally study with the Force will automatically lead to the dark side. This simply makes no sense at all. Rey did just fine, hell she didn't even know the Force existed. Ezra was doing fine before Kanan showed up, and he was even using the Force subconsciously. Luke did fine, pretty much all the first NJO Jedi did fine if you want to include Legends stuff, some of which were pretty old when they started training.

[Audoucet]

Well I guess that when The Force Awakens, it was dormant just before. The chick just had to KNOW she was a potential Jedi, and she could already mind control storm troopers and beat a Sith lord.

 

In my opinion, it's obvious that the apparent lack of power of Ezra, Luke and Rey, is just because they didn't even know the existence of the Force. On the other hand, in Clone Wars, you can see a baby using powerful telekinesis to play with his toys. I think it's different, in a world where everybody KNOWS, it's possible.

 

About the Canadian thingy, well I think it's a bad example, for the simple reason that it's a judgement of value. I am firmly convinced that it would have been an improvement in long-term, and certainly not something inherently wrong.

 

And about the NJO, TFA trumps Legends, and the NJO fell to the Dark Side so freaking hard that Luke started to look for the first Temple to know what he did wrong, so...

Edited April 22, 2016 by Audoucet

[Ramalina]

About the Canadian thingy, well I think it's a bad example, for the simple reason that it's a judgement of value. I am firmly convinced that it would have been an improvement in long-term, and certainly not something inherently wrong.

 

If French children were treated in that way you would be shrieking about crimes against humanity.

 

France has some dark sins from the days of colonialism, but here in North America we've got more and darker.

 

In general we try to avoid thinking about those parts of the past on both sides of the Atlantic, but we have enough survivors and descendants of survivors of our atrocities over here that it is not as easy to pretend that things didn't really happen or weren't really that bad. If nothing else, the lawsuits provide very thorough documentation.

 

I think French historians are also better at pretending things they dislike didn't happen than American and Canadian historians are. There are regular battles over textbooks in the South and in the West because historians keep including parts of our history that some of the politicians would like to disappear. After all, if we made the people in question almost entirely disappear, why not make the evidence disappear too? If the kids learn it in school they might get the silly notion that their ancestors enthusiastically engaged in genocide. Just because those ancestors did enthusiastically engage in genocide is no reason to teach about it right? We could pretend the natives just magically disappeared, or even better, that they were so nice that they just gave us the land as a gift and then left.

 

I suppose it's not polite to point it out, but in France (and Switzerland where my father is from), there is an unexamined background level of racism that is not socially acceptable in large parts of the US and Canada. I don't think it's deliberate or malicious, but a product a much less diverse society were there is less reason to examine old attitudes. That slowness to change helps maintain a rich and deeply rooted sense of tradition in the culture, but some of the traditional views are quite ugly ones.

 

It can make family gatherings somewhat interesting, because there are topics of conversation that are as prone to explosion as a minefield.

 

You definitely have some of that in your tone Audoucet, and it's really not that bad in your case, I have family that are far worse. Just be aware that with some Americans and Canadians, especially ones with Native family or friends, it would be enough to set off a most spectacular explosion of anger. Given the history, a very well justified anger.

 

You may not fully appreciate the level of offense, but it is similar to attending prayer at a Synagogue while wearing a Third Reich swastika armband.

[Audoucet]

You definitely have some of that in your tone Audoucet, and it's really not that bad in your case, I have family that are far worse. Just be aware that with some Americans and Canadians, especially ones with Native family or friends, it would be enough to set off a most spectacular explosion of anger. Given the history, a very well justified anger.

 

You may not fully appreciate the level of offense, but it is similar to attending prayer at a Synagogue while wearing a Third Reich swastika armband.

 

I like your last example. I have for a long time proposed to some people like you, to actually make a little experiment. Me going in a synagogue with a Nazi costume, and you in a Mosque, with an Israeli costume.

 

I wouldn't mind, going in a synagogue with a Nazi costume. Because I know that I wouldn't be in physical danger. They are not that kind of people. But you would certainly not survive the experience in the Mosque.

 

The problem with your whole argument, is that you think that I care about political correctness and accusations of racism. I don't, and I don't care if what I think offenses somebody. France isn't traditionally a communitarian country, We are Traditionally pro-assimilation. You are NOT black, you are FRENCH. you are not muslim, you are FRENCH. And when it is not enforced, like today, well you get widespread hate and racism against the French people. Which ends up with the National Front as a favourite for the next presidential election (Not that I complain about that by the way), and racist holiday camps forbidden to white people.

 

So yeah, I rest my case, the argument about forced education being bad is a very subjective point of view.

[MadDutchman]

I like your last example. I have for a long time proposed to some people like you, to actually make a little experiment. Me going in a synagogue with a Nazi costume, and you in a Mosque, with an Israeli costume.

 

I wouldn't mind, going in a synagogue with a Nazi costume. Because I know that I wouldn't be in physical danger. They are not that kind of people. But you would certainly not survive the experience in the Mosque.

 

The problem with your whole argument, is that you think that I care about political correctness and accusations of racism. I don't, and I don't care if what I think offenses somebody. France isn't traditionally a communitarian country, We are Traditionally pro-assimilation. You are NOT black, you are FRENCH. you are not muslim, you are FRENCH. And when it is not enforced, like today, well you get widespread hate and racism against the French people. Which ends up with the National Front as a favourite for the next presidential election (Not that I complain about that by the way), and racist holiday camps forbidden to white people.

 

So yeah, I rest my case, the argument about forced education being bad is a very subjective point of view.

 

"And when it is not enforced, like today, well you get widespread hate and racism against the French people"

 

This is the crux of the matter. As a counter example, Canada has what is often called a mosaic model of multi-culturalism, or integration rather than assimilation. You are a part of the larger collective that is Canada, however you are also a part of the community to which you are born or identify with. People from Quebec identify with their French heritage, when asked what they are, most will answer French Canadian. Quebec, and other provinces to a lesser extent, all have different cultures and social norms. This of course has lead to many disagreements. In the past, these often became hateful and violent. When they stopped being hateful and violent is when the government stopped trying to assimilate them. Quebec still bickers with the government all the time, but it isn't hateful or rascist. At worst it's greed on one side or another.

 

Of course, the system is messy and complicated. Differences in education systems between provinces, different tax laws, different legal drinking ages etc. make for an interesting time sometimes. But it is peaceful, and in my opinion, worth the hassle.

 

Of course, this isn't a very convenient narrative for nationalists. How do you stir up national pride when people only associate part of themselves with that nation? And what it means to be a part of that nation can change dramatically from place to place? And when these ideas aren't even being communicated to you in the same languages?

 

 

You mention in France holiday camps for non whites only. This is entirely expected in a forced assimilation system, and similar things have happened over and over again in such systems. It is simple human nature, you are trying to take away part of their identity and people don't want to give that up and will resist by creating "safe" places for themselves to practice their identity. Of course these kinds of environments become hot beds of dissent, as is the case whenever a large group of like minded people come together with similar grievances.

 

So is our opinion of forced education subjective? of course. Just like yourself, we are products of our history. Here in Canada, we saw only endless conflict and tension come as a result of forced assimilation. France has a much longer history, coming from times when you could just expel everyone you didn't like from your country (ex. Louis XIV issuing the Edict of Fontainebleau), and this will have considerable influence on all our points of view.

 

Who knows, maybe France has found a way of doing it without creating their own worst enemy. Do I believe it? I'm afraid not, I've studied too much history and seen this scenario play out too many times. I do honestly hope it works out in the end though, France has had a rough time lately.

[Audoucet]

"It is simple human nature, you are trying to take away part of their identity and people don't want to give that up and will resist by creating "safe" places for themselves to practice their identity.

 

Which is illegitimate SJW crap, and will get them out of the country real soon, if the diplomatic way works.

 

As you see, what you think is the "good way", is a completely anglo-saxon mindset, certainly not an universal one. Not even an accidental one.

 

In Europe, outside of the American state of England, we don't think like that.

 

So when you say that the Jedi are evil because of forced education, you are really just saying that they are not American.

[JediAkemi]

Fascinating as this real-world politics stuff is, it isn't Star Wars

[MadDutchman]

Which is illegitimate SJW crap, and will get them out of the country real soon, if the diplomatic way works.

 

As you see, what you think is the "good way", is a completely anglo-saxon mindset, certainly not an universal one. Not even an accidental one.

 

In Europe, outside of the American state of England, we don't think like that.

 

So when you say that the Jedi are evil because of forced education, you are really just saying that they are not American.

 

I don't think anglo-saxon is the right term here, but whatever.

 

As I stated, I am well aware my opinion is based on the history of where I live. I should also mention this is hardly a new idea, and did not originate in the Americas. Ironically, the first great empire (that I can think of off the top of my head) that practiced some version of this ideology was the (Muslim) Ottoman Empire. During the height of their power, they were highly (relatively speaking for the times) tolerant of foreigners, allowing Christians, Jews (something most European nations wouldn't even do) and others to live, work and practice their religion peacefully. Muslims had preferential treatment naturally, but it was a very effective system compared to the European powers at the time. Eventually this system decayed along with the rest of the Empire primarily in the 19th century.

Or for another example a bit closer to home, the Netherlands, after their separation from Spain in the 16th century, adopted a position of religious tolerance due to their own history of religious persecution under Spain (Spain being Catholic and the Netherlands becoming largely Protestant during the Reformation). This led to a great many Jews, having been expelled (or forcibly "converted") by Spain, France and many of the states in the Holy Roman Empire migrating there, where they could openly practice their beliefs. Funny thing about Europe at the time is that because Jews were not allowed to be farmers (farming was considered to be the honourable, manly occupation and means of supporting a family, and as such it should be reserved for for good Christians), they became money lenders, physicians and skilled craftsmen. So what the Netherlands found themselves with was an economy with access to enormous amounts of credit, and a sudden influx of skilled labour. This was a major contributing factor in the emergence of the Dutch Golden Age spanning the 17th century.

And the Dutch can hardly be called anglo-saxon. Actually, the Dutch probably had more of an influence on England than the other way around thanks to William of Orange, Prince of the Dutch Republic and King of England (as William III).

 

In both of these examples, the foreigners (in this case, more religious foreigners than national foreigners as we would think of them now, since nationhood as we understand it is actually a fairly recent idea) had limitations, of some sort or another, placed on them by the government. What was conspicuously lacking however, was a dedicated system of assimilationist policies, such as Spain was famous for.

 

 

On the other side of the issue of course are those who did adopt assimilationist policies during that time period, specifically our old friends Spain and France.

 

To start off with, lets look at an example from France. Jews had been expelled and recalled so many times throughout medieval times in France you might think they'd be getting whiplash, so I'll focus on one specific case, specifically the expulsion from Provence in the early 16th century by Louis XII. As far as evictions go it was pretty simple, convert to Christianity or get out. Most of course left, taking a decent chunk of the financial sector with them. In order to make up for this lost revenue, those who did stay and convert were subject to a "neophyte tax" (which was pretty stupid thing to do).

It was a very similar story in Spain in the late 15th century, convert or get out. Some converted, or "converted" becoming the crypto-Jews, and others dispersed. An interesting tidbit on this one in particular is that after learning of the expulsion, the Ottoman Sultan dispatched the Ottoman Navy to transport the departing Jews to Ottoman lands, where they took refuge (and brought their skills with them).

 

 

As mentioned briefly above, these cases are largely religious in nature, since that is what mattered at the time. Nationalism as we would recognize it didn't really become a thing until the 18th century, with probably the first nationalistic "surge" being the French Revolution.

 

Modern France pretty much holds a "become French or get out/suffer the consequences" policy right now, with what "French" means of course being decided by the state. Ironically France was one of the original champions of liberalism (what would now likely be recognized more as libertarianism or modern conservatism) and free thought.

 

And history repeats itself.

 

 

 

My final word of advice on the matter (since we've gotten a little off topic here) is to beware classifications of ideas into national "mindsets," you don't have to go too far back in history to realize just how fluid those are. Judge an argument based on facts and precedent (so far as they are known), not where it originates.

Regardless of whether you agree with my conclusions here, avoiding labels and broad classification are important in any academic debate.

[Audoucet]

Fascinating as this real-world politics stuff is, it isn't Star Wars

 

Indeed. But when someone brings Canadian education policy as an argument, I can't just ignore it and give up the argument.

 

As you see in MadDutchman last post, some people can't help themselves, they have two bring SJW ignorant crap like "The same way of forcing Jews and Christians to pay for the lives and to be deprived of most of their liberties was a totally great and human system". They think that they are Rightful, and that they can pretty much terrorise you into agreeing with them, with accusations of racism and such. I make a point not to let them monopolise the debate, with their facism. Because people must be aware that it's okay to think differently. It's okay to treat black and others like human beings, and not like weak minorities. Nationalism is coming back, and as much as I try not to talk about it on gaming forums, I will never let people freely attacking nationalism, without offering a counter argument to protect what I believe to be the best, most human way to fight intolerance.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Audoucet