20 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Except there is objective studies that have shown that certain forms of behavior ARE, objectively better on the societal level, than others. Sure, some people can say that "owning people as property isn't bad, because we treat them well." But when people actually look at the factors for societal health, and compare societies that have different methods of operation, there are some very clear indicators. It's not just a case of "we think this way of behaving is better" in many cases it actually IS better.

We're not actually disagreeing on that. Yes, by a lot of people's metric, you'll probably have a more desirable society if it's based on the social model embraced by most western countries today, but that doesn't mean that i.e. China can't be a pretty comfortable place to live too, if you get my point. (And for the record, I just pulled China out of the air as an example, let's not get sidetracked into real world matters.)

20 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Is your personal perspective actually taking into consideration the actions of the Sith? I mean, if you are just implying that you don't like the terms "good and evil" at all, ok fine, that's just a preference of terminology. But I mean, it's pretty clear that the imagery used for the Sith and the Empire, and basically all of the badguys in the OT, were heavily influenced by Nazi imagery. And the acts of the Sith, in the material published, are hard to say they were good actions, in any sense. Enslaving entire planets, and sometimes entire species to their will through trickery and martial force. Conducting medical experiments on unwilling subjects to make disposable foot soldiers in their Imperial Army. Casually killing people for personal gain, or just out of petty emotions, or just for the lulz of it. Killing billions in their multiple wars of conquest in a galactic society. There isn't really a lot of "certain point of view" justification that makes these actions, when they were pretty much all unprovoked, even remotely "not evil."

Sorry, you misread what I meant to say. I don't dispute that the way the Sith have been protrayed in the currently available material, paints them in a fairly dark light. But my point is that while I don't dispute that the Sith as portrayed commit reprehensible, heinous acts, I don't believe that the Sith Code on its own says that the practitioner must behave in such a way. It doesn't say "Thou Shalt Murder". It can rather be interpreted as "Don't let murder get in the way of your enlightenment". At least as I read it.

20 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Yeah, the "they take children against their will" thing is relatively new information to me, and I think it might just be one author's take on how the Jedi behave, and is probably not something that is actually supported by the majority of authors of the EU, and probably not by Lucas either. I suspect he never even read the material, that has now become the lynchpin in the debate about why the Jedi are "bad".

As to the point of "taking kids, even willing, and putting them into a society that teaches them to deny their emotions is absolutely not a good way to raise healthy, mentally stable children" Yes, that is correct. NOW, in 2017, after decades of social studies into human development, and in particular children development, we've learned that isolating children from a nurturing upbringing, has a high tendency to cause emotional and mental issues later in life. Back in the 70's and early 80's (and 90's), when the bulk of all this EU material was being churned out by anyone with a typewriter, we didn't know that as clearly. So I find it a bit unfair to blame the fictional society for the way it was presented, based on the real world time period in which it was birthed. By that logic, everything from previous eras of humanity have to be considered bad, because at that time they condoned some other form of negative social behavior. Retconning all of human entertainment into the "bad" category, by virtue of being written in a less-enlightened time. Irrespective of what the story is trying to convey in and of itself.

We're always evaluating things based on our current knowledge and societal and cultural values. No, it's not fair to say that the Jedi are evil because they took young children away from their parentc and put them through "jedi school", when the original movies were made at a time where we didn't know the potential effects on their psyche that we know is the case today. Also, we can't necessarily use our reality as a yardstick here, because it's a fictional universe, and kids might react different in the Star Wars universe, just like you can have stuff like The Force, lightsabers, artificial gravity onboard space ships etc. But since we are comparing the morality of Star Wars using our own terms, then we also have to accept that assuming things work more or less like our world, then it's not healthy to remove small kids from their parents. I believe that Yoda also comments somewhere that that practice might not have been the for the best.

20 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

All we can do, is go by the examples presented in the published material. And so far, every person who has embraced the Sith philosophy, embraces evil acts. And while it might not say "Thou shalt murder your rivals" in their commandments, that was definitely how it was taught. In SWTOR, the upper members of the Sith Empire, frequently tell you to go kill X because he's a problem, and we'd rather he were just removed. You yourself have the option to kill rivals, simply for personal gain and petty rivalry, and these acts are approved and even embraced by the Sith society.

So yeah, in theory there could be someone out there that believes the Sith philosophy, but doesn't do the acts they encourage and condone, but so far, they haven't been presented.

Not disputing what you say here. Based on what's written so far, the Sith embraces acts that we traditionally today considder to be "evil". However, let's agree that A) the Republic side also have you kill people for various reasons, and B) movies and games that revolve around armed conflict and problems that typically require some form of combat to solve, is not necessarily representative of the entire universe. Just think about our reality. Yes, you have wars, murders etc., but for the majority of people here on Earth, those things isn't something that make a regular appearance in everyday life. And you don't see many successful games or movies about someone going about their regular everyday business, portraying lives that in every way resemble our own. Sitcom series also tend to focus on unusual and interesting/entertaining situation rather than X and Y having dinner, clearing off the plates and then sitting down in front of the TV or with a book, without talking for the rest of the movie. My point is, that in a "real" universe, you have an awful lot of other things going on, which you will never see or focus on in the movies, games, books, etc.

20 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Except the outcome is not set from the beginning, even in the original trilogy. It was the entire emotional drive of the Luke/Vader plot arc. This guy, this living embodiment of the Sith ideal, and the Dark Side. The faceless, emotionless, attack dog to the Dark Emperor of the Dark Side, who killed countless people in the name of personal ambition and gain, and embracing his hatred and lashing out at others, was able to turn away from that way of living, and redeem himself . The actions, and the morality weren't grey themselves, the persons rationale and motivations for choosing their path, and deciding if they could even still turn from that path they set long ago, that was the only shade of grey there was.

You missed my point. I'm not talking about the movies or the storyline(s). I'm talking about the general concept of debating whether or not a given person/creature/action is or isn't evil. In a setting where the concepts of good and evil are objective concepts debating whether or not something is evil is pointless, as it's already determined. Think about i.e. "Detect Evil" in D&D. If someone has an evil alignment in those games, said spell will say they are evil when it's cast (unless their alignment is somehow masked), regardless of whether they are currently nursing a baby or roasting a baby. You and I could also debate whether or not we can go outside and flap our arms and then fly. Undeniable simple fact says we can't, due to how physics and biomechanics work on our planet for the present. Hence it's a pointless debate, as the result ("No, we can't fly") is given in advance. Hence, in order for a debate like this to be interesting, we have to assume that morality is subjective, for the purpose of the discussion. Hope that made more sense.

38 minutes ago, Count Cenex de Solaan said:

Sorry, you misread what I meant to say. I don't dispute that the way the Sith have been protrayed in the currently available material, paints them in a fairly dark light. But my point is that while I don't dispute that the Sith as portrayed commit reprehensible, heinous acts, I don't believe that the Sith Code on its own says that the practitioner must behave in such a way. It doesn't say "Thou Shalt Murder". It can rather be interpreted as "Don't let murder get in the way of your enlightenment". At least as I read it.

I know what you were meaning to say, my point is that it's fairly impossible to divorce a persons actions from their belief system. Our beliefs don't live in a vacuum, and color what we do. Sure, their holy book might not specifically say "Thou shalt Force Choke a Bit**" , but their interpretation of the teachings, reinforced by their personal interactions with each other, with that ethos as a frame of reference, most definitely compel them to go around Force Choking a Bit**. Given that most religious texts are frustratingly nebulous in their wording, leaving them wonderfully open to interpretation, to say they are acting that way because of something other than the single driving philosophy and dogma of their life, seems a bit odd to me.

42 minutes ago, Count Cenex de Solaan said:

We're always evaluating things based on our current knowledge and societal and cultural values. No, it's not fair to say that the Jedi are evil because they took young children away from their parentc and put them through "jedi school", when the original movies were made at a time where we didn't know the potential effects on their psyche that we know is the case today. Also, we can't necessarily use our reality as a yardstick here, because it's a fictional universe, and kids might react different in the Star Wars universe, just like you can have stuff like The Force, lightsabers, artificial gravity onboard space ships etc. But since we are comparing the morality of Star Wars using our own terms, then we also have to accept that assuming things work more or less like our world, then it's not healthy to remove small kids from their parents. I believe that Yoda also comments somewhere that that practice might not have been the for the best.

I agree it's not healthy to remove kids from their parents, my only point is that I think we should give the issue something of a pass, since the time period it was created, wasn't aware this was a bad idea. It simply wasn't even a social issue that the majority of society even considered, due to other issues being more prominent in their minds, like the Vietnam War in the case of George Lucas. To condemn a work of fiction, for the lack of understanding of the creator, who is a storyteller, and not a pediatric social/psychological expert, seems unfair, to both the creator and his work of fiction.

It's along the lines of some of the arguments I've seen regarding LOTR, and people saying things like "Aragorn is a racist patriarch of the white power dynamic and the divine right to rule of royal bloodlines!" because at the time it was written Tolkien was likely something of an unintentional racist (or maybe intentional, I don't know, never met the guy). But it's unfair I think, to then vilify Aragorn, when the point of his character, and the creation of him, was to be a symbol of the positive sides of a hero. That's why he was a protagonist of the story. Sure, Tolkien might've overlooked the fact that the badguys seemed to be coded as non-white, but that's hardly Aragorn's fault. What the character of Aragorn stood for, was compassion and fairness for all. To me, the Jedi are the same way, sure, NOW, we know that a fundamental part of their design might be a bit questionable. To then use that fact to try and tear them down I think is a bit of retconning deconstruction, and overlooks the spirit of the initial intent.

1 hour ago, Count Cenex de Solaan said:

Not disputing what you say here. Based on what's written so far, the Sith embraces acts that we traditionally today considder to be "evil". However, let's agree that A) the Republic side also have you kill people for various reasons, and B) movies and games that revolve around armed conflict and problems that typically require some form of combat to solve, is not necessarily representative of the entire universe. Just think about our reality. Yes, you have wars, murders etc., but for the majority of people here on Earth, those things isn't something that make a regular appearance in everyday life. And you don't see many successful games or movies about someone going about their regular everyday business, portraying lives that in every way resemble our own. Sitcom series also tend to focus on unusual and interesting/entertaining situation rather than X and Y having dinner, clearing off the plates and then sitting down in front of the TV or with a book, without talking for the rest of the movie. My point is, that in a "real" universe, you have an awful lot of other things going on, which you will never see or focus on in the movies, games, books, etc.

A) Yes they did, but to the best of my knowledge, at least based on the material provided, they would do so in a reactionary manner, due to an outside aggressor. Which, in most societies, puts them at least somewhat higher up on the morality scale, to the person who instigated the conflict. To bring the scale down to a personal level, in general, killing someone unwarranted is considered illegal, however killing someone in self-defense, is generally not illegal, and is considered understandable, if unfortunate.
B)Correct, stories tend to focus on action.

My issue with this though, is mostly based on the group that the Sith, and the Empire are both mostly based on, the Nazis. Given how much imagery, and societal structure they took whole cloth from that time period in German society, the comparison is a fairly safe one I think. And aside from a subset of our culture, who seem to think Nazi's were pretty cool, I can't recall anyone saying things like "Sure, the Nazi's might've killed millions of people in a war for domination, fueled by arrogance and bigotry, but they had some good things to their society too!" The level of atrocity they inflicted on the world, overshadows, and eclipses anything some random member of their society might've done.

And I'm talking about people who are actually part of that society, not people like Mr. Schindler, who were actively working against the soceity they were a part of.

But anyway, I think I've talked enough about fictional space Nazi's in comparison to real Nazi's about a galaxy far far away.

1 hour ago, Count Cenex de Solaan said:

You missed my point. I'm not talking about the movies or the storyline(s). I'm talking about the general concept of debating whether or not a given person/creature/action is or isn't evil. In a setting where the concepts of good and evil are objective concepts debating whether or not something is evil is pointless, as it's already determined. Think about i.e. "Detect Evil" in D&D. If someone has an evil alignment in those games, said spell will say they are evil when it's cast (unless their alignment is somehow masked), regardless of whether they are currently nursing a baby or roasting a baby. You and I could also debate whether or not we can go outside and flap our arms and then fly. Undeniable simple fact says we can't, due to how physics and biomechanics work on our planet for the present. Hence it's a pointless debate, as the result ("No, we can't fly") is given in advance. Hence, in order for a debate like this to be interesting, we have to assume that morality is subjective, for the purpose of the discussion. Hope that made more sense.

I missed one bit, sorry.

But you were specifically talking about the movies. I mean, you said in the part I quoted, that it's pointless to debate morality in the Original Trilogy, because it was set in stone. My point is that it very clearly wasn't at all set in stone. If it was set in stone, then Luke would never have been able to be tempted by the Dark Side, and Vader would never have turned back to the Light. They would've just stayed where they were, with no change, no conflict.

And comparing flying to "I'm going to choose to not be an a$$hole anymore" are a little odd things to compare. One isn't possible (at least not without a jetpack, which both realities have ) , the other is a personal choice on how to behave and how to live your life. The first is difficult without equipment, the second is something people do every day.

That Jedi start out as young kids given into the care of the Order was only established in Phantom Menace. Why are you guys talking as if that is an artifact of the 70s/80s?

On 3.10.2017 at 5:19 PM, KungFuFerret said:

It's like getting mad at one of the victims of JigSaw, who was told "chop off that person's arm if you want to live, or I will kill you." Blaming the victim for having to do what they had to, in order to survive, is missing the fact that JigSaw is the real criminal here, setting up these situations, and then forcing people to make terrible choices.

And Yoda would disagree with you, he blamed the jedi hybris and not old man Palpatine for the downfall of the jedi order. And rightfully so. They had the option between terrible choices AND they did screw up their choice. Without the jedi involvement into the war the separatists would have just separated from the republic. It's not like their Senate was not a democratic entity either.

2 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

And Yoda would disagree with you, he blamed the jedi hybris and not old man Palpatine for the downfall of the jedi order. And rightfully so. They had the option between terrible choices AND they did screw up their choice. Without the jedi involvement into the war the separatists would have just separated from the republic. It's not like their Senate was not a democratic entity either.

The seperatists weren't "just separating from the republic" they were actively attacking planets, putting them under direct military control and embargo, then lying about it in the senate. Plus just attacking planets wholesale later on in the conflict. And they were being led by a Sith Lord (2 technically) that were clearly using the conflict to further destabilize the region, in a grab for power. Palpatine was clearly pushing them along the course HE wanted, and that course wasn't going to just end with a handful of planets breaking away. He was using them to draw out the Jedi, and to use the conflict to increase his position within the Senate.

Now if you want to say the Jedi were kind of dumb, for not looking into some very suspicious plot threads, *cough* Clones being started by a Jedi Master 10 years ago that was apparently dead *cough cough*, then I'd be fine with that. But I still blame that more on Lucas being a terrible writer when it comes to intrigue, and leaving HUGE plot threads just dangling, that make the protagonist order look like a bunch of idiots. But that's hardly the fictional order's fault.

21 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I know what you were meaning to say, my point is that it's fairly impossible to divorce a persons actions from their belief system. Our beliefs don't live in a vacuum, and color what we do. Sure, their holy book might not specifically say "Thou shalt Force Choke a Bit**" , but their interpretation of the teachings, reinforced by their personal interactions with each other, with that ethos as a frame of reference, most definitely compel them to go around Force Choking a Bit**. Given that most religious texts are frustratingly nebulous in their wording, leaving them wonderfully open to interpretation, to say they are acting that way because of something other than the single driving philosophy and dogma of their life, seems a bit odd to me.

Religious texts are typically vague, contradictory and open to interpretation. Just take the Bible or the Koran (don't know if that's spelled right...). You have followers of both sets of scripture who with their respective religious text in hand will argue either for or against violence against other people in the same specific set of circumstances. And that's where culture and the teacher comes in. Now I'm tempted to say that Sith culture and teaching tradition is more responsible for the portrayed violence that's associated with the Sith, than the actual Sith Code itself. But as we don't actually have the "actual religious texts/holocrons" and teachers available to look at, that is likely to always be a matter of guesswork on our part.

21 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I agree it's not healthy to remove kids from their parents, my only point is that I think we should give the issue something of a pass, since the time period it was created, wasn't aware this was a bad idea. It simply wasn't even a social issue that the majority of society even considered, due to other issues being more prominent in their minds, like the Vietnam War in the case of George Lucas. To condemn a work of fiction, for the lack of understanding of the creator, who is a storyteller, and not a pediatric social/psychological expert, seems unfair, to both the creator and his work of fiction.

It's along the lines of some of the arguments I've seen regarding LOTR, and people saying things like "Aragorn is a racist patriarch of the white power dynamic and the divine right to rule of royal bloodlines!" because at the time it was written Tolkien was likely something of an unintentional racist (or maybe intentional, I don't know, never met the guy). But it's unfair I think, to then vilify Aragorn, when the point of his character, and the creation of him, was to be a symbol of the positive sides of a hero. That's why he was a protagonist of the story. Sure, Tolkien might've overlooked the fact that the badguys seemed to be coded as non-white, but that's hardly Aragorn's fault. What the character of Aragorn stood for, was compassion and fairness for all. To me, the Jedi are the same way, sure, NOW, we know that a fundamental part of their design might be a bit questionable. To then use that fact to try and tear them down I think is a bit of retconning deconstruction, and overlooks the spirit of the initial intent.

I don't disagree as such, and I don't really hold it agains the Jedi that they put little kids through "Jedi school", away from their parents. However, that point isn't my only reason for saying that I don't considder the Jedi to be infalible "white knights", but rather quite falible individuals who are members of an organization that is subject to hubris, bad judgement etc. Plus, I'll argue that when you use the Force to help ensure that you get the outcome you desire in a particular situation (not just in combat), I'd say that you are threading a morally questionable path, even if your intentions are good.

21 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

A) Yes they did, but to the best of my knowledge, at least based on the material provided, they would do so in a reactionary manner, due to an outside aggressor. Which, in most societies, puts them at least somewhat higher up on the morality scale, to the person who instigated the conflict. To bring the scale down to a personal level, in general, killing someone unwarranted is considered illegal, however killing someone in self-defense, is generally not illegal, and is considered understandable, if unfortunate.

To be honest, it's been too long since I've played any of the relevant games, or read any of the relevant EU books to be able to remember any examples either way, to be honest. But I'll agree that it's more probable that you will be sent to kill someone that's causing a problem by someone in the Sith society, than by someone in the Republic society.

21 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

But anyway, I think I've talked enough about fictional space Nazi's in comparison to real Nazi's about a galaxy far far away.

Agreed. In general I'm rarely a great fan of making comparisons between fictional organizations/societies and real world ones, except at the most abstract level. Interestingly enough I've never actually considdered the Star Wars Empire or Sith Empire to be comparable to Nazi Germany.

24 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

The seperatists weren't "just separating from the republic" they were actively attacking planets, putting them under direct military control and embargo, then lying about it in the senate. Plus just attacking planets wholesale later on in the conflict. And they were being led by a Sith Lord (2 technically) that were clearly using the conflict to further destabilize the region, in a grab for power. Palpatine was clearly pushing them along the course HE wanted, and that course wasn't going to just end with a handful of planets breaking away. He was using them to draw out the Jedi, and to use the conflict to increase his position within the Senate.

I think that's actually only a partial truth. In the Phantom Menace, the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was actually founded in a "legitimate" trade dispute between Naboo and the Trade Federation, and if it wasn't for Palpatine, it would have stayed that way. The armed invasion of Naboo only happens because of Palpatine. I will, however, agree with you that the Clone War comes about due to the manipulations of Palpatine and possibly more so his master Darth Plagueis (check the book Darth Plagueis). The ultimate goal isn't to put Palpatine in power, but rather the same goal as had driven the Sith since the beginning, namely the destruction fo the Jedi order. Plunging the galaxy into a war between the Separatistes with their mechanized army, and the Republic, who actually didn't have an army (beyond whatever forces the individual member systems might have had for their own defense), was a ploy to get the Jedi out of their "comfort zone" as "monks", negotiators and peacekeepers, and into the role as generals and soldiers on the battlefield, using a conveniently provided Clone Army. A role that would cause large numbers of them to die over time, and eventually providing the chance to eliminate them alltoghether (Order 66).

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

The seperatists weren't "just separating from the republic" they were actively attacking planets, putting them under direct military control and embargo, then lying about it in the senate. Plus just attacking planets wholesale later on in the conflict. And they were being led by a Sith Lord (2 technically) that were clearly using the conflict to further destabilize the region, in a grab for power.

Meanwhile the republic was suppressing thousands of planets, exploiting the outer rim for the benefit of the core worlds, was lead by a sith lord AND removed democracy with thunderous applause. All under the original cover from a corrupt senate which did not representative it's people, but instead their own agenda and voting against the best interest of their own home regions for personal gain.
And Gunray was charged for his crimes by supreme court and still could avoid prison, which may or may not have something to do that the chancellor of the republic ordered him to invade naboo with resources from the trade federation which was NOT a member of the Confederacy when attacking Naboo (technical they never were iirc, but decided to back the CIS in secret while remaining with the republic officially).

Besides, the first Battle of Geonosis was initiated by the Republic who invaded Geonosis with Clone Troopers and Jedi and in a in secret established army. The geonosians had every right to deal according to their soverain laws with the intruders in the arena, but the jedi and the republic decided to intervene and started shooting first.

Besides, Naboo was an inside job.

1 hour ago, Count Cenex de Solaan said:

I think that's actually only a partial truth. In the Phantom Menace, the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was actually founded in a "legitimate" trade dispute between Naboo and the Trade Federation, and if it wasn't for Palpatine, it would have stayed that way. The armed invasion of Naboo only happens because of Palpatine. I will, however, agree with you that the Clone War comes about due to the manipulations of Palpatine and possibly more so his master Darth Plagueis (check the book Darth Plagueis). The ultimate goal isn't to put Palpatine in power, but rather the same goal as had driven the Sith since the beginning, namely the destruction fo the Jedi order. Plunging the galaxy into a war between the Separatistes with their mechanized army, and the Republic, who actually didn't have an army (beyond whatever forces the individual member systems might have had for their own defense), was a ploy to get the Jedi out of their "comfort zone" as "monks", negotiators and peacekeepers, and into the role as generals and soldiers on the battlefield, using a conveniently provided Clone Army. A role that would cause large numbers of them to die over time, and eventually providing the chance to eliminate them alltoghether (Order 66).

I'm pretty sure, given that the Trade Federation already had dealings with Palpatine, that he pushed them to do the embargo in the first place. It's pretty clear from the movies that all of the movements, on both sides, were encouraged, suggested, and manipulated by Palps for the express purpose of fueling the flames of conflict. And I agree that the end goal was also to destroy the Jedi, I mean it's the only line we hear Darth Maul say in the entire film "At last we will destroy the Jedi, at last we will have our revenge". So yeah, killing the Jedi was very much part of The Plan. But I seriously doubt that "And we'll put a Sith in the throne of power at the same time" wasn't also a part of The Plan from day one. I mean, that's just how the Sith roll. They claim power, it's in their ethos that power is strength and all that jazz.

1 hour ago, Count Cenex de Solaan said:

I don't disagree as such, and I don't really hold it agains the Jedi that they put little kids through "Jedi school", away from their parents. However, that point isn't my only reason for saying that I don't considder the Jedi to be infalible "white knights", but rather quite falible individuals who are members of an organization that is subject to hubris, bad judgement etc. Plus, I'll argue that when you use the Force to help ensure that you get the outcome you desire in a particular situation (not just in combat), I'd say that you are threading a morally questionable path, even if your intentions are good.

I don't consider them to be white knights either, and never claimed as such. My point, going back to the original point of this thread, is arguing against the "jedi bad" statement that the OP presented, and even put in the title of the thread. Citing their flaws, which they do have, in some attempt to make them seem worse than the Sith, is just stupid. They weren't perfect, but the point I think everyone seems to forget in this debate, is that they were reacting to outside forces, pretty much from day 1, in regards to the Prequel Trilogy. They weren't the governing body, the Senate was, they didn't make themselves generals, the Senate did, they didn't approve the use of the clone army, the Senate did (yes, apparently a Jedi commissioned it? But since that thread is totally forgotten, I can't really speak on it. My personal theory is that Master Sifodius, or whatever his name was, didn't actually do it, and it was Palpatine commissioning it. But, it's never explained so oh well.) They stepped into a difficult position, due to their sense of duty to the Republic, and an obligation to try and protect and defend the innocent from wholesale slaughter at the hands of an unending robot army, that was apparently more than happy to invade their systems and attack them unprovoked.

You can criticize their choices, you can say they were flawed in their reasoning, sure, but to say they are bad, or that they had a better option in the first place, I think is flawed and unfair. Based on what we see in the movies, the only option the Jedi had, other than the one they took, was to sit back and do nothing. To just let millions, perhaps billions of people DIE at the hands of the Separatists, allow the possible collapse of the Republic due to infighting and conquest, and likely the eventual destruction of their own Order from the invading forces. To then say "They were bad/evil because they took up arms and fought", when the alternative was so much worse, is just flawed reasoning.

People can say they were flawed, and had problems, based on the way they were designed, and I will agree with them, but to say "There they are bad" and try some mic drop or something, just..no.

6 hours ago, Count Cenex de Solaan said:

Religious texts are typically vague, contradictory and open to interpretation. Just take the Bible or the Koran (don't know if that's spelled right...). You have followers of both sets of scripture who with their respective religious text in hand will argue either for or against violence against other people in the same specific set of circumstances. And that's where culture and the teacher comes in. Now I'm tempted to say that Sith culture and teaching tradition is more responsible for the portrayed violence that's associated with the Sith, than the actual Sith Code itself. But as we don't actually have the "actual religious texts/holocrons" and teachers available to look at, that is likely to always be a matter of guesswork on our part.

I don't disagree as such, and I don't really hold it agains the Jedi that they put little kids through "Jedi school", away from their parents. However, that point isn't my only reason for saying that I don't considder the Jedi to be infalible "white knights", but rather quite falible individuals who are members of an organization that is subject to hubris, bad judgement etc. Plus, I'll argue that when you use the Force to help ensure that you get the outcome you desire in a particular situation (not just in combat), I'd say that you are threading a morally questionable path, even if your intentions are good.

To be honest, it's been too long since I've played any of the relevant games, or read any of the relevant EU books to be able to remember any examples either way, to be honest. But I'll agree that it's more probable that you will be sent to kill someone that's causing a problem by someone in the Sith society, than by someone in the Republic society.

Agreed. In general I'm rarely a great fan of making comparisons between fictional organizations/societies and real world ones, except at the most abstract level. Interestingly enough I've never actually considdered the Star Wars Empire or Sith Empire to be comparable to Nazi Germany.

The Empire/ Nazi comparison is a well documented one, and a very deliberate one by GL himself. This is actually explored in much detail in the book Star Wars: the Magic of Myth.

7 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I'm pretty sure, given that the Trade Federation already had dealings with Palpatine, that he pushed them to do the embargo in the first place. It's pretty clear from the movies that all of the movements, on both sides, were encouraged, suggested, and manipulated by Palps for the express purpose of fueling the flames of conflict. And I agree that the end goal was also to destroy the Jedi, I mean it's the only line we hear Darth Maul say in the entire film "At last we will destroy the Jedi, at last we will have our revenge". So yeah, killing the Jedi was very much part of The Plan. But I seriously doubt that "And we'll put a Sith in the throne of power at the same time" wasn't also a part of The Plan from day one. I mean, that's just how the Sith roll. They claim power, it's in their ethos that power is strength and all that jazz.

I don't consider them to be white knights either, and never claimed as such. My point, going back to the original point of this thread, is arguing against the "jedi bad" statement that the OP presented, and even put in the title of the thread. Citing their flaws, which they do have, in some attempt to make them seem worse than the Sith, is just stupid. They weren't perfect, but the point I think everyone seems to forget in this debate, is that they were reacting to outside forces, pretty much from day 1, in regards to the Prequel Trilogy. They weren't the governing body, the Senate was, they didn't make themselves generals, the Senate did, they didn't approve the use of the clone army, the Senate did (yes, apparently a Jedi commissioned it? But since that thread is totally forgotten, I can't really speak on it. My personal theory is that Master Sifodius, or whatever his name was, didn't actually do it, and it was Palpatine commissioning it. But, it's never explained so oh well.) They stepped into a difficult position, due to their sense of duty to the Republic, and an obligation to try and protect and defend the innocent from wholesale slaughter at the hands of an unending robot army, that was apparently more than happy to invade their systems and attack them unprovoked.

You can criticize their choices, you can say they were flawed in their reasoning, sure, but to say they are bad, or that they had a better option in the first place, I think is flawed and unfair. Based on what we see in the movies, the only option the Jedi had, other than the one they took, was to sit back and do nothing. To just let millions, perhaps billions of people DIE at the hands of the Separatists, allow the possible collapse of the Republic due to infighting and conquest, and likely the eventual destruction of their own Order from the invading forces. To then say "They were bad/evil because they took up arms and fought", when the alternative was so much worse, is just flawed reasoning.

People can say they were flawed, and had problems, based on the way they were designed, and I will agree with them, but to say "There they are bad" and try some mic drop or something, just..no.

The mystery of Sifo Dyas is explained in The clone wars season six “the lost one”, Dooku had his friend Master Dyas killed and he took his place and commissioned the clone army for the Republic.

1 hour ago, Eoen said:

The mystery of Sifo Dyas is explained in The clone wars season six “the lost one”, Dooku had his friend Master Dyas killed and he took his place and commissioned the clone army for the Republic.

Which further supports the "it's all the machinations of the Sith, and the Jedi were simply trying to make do in a terrible situation"

My take is the Jedi were basically Buddhist monks that picked sides in a fight, thus breaking their vows to decrease suffering in a profound way by using human clones. This hypocrisy takes place with a back drop of democratic entropy resulting in the inevitable outcome of all republics and democracies, totalitarianism.

This is not meant to disparage the Jedi perse, though I do not agree with Jedi/Buddhist philosophy, but the context is important. The situation was untenable and the outcome painful for all involved. The choice to become part of the decision apparatus is the beginning of the downfall of the Jedi. All things being equal and given what they knew at key decision points, there was no real reason to side against the Separatists except hubris. The Jedi has power because of the Republic and policed the Republic. Hence the beginning of TPM. Why would anyone negotiate with Jedi when they can forcibly change your mind? The Trade Federation allowed the Senate Vessel to land to begin negotiations and responded accordingly when they realized the Senate sent Jedi instead of a diplomatic party. Were they in league with Sideous? Yes, and they were definitely not a virtuos group of beings, but the Jedi Order chose to take direct action in an economic situation. A similar comparison would be the UN hiring operators to “influence” the US Government to cease the embargo of Cuba. (Not a perfect comparison but what are you going to do?) The operators are doing something that clearly violates multiple nations laws and traditions for power, in this case money. The Jedi were doing it to maintain stability. Either way it is not moral or ethical (yes I realize utilitarianism would argue for the Jedi, but utilitarianism has a lot of problems).

Back to the original point, both are organizations that ignore morality for belief and ethics. This treads dangerous ground as the individual is subsumed by the masses. Change and entropy are inevitable in any organization and certainly as it applies to government and religious orders. The core belief / values are destroyed to gain the ambitious power at the expense of the practitioner. The Jedi at their most pure should have been traveling ascetic monks that helped other understand their enemies for both sides, but never taking a direct hand in any fighting. The mind trick is at best a dark side power and clearly shows the hypocrisy of their order. The Sith at their most pure are generals and political leaders after the netichen (sp? Typing on a phone sorry) philosophy. They are at best a net negative due to their will for power. Any arguement for Sith as good must accept situational morality which ignores self sacrifice for a higher moral virtue.

One thing that must be addressed in these arguements is that we cannot read the actual philosophies of these two organizations. This is a bit disingenuous as one can argue both sides without contradiction and be right. Just because a practitioner does a thing does not mean that the originator intended it. Given the lack of religion in Star Wars on whole these arguement, while entertaining, are ultimately straw-man fallacies.