<A giant X is painted over Pris' face while a disturbingly loud buzzer plays as if from nowhere>

No, that is not what I was saying,... quite the opposite actually. What I was saying is that Masculine or Feminine make for far MORE objective of a dichotomy IF NOT for the inability for them to be seen outside some kind of false morality by a sufficient majority.

Simply, ppl r dumb, else that'd be fine enough.

Shezbeth wrote:<A giant X is painted over Pris' face while a disturbingly loud buzzer plays as if from nowhere>

No, that is not what I was saying,... quite the opposite actually. What I was saying is that Masculine or Feminine make for far MORE objective of a dichotomy IF NOT for the inability for them to be seen outside some kind of false morality by a sufficient majority.

Simply, ppl r dumb, else that'd be fine enough.

LOL! Well now, why didn't you just say so in the first place? Clarity, Shezbeth. Clarity helps. Clarity is good.

Still, I disagree with what you are saying about Masculine and Feminine. I don't see those two making a 'far MORE objective' dichotomy.

Everyone starts out as female. The male develops later and is more like... a female on steroids.
.
.

I disagree. I find that the 'it' (whatever) came first, with a female side and a male side.

Shezbeth wrote:I disagree. I find that the 'it' (whatever) came first, with a female side and a male side.

Hmmm... an it? I'd say the energy that animates is something of an it. Sure, I'll go along with that. Still, I'd say it has no male or female side. And, I'd go on to say the body vehicles do start out as female. The vehicles seem to confuse the issue.
.
.

Pris wrote:

Phil wrote:I personally thought using the descriptors dark or light implied morality...but that's just me I guess

Most definitely, that's just you.
.
.

What exactly do you consider "employing the light side to be"? Is my idea that "employment of the dark side" is using deception and/or selfish intent incorrect?

How about I throw this into the mix.

The dark side employs you.

The light side is a collaboration you choose to engage or disengage.

The difference is you get to make the choice.

The dark side will fight to keep you. But it doesn't care about you in the way you need/want to think it does.

The light side will wait for you.

Discuss.

(Phil I think we're on the same page even if the words wander in different directions. Agreed?

No need to discuss. What you have described is a perfectly valid perception/position. There are positions that agree with it - that are also equally valid - and there are those that contest (likewise).

Here's a simpler way of looking at it.

The light side can free one of the dark side, the dark side can free one of the light side. Each 'side' sees its self as freedom from the other; both are correct, and both are incorrect.

I disagree.

And I'm still waiting to hear back from you regarding that wager.

Wager? Care to refresh my memory?

Phil wrote:

Pris wrote:

Phil wrote:I personally thought using the descriptors dark or light implied morality...but that's just me I guess

Most definitely, that's just you.
.
.

What exactly do you consider "employing the light side to be"? Is my idea that "employment of the dark side" is using deception and/or selfish intent incorrect?

I like how Shezbeth said it here:

Shezbeth wrote:The light side can free one of the dark side, the dark side can free one of the light side. Each 'side' sees its self as freedom from the other; both are correct, and both are incorrect.

However, 'no need to discuss'?

Shezbeth wrote:No need to discuss. What you have described is a perfectly valid perception/position. There are positions that agree with it - that are also equally valid - and there are those that contest (likewise).

There is always a need to discuss shit even when your lordship feels there is nothing to discuss.
.
.