do you guys respect people like Ghandhi, Bhutto, Mother Theressa, Nehru and other humanists? yeah, might seem like a stupid qustion but on the other hand I've heard people complain about those people being ''pussies'', and trying to handle the things with words and not the act.

i mostly respect Ghandhi and admire him for his will and struggle against what he believed was the best.

I have mad respect for people who can make such bold statements without using violence.

I have respect for them...but, I can't say it would be MY way of doing things. I don't have the patience for that sort of behavior :P

Gandhi and I used to hang out a lot.

Cool guy.

do you guys respect people like Ghandhi, Bhutto, Mother Theressa, Nehru and other humanists? yeah, might seem like a stupid qustion but on the other hand I've heard people complain about those people being ''pussies'', and trying to handle the things with words and not the act.

i mostly respect Ghandhi and admire him for his will and struggle against what he believed was the best.

anyone who dismisses the achievements of historical icons because they are "pussies" isnt worth arguing with.

i respect people of that calibre for their achievments and views... but i also think violence is sometimes a necessary evil.

For arguments sake I'll say,

Ghandi didn't accomplish jack shit

When Ghandi didn't fight back and so many of his people died... thats when I didn't like him.

When Ghandi didn't fight back and so many of his people died... thats when I didn't like him.

when was that, the partition of indiawith all the muslims and sikhs?

anyone who dismisses the achievements of historical icons because they are "pussies" isnt worth arguing with.

i respect people of that calibre for their achievments and views... but i also think violence is sometimes a necessary evil.[/

yep... maybe more of an ''evil circle''.

When Ghandi didn't fight back and so many of his people died... thats when I didn't like him.

if that actualy happend ( i think you are refering to the split between India and Pakistan, but nvm) then let me tell you that, that was Ghandi's whole point. it wasnt his intentions to kill. if he would fight he would have taken India in no time. he had the backup of the Indians, and thats also why the Indians didnt fight- they believed in him, and with good reasons, we can say today.

yep... maybe more of an ''evil circle''.

An evil circle jerk?

yep... maybe more of an ''evil circle''.

well you cant protest peacefully in a society where the means to do that dont exist.

i mean look what happened in 1905 on bloody sunday.

I haven't done a whole lot of research on these guys, so I can't say for certain whether I like or dislike them specifically. But I will say that, be it values, beliefs, treasures or people you care about, if something is worth fighting for, then I think it's wrong to not fight for it. Although, I'll admit that there are situations when fighting is the least effective action. You just have to look at it from every angle, with reason.

well you cant protest peacefully in a society where the means to do that dont exist.

i mean look what happened in 1905 on bloody sunday.

That is such a very delicate and saddening issue, you talk about.

There is only a slim difference between nonviolent and pacefull protest. I think those 2 words describe it pretty well. I do rather believe, that in this conflict, there was no possibility of nonvielent resistance, because it needs strict and more importantly central organisation to establish trust.
If that trust is not established, nonviolent resistance cant be sucessfully carried out.

That such a situation arrises, where one side manages, to get consensual to the point, where the opposing rulers are forced to believe in their consens, they cant avoid giving in to them.

As you see, the opposing side was right, to believe that this wont be the case.

@Marineking: It is always wrong to fight. How do you value your own freedom by harming another person with force?
What you talk about is only selfishness that you mistake for values and believes.

I believe Gandhies argumentation to be very powerfull and far, far ahead of even our times.

Gandhi and I used to hang out a lot.

Cool guy.

You've been trying to be like jester lately. Only posting once and never posting more then a paragraph. The signs of a jester wannabe are coming to me.

Pssh, no. Fucking Hippies.

You've been trying to be like jester lately. Only posting once and never posting more then a paragraph. The signs of a jester wannabe are coming to me.

No he just acts as if he's like 70 yrs old

Dictator ship ftw!

You should be more politicaly flexible, if you realy hail for that, because chances are bigger that you get bondaged to a cross and burned, for the irony, than getting called out new world-president.

That is such a very delicate and saddening issue, you talk about.

There is only a slim difference between nonviolent and pacefull protest. I think those 2 words describe it pretty well. I do rather believe, that in this conflict, there was no possibility of nonvielent resistance, because it needs strict and more importantly central organisation to establish trust.
If that trust is not established, nonviolent resistance cant be sucessfully carried out.

That such a situation arrises, where one side manages, to get consensual to the point, where the opposing rulers are forced to believe in their consens, they cant avoid giving in to them.

As you see, the opposing side was right, to believe that this wont be the case.

@Marineking: It is always wrong to fight. How do you value your own freedom by harming another person with force?
What you talk about is only selfishness that you mistake for values and believes.

I believe Gandhies argumentation to be very powerfull and far, far ahead of even our times.

im not 100% sure what you are talking about ( no offense. its just that my english isnt perfect) but i guess you are right. there is a need of support and ressources for a trust to be a success. but even though Ghandhi didnt have those ressources he did make a very good effort, in my eyes. But he should have listened to Nehru, and should have made the split of Pakistan and India more... what can i say, more peaceful way. cause that split and divorsion of those 2 countries are the reasons of cultural barricades between the lands, that have and are mainly causing a hostile mentality between the countries. but then again, Ghandi listened to his countrymen, just as the countrymen had listened to Ghandi too.

oh, and that last sentence is very, very true.

@Marineking: It is always wrong to fight. How do you value your own freedom by harming another person with force?
What you talk about is only selfishness that you mistake for values and believes.

Always wrong? Obviously, you should seek a peaceful solution whenever possible, but when peaceful solutions prove to be ineffective or impossible, then it is perfectly fine to use force (Within reason). Here, I will give several examples (Both large and small scale), which will hopefully make clear my beliefs.

You are walking down the street, and are attacked. Is it wrong to defend yourself and your property? No, if someone attacks you, and you believe you can defend yourself using physical force, you have every right to do that. Obviously, if you are unskilled at fighting, or your opponent is better-armed and has a superior position, then it would be wisest to simply give into his demands, but if you have the clear option of being able to defend yourself and your possessions with force, then you have that right, as he surrendered his when he decided to attack you. This goes for home-robberies as well.

Here's another. You live under an oppressive government, one that disregards your rights as a citizen and a human being. If you can find a peaceful solution to rectify this, then great, but most likely violence in the form of a coup' or revolution will be needed. It is foolish, not to mention irresponsible, to live under tyranny simply for lack of a peaceful solution.

Similarly, if one country attacks another, then it is the defenders right to respond with force. I am very isolationist though, so I don't believe in going overseas to fight simply for political reasons.

Obviously I cannot list every possible example here, but these should give you a good idea of my reasoning, and no, I do not believe any of that is simply "selfishness."

No he just acts as if he's like 70 yrs old

No, that line was from Family guy or something.


Your move, Libertarians.

You are walking down the street, and are attacked. Is it wrong to defend yourself and your property? No, if someone attacks you, and you believe you can defend yourself using physical force, you have every right to do that.

If you can find a peaceful solution to rectify this, then great, but most likely violence in the form of a coup' or revolution will be needed. It is foolish, not to mention irresponsible, to live under tyranny simply for lack of a peaceful solution.

Similarly, if one country attacks another, then it is the defenders right to respond with force. I am very isolationist though, so I don't believe in going overseas to fight simply for political reasons.

Obviously I cannot list every possible example here, but these should give you a good idea of my reasoning, and no, I do not believe any of that is simply "selfishness."

In the first example, you fight for your property, not your values, or your believes. You act selfish and if you are asked "did you think about yourself", thats what you would answer. Everyone is ok with that.
The attacker also is doing what he does on his own risk, so he cant blame you for defending yourself. You arent harassing him, if you win. Nonviolent protest is a way, of pursuing a political agenda, even if there are no constitutional options for doing so. It has the ability to change political systems and to force upon them the publics will, but its not a "credo" to regulate your privat life or a law that makes all other laws extinct. I dint plan to insult you with the word "selfishness", but it is what seprates our private life from values, believes and politics, who are standing above our personal interests.

Also being nonviolent doesnt mean that you would quietly support a tyranny, but the absolutely opposite. Nonviolent resistance has not only showed to be working several times, It is simply the most sophisticated, moraly aceptable way to breach a violent circle, that leads from irrelevant selfish political disputes into a vicious circle that lasts for decades and centuries.

Do you think, that political coups solve problems? Well, I have to tell you they hardly are a fit way to get your rights back in a society that allready surpresses you.

If one country attacks another, its usually a situation very diffrent to a situation of civil disobediance and peaceful resistance.
Usually soldiers dont fight in a war out of free will. This includes both sides, they might enlist, because they where stupid and that made tham a target for enlistment, but they wont fight a war out of free will.

Your Points miss the argument in my oppinion, because those who make decisions and the effects of a decision cant be sepperated, if you discuss morals.

Is it moraly correct, that you get shot by your millitary commander 1000nds of miles away from home, because you didnt follow his orders, to kill others and put yourself at risk?

is it moraly correct to send millions of people with arms into another country to go there and kill?

If a Country has its population agreeing on the issue, that it doesnt want a war and that it wants superiority over its own decisions, it can not only force its own government into negotiations, even the other side will never be able to ignore their wishes, as soon as they are trustworth, consensual and based on the concept of non-violence.

Thats what Gandhies fight against the brithish rulership was about. It is clear that you cant expect anyone to come up with simple and functional ideas like these and most of our leaders relie either on that fact, or at least they hope that they dont screw up so bad that the masses would finaly care.
Till now they didnt. Its by a big portion the result of governments fear of civil disobediance, that keeps them on the right track.

How about the Tiananmen Square protests? That's pretty sad.

For arguments sake I'll say,

Ghandi didn't accomplish jack shit
When Ghandi didn't fight back and so many of his people died... thats when I didn't like him.

Ghandi freed India from the British control, and not only did he did that, he empowered the people in such a way to ensure that they will always be motivated to ensure that they stay independent. He freed them not only for that one time, but for as long as they remember him, which will be for hundreds of years still.


Lets see war do that.
War, while sometimes is the only option, is messy, dirty, dark, sad. It does not have the same feeling as what Ghandi did.



You've been trying to be like jester lately. Only posting once and never posting more then a paragraph. The signs of a jester wannabe are coming to me.
Dude, home-boy Xenonight has been here longer than nearly everyone else.
Respect the Pink. ;P

War, while sometimes is the only option, is messy, dirty, dark, sad.

Poetic, but there is no such thing as "the only option".

You've been trying to be like jester lately. Only posting once and never posting more then a paragraph. The signs of a jester wannabe are coming to me.
No, I just post what I want.

Whether it's like Jester or not is either coincidence or perception. And I've been making posts like that for years, long before Jester popped up. If anything, Jester is a wannabe of me, but Jester is a cool dude and that could be taken negatively so I won't say that.

No, I just post what I want.

Whether it's like Jester or not is either coincidence or perception. And I've been making posts like that for years, long before Jester popped up. If anything, Jester is a wannabe of me, but Jester is a cool dude and that could be taken negatively so I won't say that.

It's nice to know people talk about me.


<3

"I'd fight Ghandi" - Fight Club

lol.

Yeah man... if I could meet Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi... man... it's too bad they all died early deaths by being assassinated.

Let's see what great, amazing people else died a premature death by guns:
Gandhi
Martin Luther King Jr.
John F. Kennedy
Benazir(sp?) Bhutto (though I heard she may have been killed by hitting her head on the moon-roof while trying to retreat from the gunfire? O_o

Uhh, and I can't think of any others right now.

@Abysmal - Yeah, the tragedy of Tiananmen Square was sad. I believe that the Chinese government back then was power hungry, paranoid, and irrational. However, we could sit here all day mentioning sad things that happened, and innocent lives taken. Various genocides, such as Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and, of course, the Jewish, left millions upon millions dead.

How many Nobel Prize winners could have been in the 11 million Jews who died form Hitler's rampage alone? 3? Maybe 4?

How many people, in all of the genocides combined, would have grown up to make amazing contributions to our society? Cure for cancer? HIV? Diabetes?

It's all very sad, that some humans are just so evil towards others, sometimes for no reason at all.

Finally, I'll end on this note. Hitler promoted the Scandinavian look - blonde hair, blue eyes - but he had brown hair, green eyes (I believe, maybe brown?) and he was part Jewish.

It's nice to know people talk about me.


<3

It's a bit off-topic, but I just wanted to share that I got goosebumps when I saw Jester post a <3.

Finally, I'll end on this note. Hitler promoted the Scandinavian look - blonde hair, blue eyes - but he had brown hair, green eyes (I believe, maybe brown?) and he was part Jewish.

yeah but thats like saying, to promote classical music you have to be able to compose a symphony yourself.

i agree with what ronin said, theres no such thing as "the only option". its just certain options become more preferable to any other outcome.

Yeah man... if I could meet Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi... man... it's too bad they all died early deaths by being assassinated.

Let's see what great, amazing people else died a premature death by guns:
Gandhi
Martin Luther King Jr.
John F. Kennedy
Benazir(sp?) Bhutto (though I heard she may have been killed by hitting her head on the moon-roof while trying to retreat from the gunfire? O_o

Uhh, and I can't think of any others right now.

@Abysmal - Yeah, the tragedy of Tiananmen Square was sad. I believe that the Chinese government back then was power hungry, paranoid, and irrational. However, we could sit here all day mentioning sad things that happened, and innocent lives taken. Various genocides, such as Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and, of course, the Jewish, left millions upon millions dead.

How many Nobel Prize winners could have been in the 11 million Jews who died form Hitler's rampage alone? 3? Maybe 4?

How many people, in all of the genocides combined, would have grown up to make amazing contributions to our society? Cure for cancer? HIV? Diabetes?

It's all very sad, that some humans are just so evil towards others, sometimes for no reason at all.

Finally, I'll end on this note. Hitler promoted the Scandinavian look - blonde hair, blue eyes - but he had brown hair, green eyes (I believe, maybe brown?) and he was part Jewish.

Actually, they think he might be. There isn't enough evidence.
Thats only a thought for right now.
It seems most people don't even know why Hitler did what he did.
It was because when he wa a soldier, he saw Jewish people protesting agenst WWI which he fought in and insulting it, and that built up hate till it expolded.

My family sufferd through Hitler, bu I'm not Jewish. My grandmothers father was FORCED into the German army, because they poisend his dog, and then threated to do it to his family. He was an engineer, and after saving the life of a Russian, he was later on captured and when he was captured, he met the russian he saved, and he let my great-grandfather go, but he died on the train-ride home. He lost his fingers in the mine. He also lost all his brothers.

LoL My great-grandma gut arrested because their teacher told them to hang a picture of hitler on their fireplace, and when my grandma brought it home from school my great-grandma replies "Oh good! we need more firewood." and burns Hitler, and then my grandma told her school but my great-grandma said that if they were going to take her, they needed to bring her husband home. and they couldn't because he was important. :/

Eventually my grandma's parents gave her to an American, to get her out of the ruined country. (I have a lot of storys of american/british air-raids almost killing them.)And he turned out to steal her things and sell them to pawn shops and ect. they had two kids, and my grandfather helped kick my grandmothers husband at the time out of their house, and then my grandparents got married and had three kids. And I forgot why I typed all this.........