Printable View
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.
anyone who dismisses the achievements of historical icons because they are "pussies" isnt worth arguing with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuxey
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 was that, the partition of indiawith all the muslims and sikhs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Syetactic
yep... maybe more of an ''evil circle''.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deimos
if that actualy happend ( i think you are refering to the split between India and ****stan, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syetactic
An evil circle jerk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuxey
well you cant protest peacefully in a society where the means to do that dont exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuxey
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.
That is such a very delicate and saddening issue, you talk about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deimos
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenonight2
Pssh, no. ****ing Hippies.
No he just acts as if he's like 70 yrs oldQuote:
Originally Posted by MrNoodles
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Civil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marineking
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.