My beef with Gandhi

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 19:23

BUUUUMP!

Zkribbler · January 2, 2007, 19:31

Ah!

I see your point now.

I think the flaw in the OP is that you overlook the critical difference between Britain and Nazi Germany, namely, that Britain has a conscious and Nazi Germany did not.

Gandhi's non-violence only worked because it was aimed at the British conscious. If India had been a Nazi colony, Gandhi and his followers would have been loaded onto cattle cars and shipped off to the showers.

Dr. Martin Luther King's campaign of non-violence worked so well in the South because TV pictures carried images to the North of the police turning dogs and water cannon onto peaceful demonstrators.

Non-violence does work...when you're up against a basically moral opponent and when you have right on your side.

In other situations, try it, and you're toast.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 19:41

Gandhi's non-violence only worked because it was aimed at the British conscious.

Right. But he also suggested the same works for Hitler. So he only got lucky. That was one of the things I was arguing, just because he got lucky doesn't make him a hero. Different circumstances, in which he woudl have acted the same way as he himself suggested, would have led to a very different result. Would he be hero then? No. I don't consider lottery winners heroes. I consider them people who got lucky.

And I said MLK is a hero.

joncha · January 2, 2007, 19:43

Mmm... beef.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 19:45

Gandhi's character is in its core lazy, and definitely not caring about people. Yeah, anyone can say they care about people by not doing anything, but that's just a lazy man's way out, he just got lucky, period.

It's like you'd sit on your ass, and demand the society pays your way, because well, duh. And if they don't, you'll peacefully strike all the way to the retirement. That's corrupt union logic, that is based on nothing but politics, power and extortion. No wonder the mafia wanted the unions in the early 1900s and it worked so well. But even mafia guys had some work ethic, they worked for themselves hard, so they had better work ethic than Gandhi, who had none, just this crazy idea that yeah let's just not do anything. It worked, but it wouldn't have worked against other enemies, and he did NOT recognize that, thus he got lucky.

Not a hero. He was just chilling like a villain.

Zkribbler · January 2, 2007, 19:51

Lazy??

Take a look on the flag of India. See that wheel in the middle? That's a spinning wheel because Gandhi insisted that Indians learn to spin their own cloth--like he did--in order to break the British monopoly on cloth.

He was also famous for his walk to the sea to make salt, which was a violation of British law.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 20:00

So he did a bit of walking and demanded something else too? oh man, how did he have time from all the yogurt eating and sitting on his butt doing nothing all day long? Crazy schedule.

and since when did he 'invent non-violence' ??? He didn't. It's like he is claiming these values, and then is the poster boy of that, so he must be good? No. He was a bad man, not a hero.

LordShiva · January 2, 2007, 20:02

Pekka, you're so cute

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 20:03

And I advice you all to do nice things, not get hurt and be happy.

I guess I now own the rights for that. Remember to thank me and give me what I want, or else I'll take a walk to the sea!

Zkribbler · January 2, 2007, 20:29

Originally posted by Pekka
... give me what I want, or else I'll take a walk to the sea!

Oh, don't think that you have to stop there.

Oncle Boris · January 2, 2007, 20:30

Originally posted by Pekka
No, it was pure luck, because you never know the reaction to your passive action. That's just a fact, you can never be sure.

And you know the reaction to your aggressive action? WTF Pekka?

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 20:32

Yeah, I might have to NOT DROWN myself.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 20:34

Oncle Boris, well of course you don't know that either, but reserving the right to armed self defense is known as a fighting chance, that is better than no chance. I think WWII proved it quite well, how important it is.

Gandhi, on the other hand, believed in kissing and making up, even with monsters, who would take your tongue and attach it to the back of the bus that goes straight to Hell. That's where Gandhi by the way is.

Oncle Boris · January 2, 2007, 20:46

Originally posted by Pekka
LordShiva, ok fair enough. But I really am disgusted what Imran tried to do. Character assasination. I don't think that was called for. I'm disappointed. I always make an effort to have issues fighting issues, kind of like Gandhi you know?

You called Gandhi a sissie for being horrified at his erection. You brought the sexual imagery in.

Oncle Boris · January 2, 2007, 20:48

Originally posted by Pekka
Oncle Boris, well of course you don't know that either, but reserving the right to armed self defense is known as a fighting chance, that is better than no chance. I think WWII proved it quite well, how important it is.

Gandhi, on the other hand, believed in kissing and making up, even with monsters, who would take your tongue and attach it to the back of the bus that goes straight to Hell. That's where Gandhi by the way is.

You claim that a commander should protect its followers' lives by leading them to war. Make sense and then we'll talk.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 20:49

So?

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 20:49

Oncle, that's not what I claimed. But you put words into my mouth quite nicely. Got more one-liners?

Oncle Boris · January 2, 2007, 20:56

True, you said too that non-violence should be considered, only that people need also be armed. But saying so you ignore the dynamic of weapons - people buy them to use them. Being armed sends a message to the other side and skews the dice in favor of violence on your own.

Zkribbler · January 2, 2007, 20:56

I just got the significance of Pekka's title.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 21:02

Zkribbler, you see, this is a problem, you are not very sharp

Oncle Boris, right. That's more what I'm after. And I said, that Gandhi didn't have reality as one of his priorities, because he thought this is the way Hitler shoudl have been fought. And that's why I say he got lucky, because he happened to face a group he faced. In other circumstances he would have gotten destroyed, along with his followers.

And that's why I say he isn't a hero, but a lottery winner.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 21:05

And considering other traits of his, I do only consider him not a hero, but a villain, whose image was twisted by a historical event, where he happened to merely stroll into.

Zkribbler · January 2, 2007, 21:06

Originally posted by Pekka
Zkribbler, you see, this is a problem, you are not very sharp

No but thankfully I'm able to get by using my incredible good looks.

Oncle Boris · January 2, 2007, 21:08

It takes balls to stand up unarmed to an armed guy who means you harm. You'd never do it.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 21:09

And you'll do great. However, Gandhi didn't do as great as is credited.

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 21:10

Oncle Boris, balls has nothing to do with the issue. Hitler had balls, too.

Kontiki · January 2, 2007, 21:19

Pekka, if you spent 1/10th as much time on your fantasy hockey team as you do with these crazy-ass rantings, you might even be challenging me for the lead.

joncha · January 2, 2007, 21:22

Competition is not Pekka's thing. What with him being a hippy communist and all.

Oncle Boris · January 2, 2007, 21:24

Originally posted by Pekka
Oncle Boris, balls has nothing to do with the issue. Hitler had balls, too.

To have balls is to take risks. You claimed that Gandhi was a wuss exactly for taking risks. Wusses with balls?

Pekka · January 2, 2007, 21:26

Kontiki, I should gbet back on that. I was away with teh whole vacation thing and mayebe week or two before that slipped on it so I just, I feel so alienated from it and a traitor. You should encourage me to come back by embracing my ego.