Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A belated response to Mr Orwell

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #46
    Don't understand your edit, but if your saying
    Ghandi would have won withoug the British using violence, you are well wrong.

    And all those sit in type things, that is violence as far as politics are concerned. If you resist arrest, you are physically participating of your own accord. One of the words in the definition of Pacifism is nonresistance.
    "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

    Comment

    • #47
      If the Brits refused to use violence against Indians in acts of civil disobedience, they wouldn't be able to enforce their laws. So India becomes de-facto independent of British control, thus Gandhi's goal is accomplished without any bloodshed.

      And calling peaceful disobedience of laws "violence" could come straight out of 1984. How apropos given the thread.
      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
      -Bokonon

      Comment

      • #48
        And I've never heard of a definition of pacifism where one has to do what everyone tells one to (which isn't even possible). I guarantee that no pacifist would say he does that.

        Give it up. Gandhi is pretty much the definition of what pacifism is about. And pacifists are not cowards.
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment

        • #49
          Well Ramo, if you had any formal education in political science you would understand its definition in that medium as compared to others (ie violence). However, physically placing yourself somewhere and refusing to leave, in fact resisting with your mass or whatever other means when someone tries to move you, is violence by any definiton. Perhaps not what we are used to seeing, but that matters not.

          Look in Websters if you need to see such a definition of Pacifism, or just scroll up a dozen posts or so, I gracioulsy provided it for you. But your right, you won't find ANYONE who either believes that to be pacifism or is capable of conforming to the definiton if they do. Pacifist are deluding themselves or just hipocrits who haven't had the opportunity to prove it yet. Or as I believe Ghandi to be (you believe what you want), someone that has an ideal to strive for even if he knows it is not practical to achieve it, but you can make it as close as you can. Other people call this God.

          Ghadi needed:
          a) the British to use violence against him as I say or...
          b) the Indians to use violence against the British to remove them as you stated. But they were not going to leave without one.

          Either way violence would ensue, and Ghandi being as smart as he was (I wasn't with those claiming he was stupid) more than knew this. Th genius of Ghandi is that he reduced by magnatudes the amount of violence needed by reducing it from epidemic amounts of small acts to isolated, symbolically pivotal acts against him and a few others.

          So in other words he wasn't a practicioner of violence, rather a manipulator of it. But either way, he used it for his ends.
          "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

          Comment

          • #50
            Primary definition of pacifism according to you:
            "1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds"

            Primary definition of violence according to dictionary.com:
            "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence"

            Gandhi opposed the use of physical force as a means of settling disputes. Thus he was a pacifist. Like I said, QED.
            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
            -Bokonon

            Comment

            • #51
              But if you want to continue insisting that resistance against the law where you don't use physical force against others constitues violence, go right ahead. But no one agrees with your rediculous definition.
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment

              • #52
                Ghadi needed:
                a) the British to use violence against him as I say or...
                b) the Indians to use violence against the British to remove them as you stated. But they were not going to leave without one.

                Either way violence would ensue, and Ghandi being as smart as he was (I wasn't with those claiming he was stupid) more than knew this. Th genius of Ghandi is that he reduced by magnatudes the amount of violence needed by reducing it from epidemic amounts of small acts to isolated, symbolically pivotal acts against him and a few others..
                I didn't state b. Once again, if the Brits refused to use violence against Gandhi and his followers, they wouldn't be able to enforce the law, which would mean India is independent of British control. With no violence at all. Meaning no one uses physical force against others.
                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                -Bokonon

                Comment

                • #53
                  And the spelling is Gandhi, not Ghandi.
                  "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                  -Bokonon

                  Comment

                  • #54
                    Unfortunetly you left out half the definition of Pacifism, but I am used to you picking and chosing from quotes.

                    Just because you are argueing about concepts that you are amateur too does not mean I have to lower myself to you level to discuss something. Go to you local college book store, buy some textbooks and then tell me what violence means in the broader spectum of political science.

                    But if it helps you out, the reason why people pay their taxes is because of violence. Perhaps you will discover why in your reading.

                    Attaching any single label like "Pacifist" to someone as dynamic as Ghandi is always a bad idea. If that makes it easier for you to categorize great people in your head go ahead and do so, just understand you are missing most of the underlying truth attached to the meaning of their acts.

                    You are simply wrong, but I am also admittedly trolling. And though I do enjoy staring with you (honestly), I am off to bed
                    "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                    Comment

                    • #55
                      I used the primary definition. I explicitly stated that. Secondary definitions are not primarily used, hence why they're secondary.

                      But if it helps you out, the reason why people pay their taxes is because of violence. Perhaps you will discover why in your reading.
                      I didn't say otherwise. Police and Prisons constitute violence. They use physical force. Gandhi didn't.

                      You're awfully pretentious and arrogant for someone so ignorant.
                      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                      -Bokonon

                      Comment

                      • #56
                        On last bit, if the British didn't use force on Ghandi, it would just encourage the Indian independace movement to become immediatly beligerant and then you would learn something about your narrow definiton of violence.

                        You were going to have bloodshead, kudos to GANDHI for figuring out how to avoid most of it.
                        "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                        Comment

                        • #57
                          If the Brits didn't use force on Gandhi, everyone in the subcontinent would copy him, and the country would be totally ungovernable by the Brits. Acomplishing the goal of independence immediately.

                          That's why the Brits used force.
                          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                          -Bokonon

                          Comment

                          • #58
                            And no wonder you're so ignorant, you studied political science in college. Maybe if you studied a real science (or math), you'd have learned to apply logic to political systems.

                            No offense to people who actually have learned something from taking poli sci courses, but Pat here clearly hasn't from his studies.
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment

                            • #59
                              Attaching any single label like "Pacifist" to someone as dynamic as Ghandi is always a bad idea. If that makes it easier for you to categorize great people in your head go ahead and do so, just understand you are missing most of the underlying truth attached to the meaning of their acts.
                              Gandhi was a pacifist, and a logically consistent one. He was not simply pragmatic who used non-violent (yes, they were non-violent) tactics because they worked; for instance, when asked [in the late '30's, IIRC] what the Jews should do in Nazi Germany if violent resistance is immoral, he said that they should committ suicide, to shame the Germans into stopping their repression. Saying that he was a pacifist does nothing to diminish any details about him. This was an intrinsic aspect of his personality and ideology.

                              As for the "missing most of the underlying truth attached to the meaning of their acts," that's meaningless liberal arts garbage. Typical of political scientists.
                              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                              -Bokonon

                              Comment

                              • #60
                                Orwell held passionate political views and fought in the International Brigade against the fascists in Spain.

                                Which makes it unsurprising that he did not think much of pasifism as an idea.

                                My own stance is a simple one. My father was a bomber pilot in WWII and my grandfather was an artilleryman in the Great War. As a boy I could not understand why they had killed strangers. The fact that the strangers were German did not seem to me to be a any sort of a reason.

                                And I still don't understand it now.

                                I used to ask them what would have happened if all the people fighting on each side had just up and refused to do so and they did not know. As far as I could see the result would just be for everyone to have been a great deal better off. And that is what I still think now.

                                The two world wars seem to me so hideous that I fear war between nation states more than any other thing. And I would not wish to play any part in any such war - whatever reason I was given.

                                Happily major war has skipped my generation. (The first, I think, for a thousand years and more).

                                Whether I would have had the courage to be a conschy had it been otherwise I don't know. As Orwell says, it seems ridiculously easy for political leaders to mobilise public opinion behind a war. I suppose the threat makes people desire cohesion and makes them willing to ostracise anyone who does not conform. Anyway, for whatever reason, the lot of a consciencious objector is always a very hard one.

                                Maybe I would have chickened out.

                                But I hope not. The notion that I, in my turn, should have gone and dropped bombs on whomsoever might be underneath, man woman or child, is altogether horrible.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                                Working...
                                X