My beef with Gandhi

[Pekka]

Sure. But I'm not taking this in with 100% senses. I have to keep my defensive up with you, because I knwo you think I'm a racist. You said like two years ago, out of the blue, that you know I don't like black people. Honestly, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion but I am disappointed that you have refused to change your mind. Now you see I hate muslims. Basically you think I'm racist who is all about this being white thing. I would discard it, but you seem to be quite serious and blurted it out couple of times, what you really thought, and this upsets me.

[VetLegion]

One thing about erection. Someone mentioned Gandhi got one and was upset. Last I read, the morning erection is caused by bladder being filled up at night and pressing some nerves. So there was really no need to be upset about it. In fact, while it's there...

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Pekka
Sure. But I'm not taking this in with 100% senses. I have to keep my defensive up with you, because I knwo you think I'm a racist. You said like two years ago, out of the blue, that you know I don't like black people.

Yeah, I call you a racist here and there because I know you northerners are pretty sensitive about that. Basically, I sometimes find provoking people humorous. I don't know if it's only me, I think it's a male thing though. Racist is a big insult because of political correctness in your social democracies. I know that and expect me to take advantage of that

[Pekka]

Ok if you say it's been jokes, I won't be insulted and laugh with you. It's just that when you last time made that same statement, it was not obvious to me. Also, I immidiately associated with comment you made few years back and it was similar, so I figured you really think I'm a racist and that no matter what I do or say, you will always think this way. This was upsetting, also because I don't think I have given any reason for people to think this way.

And the fact is, we live in pretty much homogenous country, so, claims of racism are taken sometimes too seriously. If it's a big bomb in some places, it's a nuke in here. And you know I don't buy into PC, so I felt like this was steps backwards. To me, it's a non-issue, so I don't like to make it an issue to begin with, if it's not necessary.

Ok, thanks for the clarification no problem.

[VetLegion]

Nah, I never meant no offense. It's the problem with forums, you can't see me grinning while I type nonsense

So I try to avoid it but sometimes I can't resist, hey I'm only human, not superhuman

[Pekka]

It is quite ok because I would not think you were too serious the next time so please continue.

[Flip McWho]

[QUOTE]And SU thing, this is laughable. They fell because of economy, just like Sloww points out. This is too obvious, protests had no part in the real desctruction. They were an outcome, not the catalyst, they were a sideshow, not the reason.[QUOTE]

The process of the SU collapsing isn't a linear cause and event history. You're vastly underestimating everything that was going on at the time and throughout the time.

Sloww is also underestimating the effect of what you inheret can have on what you can do, especially given the restrictions found in certain ideologies.

So he took a risk. And he should pay for it by losing his honour.

Every human takes risk. Why should they loose honour simply for taking a risk? Even if that risk succeeds?

Yes, it was because of the protest just that same day.. oh yeah... you really use false arguments, have you noticed?

You speak of false arguments:

Imran is [probably] not saying that the only reason that the SU fell was because of the protests, afterall the protests are bound to be caused by somethings. He is saying that the protests are what brought around the actual fall of the SU.

You on the other hand are saying that the SU fell solely because the economy sucked.

It was a number of factors that were interrelated that lead to the SU falling, not one or the other. The point being that the economy sucking didn't lead to the fall itself otherwise that would be true for all cases where dictatorships have suckful economies. History isn't a linear cause and effect thing.

MLK and Gandhi were different people, different countries and different situations.

But nothing happens in a vacumn. MLK was influenced by Gandhi.

He took a risk. He played with the lives of people to try out his thing.

Yes, because independance for india was solely his thing. You don't think that other people sympathised with his goal and came to realise that his way of resisting was the best method and then supported him?

Gandhi should be praised as a visionary and a leader.

No, it's even better to destroy the tank and only the tank crew gets killed.

You're assuming that the Indians had the ability to fight back against the British in a violent way and be successful with less blood shed than Gandhi's way.

Finally. Ok.. this is a good point. I was merely indicating, that you give an individual chance, that is if you were in a submarine in a war, you place your lives on the competence of the commander who decides your moves if you win the fight or not. If he makes the wrong decision, you all go down without a chance. If you're on a dry land, your commander makes a bad choice, at least you can still run with your weapon and have that slim fighting chance for yourself. It's slim, but at least you still have SOME control of your own life. Would you rather be in submarine or dry land in tha tsituation? I'd choose dry land. Trust my commander but when it's obvious he made the wrong choice, run like hell. IN subs.. after it's all said and done, you have no other opportunities.

Wow, ok. The people of india had the chance and they placed their lives and trust in Gandhi to lead them to independance. They didn't have to do the peaceful thing, they choose too. Why should Gandhi be blamed again?

I said, that sometimes non-violence works and sometimes it doesn't

Which nobody disagrees with. They just disagree with the fact that you think Gandhi shouldn't be respected and based on your arguments it's on a very flawed ground.




Essentially you're argument is so full of flaws that you can't be serious.

You must be on drugs. Otherwise this level of stupidity cannot be explained

People on drugs aren't this stupid unless they're stupid to begin with.

[Pekka]

FLip, I was going to take your response seriously after I see your last comment.

[Flip McWho]

Essentially you're argument is so full of flaws that you can't be serious.

You mean that one?

I was being nice, I coulda said "essentially your argument is so full of flaws that you're stupid".

Anyways if I apologise will you answer seriously?

I'm sorry for insulting you Pekka, I just find it hard to understand such an opinion given the arguments you have provided for back up.

[Pekka]

Well if you're read to apologize I will answer and take my words back too.

[Pekka]

However, I will be away for the weekend so.. I'll get back.. LATER!!! with passion and fire. Watch out Gandhi fanboys!

[Flip McWho]

Ok I do apologise. I find it hard to believe how you could understand the situation of Gandhi and india's independance and come up with an opinion like you're expressed here.

And whilst you're away I'll read the rest of the thread and maybe reply to some other arguments you presented.

[Pekka]

Don't bother *wink*... you're wasting time.

[Flip McWho]

Hahaha.

[Pekka]

This said, I will be back and show the other side of Gandhi. Umm,, it's basically about his youth, that shows his character and how it developed. It backs up MY theory.