A belated response to Mr Orwell - Page 2

Patroklos · January 12, 2004, 00:46

I think Ghandi was very much a participant in violence, he was just a general and not a footsoldier. In fact, his strategy RELIED on the opposition using violence against him. It was a very clever way of using violence unconventionally.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 00:48

Quote:

Yes it does.

Why? How one bases one's moral system is arbitrary. Using one doesn't make a person any "smarter" than using another.

Quote:

Perhaps, however he was unable to stop it.

It could've been much worse. He certainly mitigated the conflict.

Quote:

He is the father of Pakistan.

Actually, Jinnah is considered the father of Pakistan.

Nubclear · January 12, 2004, 00:51

Quote:

By that logic I could conclude that anyone who doesn´t like my avatar must be stupid....

No, because I'm right and you aren't.

Quote:

Using one doesn't make a person any "smarter" than using another.

Yes it does..

Quote:

It could've been much worse. He certainly mitigated the conflict.

Perhaps, but it also could have been MUCH better if he had just done a little more.

Quote:

Actually, Jinnah is considered the father of Pakistan.

True, but he's not

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 00:53

Quote:

I think Ghandi was very much a participant in violence, he was just a general and not a footsoldier. In fact, his strategy RELIED on the opposition using violence against him. It was a very clever way of using violence unconventionally.

He didn't use violence, he advocated everyone not to use violence, thus he's a pacifist. QED.

And it didn't rely on the opposition using violence against him. Violence was how the Brits kept control of India. If they didn't use violence, they would lose India, and the goal would be accomplished with absolutely no bloodshed.

BeBro · January 12, 2004, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

No, because I'm right and you aren't.

When has Fez hacked your login?

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 00:58

Quote:

Yes it does..

Once again, why?

Quote:

Perhaps, but it also could have been MUCH better if he had just done a little more.

How? What was he supposed to do, exactly?

Quote:

True, but he's not

Stop Fezzing.

Patroklos · January 12, 2004, 01:01

Ramo, if the British and other opponents had not mad themselves look so bad trying to oppress this poor old man he would not have succeeded.

Ghandi did not believe in violence, but he knew damn well his enemies were not of the same point of view. He tailored his "peaceful" strategies to suit this. He used other peoples violence for his own ends.

daft cunning of him

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 01:03

You must've missed my edit:

"And it didn't rely on the opposition using violence against him. Violence was how the Brits kept control of India. If they didn't use violence, they would lose India, and the goal would be accomplished with absolutely no bloodshed."

Ted Striker · January 12, 2004, 01:03

why

Nubclear · January 12, 2004, 01:03

Sigh. My attempts to troll have failed

Ted Striker · January 12, 2004, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
why

why not

Ted Striker · January 12, 2004, 01:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker

why not

shut up Striker, you are homo-gay

Ted Striker · January 12, 2004, 01:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker

shut up Striker, you are homo-gay

that's not what your Mom said when i was with her last night Ted

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 01:06

Bored?

Ted Striker · January 12, 2004, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker

your Mom

I'd hit it.

Patroklos · January 12, 2004, 01:18

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 01:25

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 01:33

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.

Patroklos · January 12, 2004, 01:58

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 02:05

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 02:08

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 02:17

Quote:

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 02:20

And the spelling is Gandhi, not Ghandi.

Patroklos · January 12, 2004, 02:22

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

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 02:24

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

Quote:

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.

Patroklos · January 12, 2004, 02:24

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 02:28

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 02:38

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.

Ramo · January 12, 2004, 02:51

Quote:

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.

East Street Trader · January 12, 2004, 08:16

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.