• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Beating a crap out of Gandhi

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Check out this article..How much americans love peace and are non-racist.

http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=685
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm not sure how somebody can take a look at an article in some publication and make a blanket statement about an entire population, but anyway... While I do find the illustration in poor taste, it certainly isn't "racist". If you read the article, which you must have, the individual is receiving a beating because he is a pacifist, not because he is of any particular ethnicity.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Agree with Jason on the first point. Its as stupid to call Americans racists or whatever based on the actions of a small group of people, who happened to be Americans; as calling Indian political system a bunch of hindu extremists based on the action of one or two individuals.


As Gandhi himself said, 'A person who has realized the principle of non-violence has the God-given strength for his weapon, and the world has not yet known anything that can match it.?


Isnt it quite ironic that they used Gandhiji himself to advice some 'violent forms of workout plans'?
IMHO, they should apologize, and contribute a considerable amount of sum to organizations that is trying to promote social harmony and peaceful co-existence.
[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: Ashok Krishnan ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ashok Krishnan:
as calling Indian political system a bunch of hindu extremists based on the action of one or two individuals.


Don't think I've ever seen anyone here refer to the entire Indian political system as a bunch of hindu extremists. Did you maybe have something specific you were thinking of?
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Maxim is, of course, a British magazine owned by a Brit. It is currently being published in the US but I think that is more for tax purposes than anything else. And it has been losing money so it can't even be called a popular magazine.
My favorite description:
"It's amusing and sexy in a sophomoric way," says GQ editor Art Cooper. "I wish it had been around when I was in high school."
I wonder if < t3rm1n4t0r > plans to apologize to Americans.
[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 92
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <t3rm1n4t0r>:
Check out this article..How much americans love peace and are non-racist.


I find your comments equally obnoxious. If Bapu was here now he would be amused by "Maxim�s Kick-Ass Workout". Your comments would really put him to the test. I will wager a months wages that if you said something like this in his presence he would probably forget himself and bean you with his walking stick
 
Lalooprasad Yadav
Ranch Hand
Posts: 92
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Disclaimer : Though my previous message was not orthogonal to a viewpoint expressed by Jason Menard, this should not be construed as an endorsement of Jason Menard or his "theories".
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <t3rm1n4t0r>:
Check out this article..How much americans love peace and are non-racist.
http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=685


Check out these two cases:
Hasty Generalization
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/hasty.htm
Unrepresentative Sample
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/unrep.htm
Disclaimer : Though my previous message was not orthogonal enough to the viewpoints expressed by Jason Menard and Lalooprasad Yadav, this should be construed as an endorsement of neither Jason nor Laloo.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Check out these two cases:
Hasty Generalization
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/hasty.htm
Unrepresentative Sample
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/unrep.htm


Cool links. Thanks! I can envision providing references to that site in the future.
Disclaimer : Though my above message was orthogonal to the viewpoints expressed by Mapraputa Is, this should be construed as an endorsement of neither Jim Yingst, nor Michael Ernest, nor the one-eyed Moose.
[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hasty Generalization
Unrepresentative Sample

These fallacies would be apt characterizations of t3rm1n4t0r's argument if he'd commented on the alleged racism of Brits. As it is though, it seems that this was more of a basic factual error. I believe the correct ancient Greek term for this fallacy is "smoking too much crack".
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
By the way, the poster's IP address points to the Netherlands, for those keeping score on who is anti-American.
 
Rancher
Posts: 13459
Android Eclipse IDE Ubuntu
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Since the dutch are anti-american (based on a sample size of maybe one), perhapse we can get them to define the term for us :roll:
Disclaimer : Though my above message was orthogonal to the viewpoints expressed in this thread as a whole, this should not be construed as an endorsement of either the Dutch or anti-americans in general
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by honorable Jim Yingst:
These fallacies would be apt characterizations of t3rm1n4t0r's argument if he'd commented on the alleged racism of Brits. As it is though, it seems that this was more of a basic factual error.


Well, a factual error already was reported. However, I have to disagree with your "it seems that this was more of a basic factual error" qualification. If the post was simply: "check out what was published in an American magazine" - then I would be more inclined to agree with you. But the worst part IMHO was "how much americans love peace and are non-racist" comment. Even if we correct the error and re-write it as "how much the British love peace and are non-racist" - still the definitions I provided seem applicable, as you said. I think, this two fallacies are more dangerous and more harmful for a serious intellectual discussion than to simply get some factualia mixed up.
I believe the correct ancient Greek term for this fallacy is "smoking too much crack".
Hm... And how could I show off then? :roll: Your "smoking too much crack" wouldn't do it.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Hm... And how could I show off then? :roll: Your "smoking too much crack" wouldn't do it.


How about "smoking too much 2-beta-carbomethoxyl-3-beta-benoxytropane"?
 
Lalooprasad Yadav
Ranch Hand
Posts: 92
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
By the way, the poster's IP address points to the Netherlands, for those keeping score on who is anti-American.


I wouldnt trust these IP addresses too much.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Still waiting for an apology.
[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Still waiting for an apology.


:roll:
Frankly, I am tired of these anonymous postings. Should we force people to register and then, after they failed to take responsibility for their action, disable their accounts? They can register another account of course, but this will be another, hopefully better account.
 
Lalooprasad Yadav
Ranch Hand
Posts: 92
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Frankly, I am tired of these anonymous postings. Should we force people to register and then, after they failed to take responsibility for their action, disable their accounts? They can register another account of course, but this will be another, hopefully better account.


I dont think that will work. However I will do my bit to clear the confusion. I herebey confess to using the following accounts. Jason Menard , Ravish Kumar, Thinku Mama , Slob Hercombe, Tintin Herge, Nanhesru Ningyakyak, Pavam Payyan , Jim Yingst, Balaji Logarithmnathan, Don Liu, Stevie Kaligis etc etc. In short there is only two of us here. One of them is is me. The others are all Mapraputa Isayeva.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
BTW, I am Laloo
I think this link should have been posted...
http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=686
And more over I think, article was mockery on the people who find this article good enough to follow.
BTW from where THIS racist term come in to the picture from this article ??
Why the hell we give so importance to such bull#$^%.
Oh sorry .. I am Map ..
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have a big problem with people who preach nonviolence. Many participants in "anti-war coalitions for nonviolence" are hypocrites who voice support for terrorists at other times.
Even though some advocates of nonviolence may be sincere, on principle I think it might be a good idea to violently attack all people who preach nonviolence. The fact is, there are evil violent people in this world, and if pacifism contains within itself a solution to aggressive violence, then attempting to kick their butts gives them an opportunity to demonstrate their solution.
If pacifism does not contain within itself a solution to the existence of aggressive violence, advocates of nonviolence deserves to get their butts kicked for trying to get us to lower our defenses to our detriment.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Frank: I have a big problem with people who preach nonviolence. Many participants in "anti-war coalitions for nonviolence" are hypocrites who voice support for terrorists at other times.
Good point Frank. But I think you are missing the main point. The thread is about M.K.Gandhi being non-violent. The "anti-war coalitions for nonviolence" is a totally different thing.

Frank: Even though some advocates of nonviolence may be sincere, on principle I think it might be a good idea to violently attack all people who preach nonviolence. The fact is, there are evil violent people in this world, and if pacifism contains within itself a solution to aggressive violence, then attempting to kick their butts gives them an opportunity to demonstrate their solution.
If pacifism does not contain within itself a solution to the existence of aggressive violence, advocates of nonviolence deserves to get their butts kicked for trying to get us to lower our defenses to our detriment.

I was not going to reply because you are probably using a fake name <Frank> trying to provoke anti-americanism by saying that. But then I thought your name does not matter. What matters is your views and your post and so here goes mine...
AFAIK, Gandhi was not preaching pacifism or non-violance against the evil violent people in this world or against the existence of aggressive violence. He was preaching non-violent means for achieving freedom from the British rule. India was a British colony, and the administration was run by Britons. And the Britons were not evil violent and aggresve people like talibans or saddam or Kim Jong are.
If Gandhi were to preach violent means or take arms against the Britons, he would have been termed a terrorist. That is the same about Palastinians. They call themselves freedom fighters, the Israilis call them terrorists. The same about violence in Kashmir. Pakistan calls them freedom fighters, India calls them terrorists. The Chechans call themselves freedom fighters, the Russians call them terrorists. And there seems to be no end to their fights. It does not work.
In case of Gandhi, he earned a great respect within the British administration. He chose to follow peaceful means to convince the Brits that they are not welcome anymore in his land. He did this by preaching people not to cooperate with the British officials. Not to go to British courts, schools, libraries, etc. He was probably not a pacifist or non-violent by choice. But he was probably a smart guy (he was a laywer, btw) who knew that violence against the might of the Brits will not work, but non-violent means may probably work. And it did.
Just wondering if the kids in palestine, kashmir or chechanya, would see peace in their lifetime, if their leaders did not recourse to peaceful means of settlements. (settlements -> pun intended) :roll:
[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
What a great post, Melvin!
I would only add that Communists were big fans of violent way of solving problems. Their theory was that the ruling class would never give up its privilegess, so the only way to change (to the better, of course) a society was via armed revolt.
But regarding "using a fake name trying to provoke anti-americanism"... Frankly, ( -> pun intended ) Frank's sentiment looks like a valid concern to me. Perhaps he did not want to use "real", "registered" or whatever name being afraid that his views aren't too popular and wont be appreciated here. This is only my interpretation, of course... I was reading recently that some people express more "liberal" views than they really hold for not to look "mean", "retrograde" or whatever else they believe they would be accused in. Now I am going to contradict myself, but "anonymous" postings have some value in that they allow people to express views they perhaps wouldn't express otherwise, which is good.
Or perhaps Frank just was too lazy to log in
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Frank's position does hold a certain logic in it, but I see nothing good coming out of "violently attacking" those individuals. I would think that since what they bring to a conflict is reason, then a more optimal solution would maybe be to try to reason things out with them. Of course if that doesn't work, then beat the ever living crap out of them. Just kidding, just kidding!
And Melvin's post was spot on.
On another note... the title of this thread. Normally it is not sufficient to beat just one crap out of somebody. I believe that normally the goal is to try to beat all of the crap out of them.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Frank>:
...


To get your goal, there are always two ways.
I think non-violence needs patience and lot of will power to stuck what you think is right.
Its difficult and very tough.
Shortcut is violence. 101% agree.
Kick the butt of those who preach but not follow.
I dont preach non-violence
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1140
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Non-violence is difficult, tough and painfully slow in achieving the goal.
But most of the time it results in permanent solutions.
Violence, on the other hand is a short-cut, but seldom the results of it are complete
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 183
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


And the Britons were not evil violent and aggresve people like talibans or saddam or Kim Jong are.
[/QB]


Are you joking?
Britons where evil and violent, indeed.
As every colonial power was.
They killed, tortured and imprisoned Indians.
Anyway it is history. Now India and Britain are quite on good terms.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think the British thought of themselves as being good people who were trying to make India a better place. The Amritsar Massacre is a case in point. Dyer was relieved of his command and sent home after sanctioning the massacre. He was an embarassment because he showed what happens with colonial power.
But there is a lot of history there going back to the Indian mutiny and earlier. The British saw the Thugs, for example, as proof that the Indians could not govern themselves.
 
omar khan
Ranch Hand
Posts: 183
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think the British thought of themselves as being good people who were trying to make India a better place.


Yes.
The White Man's Burden
By Rudyard Kipling
McClure's Magazine 12 (Feb. 1899).
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.
Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
 
Lalooprasad Yadav
Ranch Hand
Posts: 92
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Frank>:
If pacifism does not contain within itself a solution to the existence of aggressive violence, advocates of nonviolence deserves to get their ....


I presume you are referring to people like this.
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,866254,00.html
I think you are making a mistake about their perspective. They are not planning to use nonviolence as a weapon against Saddam. They are planning to use nonviolence as a weapon against the government of the United States.

The effect he hopes to achieve is to shame the (percieved) tyrant and make him see the error of his ways.
There are three actors in this process. The victim of nonviolence, the benficiary of nonviolence and the perpetrator of nonviolence.
The action you are recommending is to be performed by the beneficiary of nonviolence against the perpetrator. The victim of nonviolence has to remain unmoved by the perpetrator's sacrifice if he wishes to take an aggressive stance against the perpetrator.
You got it more or less right. You just got the roles mixed up . Unless if you are an Iraqi
Disclaimer :
I have no opinion in this matter. My interest in this, is purely academic. But then, you probably subscribe to the view "You are either with us or against us".
P.S. I remember seeing the phrase "you are either with me or against me" used before. It was in Mario Puzo's novel "The Godfather".
[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: Lalooprasad Yadav ]
 
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1140
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think the British thought of themselves as being good people who were trying to make India a better place.


Definitely. But a better place for British and not for Indians.
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Map, Jason,
Thanks
TP: I think the British thought of themselves as being good people who were trying to make India a better place
Thomas,
The Brits ain't no saint
Omar,
Yes the Brits were violent and brutal as any colonial rulers are. This is true today and was true even then. True about the Romans, the Czars, and even some of the former kings within Indian sub continent. Some of the Generals and top-officials in the British were individually probably more evil and saddistic than Saddam or Kim Jong put togather.
But the point is that the Queen was not like Saddam, the Rule in general was not even close to Baa'th party or talibanistic regime. And atleast within England, those Brits who sympathized with Indians were allowed to raise their voice and concerns. Those Brits were not considered political criminals and were not sent to concentration camps in their own land by their own Queen. Got to respect them for that atleast?
Ravish, R Manivanan
Good points about patience and permanent solutions
Back to the point of Gandhi :-).
The simple reason that armed struggle does not work against an established rule is that both sides have an ego. No matter how many youths in palestine blow off themselves, Israil will not give up, because giving up hurts Israil's ego and they lose face. Brits had their own big ego and Gandhi knew that. Do you think Brits would have accepted an armed defeat from any of their colonies? Using peaceful means, Gandhi gave Brits a chance to 'go away without loosing face'.
(Side note: One of his main preachings was seeking the truth by reducing oneself to zero)
And those who still think that Gandhi's ways were useless, I ask you one question. Would it have been better if Gandhi did what Yassar Arafat is doing? or would it be better if Arafat followed Gandhi's path of ego-less, non-violence, non-cooperation, education and self-reliance?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
Do you think Brits would have accepted an armed defeat from any of their colonies?


Well... at least one example of the British accepting armed defeat at the hands of one of their colonies quickly comes to mind.
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Well... at least one example of the British accepting armed defeat at the hands of one of their colonies quickly comes to mind.


That's because that particular colony 'inherited' almost everything (knowledge, arms, wisdom, expericence) from Brits. It was like a child revolting against his own father.
The child already knew the in-and-out of his father. Was it possible for the originals (or the so called natives) to do that?
 
Lalooprasad Yadav
Ranch Hand
Posts: 92
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

And those who still think that Gandhi's ways were useless, I ask you one question. Would it have been better if Gandhi did what Yassar Arafat is doing? or would it be better if Arafat followed Gandhi's path of ego-less, non-violence, non-cooperation, education and self-reliance?


I agree with that. While I do not have sufficient data to form an opinion on the merits of the greivances held by the Palestinians and other allied groups against the United States and her allies, I think it would have helped their cause tremendously if they had adopted a non-violent approach. Humane people can be moved by non-violence. To deny this, is to deny that America is a humane nation.
[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: Lalooprasad Yadav ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Kipling's poem shows the racist colonial attitude of the British. It shows that their attitude wasn't an attitude of evil conquerer but rather that it was their responsibility to bring "civilization" to the rest of the world, a task that they would be hated for.
So the intentions may have been good but as the saying goes, "the road to hell is lined with good intentions."
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
self proclaimed sainthood
utter misuse of the power at display
"The Saint" (Sheriff) sounds like an oxymoron
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
self proclaimed sainthood
utter misuse of the power at display
"The Saint" (Sheriff) sounds like an oxymoron


I noticed that too the other day. Is there a story there somewhere?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
self proclaimed sainthood
utter misuse of the power at display


Not self proclaimed... proclaimed by Cindy!
And what good is power if you can't misuse it!!!

It's because of the restraint I displayed with my dear friend, G. Vanin.
(Or maybe it's because I wanted to be Simon Templar when I was growing up!)

[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Guys,exactly 55 years back,on this day he was assasinated.
 
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater.
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic