Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

civil rights and feminist rights movements are kinda both part of the same movement

ur kidding right?

[mad_gater]

ur kidding right?

civil rights movement was for gaining basic civil rights (such as right to vote) for black people....feminist movement was for gaining the same thing for women....so same movement just 2 sub-groups

[aretood2]

ur kidding right?

That's not the only inaccurate part in his post.

[Ukko]

That's not the only inaccurate part in his post.

I want to see the books he reads. I could do with a laugh.

[Womble]

Pacifists generally urge an attempt to reach compromise before going to war. It's not that they are "lily livered", it's just that they understand the cost in lives that war produces. No sane person seeks war, but never be so foolish as to think that the pacifist standing does not mean they are "afraid" of war if given no option.

Not true in the least. Gandhi actually suggested that going to war against Hitler was a worse sin than letting Hitler conquer. He actually insisted that the moral thing to do for Germany's Jews was to allow themselves to be slaughtered en masse until the Germans' moral sense was awakened:

..The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified.

But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both? Or is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means?

..Can the Jews resist this organised and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. ... If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

...The Jews are a compact, homogeneous community in Germany. They are far more gifted than the Indians of South Africa. And they have organised world opinion behind them. I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in non-violent action, the winter of their despair can in the twinkling of an eye be turned into the summer of hope. And what has today become a degrading man-hunt can be turned into a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah. It will be then a truly religious resistance offered against the godless fury of dehumanised man. The German Jews will score a lasting victory over the German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted the latter to an appreciation of human dignity. They will have rendered service to fellow-Germans and proved their title to be the real Germans as against those who are today dragging, however unknowingly, the German name into the mire.

That, in a nutshell, is the pacifist's recipe. It's not fear of war, it's readiness to pay any price, including price that is greater than would be paid in war itself, in order to not bloody their hands and and not taint their spirit through engaging in violence. It's the belief that if only you don't fight evil, you will convert it to good. Somehow.

[Gatefan1976]

Ghandi is one man with one viewpoint.

In addition, how far different is his viewpoint, from the viewpoint you offered Soulreaver to prove taking the "long view" of Gods plan?

[Womble]

Ghandi is one man with one viewpoint.

Once he stops being the universally recognized icon of pacifism, that argument can apply.

In addition, how far different is his viewpoint, from the viewpoint you offered Soulreaver to prove taking the "long view" of Gods plan?

Quite far. I would go as far as to say that there is no connection whatsoever.

[SoulReaver]

Once he stops being the universally recognized icon of pacifism, that argument can apply.

better not get you started on Jesus then :/
(though a debate with the christians gaters would be interesting to watch)

Quite far. I would go as far as to say that there is no connection whatsoever.

and yet he too was looking at the big picture wasn't he?

[aretood2]

better not get you started on Jesus then :/
(though a debate with the christians gaters would be interesting to watch)

Jesus didn't care much about nations as he did about congregations and individuals. Even so, self defense is not forbidden. You can decide to take up pacifism, I guess. But that would be your own deal, a self imposition. However, the problem is that people believe that the Bible is a source of national policy. While there's no reason why the morality derived out of it shouldn't influence discourse, it would be wholly dishonest to claim that Jesus intended his teachings to serve as a direct ruling principle for nations.

[SoulReaver]

Jesus didn't care much about nations as he did about congregations and individuals. Even so, self defense is not forbidden

maybe it isn't (though the exact translation of the "thou shall not kill" part is open to debate)

but the new testament does complicate things since Jesus himself would turn the other cheek & have his guards sheathe their swords

it would be wholly dishonest to claim that Jesus intended his teachings to serve as a direct ruling principle for nations.

??? consider for a moment the consequences such a statement could have, for all those who are discovering christianity for instance (taking into a account that Jesus is supposed to be not some mere prophet like Abraham or Mahomet, but the son of God if not God himself)

[Gatefan1976]

Once he stops being the universally recognized icon of pacifism, that argument can apply.

Icons are like saints, something to aspire to, but rarely copied.

Quite far. I would go as far as to say that there is no connection whatsoever.

I think you are being a touch obtuse with that answer. Why did the Jews not lift themselves out of slavery in Egypt? Why did it take a sign from God and the Inspiration of Moses and Aaron?
How different is that from what Ghandi was proposing?

[aretood2]

maybe it isn't (though the exact translation of the "thou shall not kill" part is open to debate)

but the new testament does complicate things since Jesus himself would turn the other cheek & have his guards sheathe their swords

Thus the internal debates regarding what that verse constitutes. Like I have said, and implied, in the past else where, Jesus is a man of peace. Which is why a Christian should approach the consideration of the use of violence very carefully. Personal self defense may be the only excusable act of violence. The turning of the other cheek has more to do with interpersonal grievances than blind pacifism. It's a command against pursuing someone out of spite or seeking revenge or holding grudges.

However, it is most interesting to note that under Roman prosecution, there was no armed resistance. And...Jews really didn't put up much of an armed resistance against the Nazis aside from one notable exception. The problem with Gandhi's view is that Jews would be reborn in a later life as per his beliefs...yeah...about that...

??? consider for a moment the consequences such a statement could have, for all those who are discovering Christianity for instance (taking into a account that Jesus is supposed to be not some mere prophet like Abraham or Mahomet, but the son of God if not God himself)

Such as what? If anything, Jesus not caring about states as much as individuals makes much more sense than seeing Jesus as some sort of political reformer and the US as some sort of "Christian" nation (Though such a notion is laughable, the US has not lived up to such a moniker). I mean...how many times does "The Kingdom of Heaven" not get mentioned? Or that whole "I am not of this world" thing? Or Peter's reference to being a people separate from the world?

[Annoyed]

People ought to be paying attention to this.... The future of the Internet is being debated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...es-how-it-did/

Here's a sample of the illogical arguments being made:

Because consumers only purchase access to the system of wires and servers run by a broadband company as opposed to directly connecting to the Internet itself, Internet service is not like telephone service, argued Peter Keisler, the industry attorney arguing before the court. Instead, what consumers subscribe to simply "supports the ability for consumers to retrieve information" from the Internet and is not a telecommunications service, he said.

So, your ISP isn't a telecommunications service? What is it, then? A pig?

[SoulReaver]

Personal self defense may be the only excusable act of violence.

that still leaves the other incident where he told his bodyguard to sheathe his sword how do you explain that one?

[aretood2]

People ought to be paying attention to this.... The future of the Internet is being debated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...es-how-it-did/

Here's a sample of the illogical arguments being made:


So, your ISP isn't a telecommunications service? What is it, then? A pig?

They are banking on people, like those judges, not knowing how the internet works.

that still leaves the other incident where he told his bodyguard to sheathe his sword how do you explain that one?

I'm sorry, but that's a dumb question (unless I am severely overestimating your knowledge of Christianity) and thus deserves a dumb answer. He said that because he felt like it.