You can dish it out but you can't take it.

[happening fish]

Dude, yo, guys, go read Nake Empire by Terry Goodkind. The whole fucking basis for the storyline is about the inherent evil of turning a blind eye to wrongdoing in the interests of absolute nonviolence.

Back me up here, Robbo!

[Axtech]

Yeah! Read it!

Seriously, though. Awesome book. Great series, actually. The first book is a tad cliché, but the series quickly moves in it's own direction.

[Rusty]

Yeah well go watch the movie Ghandi it's really good.

[Korzic]

Dude, yo, guys, go read Nake Empire by Terry Goodkind. The whole fucking basis for the storyline is about the inherent evil of turning a blind eye to wrongdoing in the interests of absolute nonviolence.

Back me up here, Robbo!

It was a nice book but PLEASE TERRY GOODKIND GET BACK TO THE REAL STORY. I hate reading about diversions. He's turning into Robert Jordan

[happening fish]

Yeah I know eh? But still. It is pertinent to this topic!

P.S. Robert Jordan suuu-hucks!

[nelison]

Someone here asked how Ghandi's method could have been used against Hitler, he answered that, but I forget what he said

Did it have something to do with "it can't"?

I seriously don't believe non-violence can solve problems on a larger scale. Sure maybe at a rally it works, but what good is a non-violent defense when a country is slaughtering you despite your attitude?

I would rather fight for a chance to live than sit back and have guns pointed at my head.

No, Ghandi did believe it could be done without using violence much like India was liberated without using violence. "what good is a non-violent defense when a country is slaughtering you despite your attitude?" Well in case you didn't know thats exactly what one English general did too many Indian people. They were standing peacefully he brought a a large section of the army in including a tank, but the tank wouldn't fit through the archway into the section they were standing in, so the general ordered the foot soldiers in. Men, women, and children were all slaughtered. All of them, 1650 people were in attendence, there were 1650 casualties...non of them lived. They all knew what kind of sacrifice they were making by staying there. Do you know what the English government thought? They were appalled. They were disgusted by what they had done to those people who hadn't raised so much as a fist towards them would be slaughterd for that. They were all over the news all over the world. Other countires looked at England differently. Actually that massacre proved to be a major role in deciding to pull out of India, It wasn't the image they wanted. Had Ghandi and his followers fought back then the killings would have been "justified" but they didn't not even after such a tradgedy did they fight back, and it was won with much less deaths than there would have been had they used violcence to get their way.

Do you think the Nazis would have cared? Ghandi was lucky that there were some internal problems in the British empire (basically that it got to big and it couldn't keep control.) I guarentee if you replaced Britain with Nazi Germany in that situation and you would have had 1650 casualties plus millions more and not a blink will be made from the head post.

[Rusty]

Someone here asked how Ghandi's method could have been used against Hitler, he answered that, but I forget what he said

Did it have something to do with "it can't"?

I seriously don't believe non-violence can solve problems on a larger scale. Sure maybe at a rally it works, but what good is a non-violent defense when a country is slaughtering you despite your attitude?

I would rather fight for a chance to live than sit back and have guns pointed at my head.

No, Ghandi did believe it could be done without using violence much like India was liberated without using violence. "what good is a non-violent defense when a country is slaughtering you despite your attitude?" Well in case you didn't know thats exactly what one English general did too many Indian people. They were standing peacefully he brought a a large section of the army in including a tank, but the tank wouldn't fit through the archway into the section they were standing in, so the general ordered the foot soldiers in. Men, women, and children were all slaughtered. All of them, 1650 people were in attendence, there were 1650 casualties...non of them lived. They all knew what kind of sacrifice they were making by staying there. Do you know what the English government thought? They were appalled. They were disgusted by what they had done to those people who hadn't raised so much as a fist towards them would be slaughterd for that. They were all over the news all over the world. Other countires looked at England differently. Actually that massacre proved to be a major role in deciding to pull out of India, It wasn't the image they wanted. Had Ghandi and his followers fought back then the killings would have been "justified" but they didn't not even after such a tradgedy did they fight back, and it was won with much less deaths than there would have been had they used violcence to get their way.

Do you think the Nazis would have cared? Ghandi was lucky that there were some internal problems in the British empire (basically that it got to big and it couldn't keep control.) I guarentee if you replaced Britain with Nazi Germany in that situation and you would have had 1650 casualties plus millions more and not a blink will be made from the head post.

Actually the British empire was starting to think about letting Ghandi have India, WW2 just sealed the deal so to say. Non Violent resistance might have worked. If every single person just rose up and said no...the factories everyone were to stop. They would have no ammunition no weapons, no food, no clothing, they would have nothing. Actually an example would be the "Swing Kids" who refused to join up with the Nazi party. They were mostly peaceful, but they did fight when attacked and stuff.