Happy Atheist Forum

Discuss

EDIT: I should clarify that I believe the man deserves respect. Total respect.

[strike:5ll54cb9]Why not offer your views, hmm?[/strike:5ll54cb9]

Mohandas Gandhi was like all humans, had good and bad things going on. His method for freeing his country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Struggle_for_Indian_Independence_.281915.E2.80.931945.29) was brilliant. His racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Racism_and_controversy) and abuse of his nieces (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gandhi+incestuous+pedophile&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) was disgusting.

It was a brilliant way to fight oppression.

Disclaimer - I don't know much about Gandhi.  ;D  

Both.  He obviously deserves respect for all of the good things he did for India and the world, but he also deserves ridicule for being totally racist.  His racism was a product of his environment and when he grew up, which makes it more understandable but not entirely excusable.  Gandhi is a great example of why I think blind hero worship is a bad, ultimately disappointing thing.  Everyone has aspects of themselves - things they've done or ways they think - that are worth ridicule.  No one is above reproach or below the capability to be heroic.

Quote from: "TomThumb"Discuss

EDIT: I should clarify that I believe the man deserves respect. Total respect.

Total Ridicule. Essay I wrote: http://mwillett.org/Politics/Gandhi.htm (http://mwillett.org/Politics/Gandhi.htm) for which I did a great amount of research. Gandhi was a deplorable person with only self centered ethics. What he supposedly did for India is a joke, he set India back decades.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Disclaimer - I don't know much about Gandhi.  ;D  

Which is why you think he deserves respect. Read him yourself. He admits his racism and anti-female nature in his own works.

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Disclaimer - I don't know much about Gandhi.  ;D  

Which is why you think he deserves respect. Read him yourself. He admits his racism and anti-female nature in his own works.

I don't think a person being a product of their time and culture cancels out all of the good things they did.  My grandpa was a typical non violent southern racist, but he also helped develop a lot of great programs for the blind community in his area.  I think it would be short sighted of anyone to claim that he should only be judged on his shortcomings rather than considered for everything he's done - which was more good than bad.  My grandpa deserved respect for what he did for blind people, but not for how he regarded black people.  No one is 100% good or bad.

I already knew he was racist and sexist - he was a product of his time and culture.  Does that mean he shouldn't be respected for the good he did?  I don't think so.  Does the good he did mean he shouldn't be ridiculed for his faults?  I don't think that either.  That's why I said both.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Does that mean he shouldn't be respected for the good he did?  I don't think so.  Does the good he did mean he shouldn't be ridiculed for his faults?  I don't think that either.  That's why I said both.  

But he didn't do the good you are claiming he did. It's a false claim based on stuff you heard about him. That's why I suggested you read up on him. Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

 That seems like an unwarranted rude comment.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

:eek: Personally, I consider it rude to have an opinion on someone when you admit you know little about him.

Oh, and Mother Teresa was a bitch too. That's a sacred cow that needs slaughtering.

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

:eek:

Oh, and Mother Teresa was a bitch too. That's a sacred cow that needs slaughtering.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"No, that's not what I'm saying.

I believe it is: "He obviously deserves respect for all of the good things he did for India..."


I think what you are choosing to think is pretty clear and pretty false. You assume he did something positive for India- which he didn't- and that he should be respected for that imaginary deed and we should cut him some slack and remember what the culture was like when we criticize him.  

Your number one issue seems to be that you have an opinion on something you know little about. How do we respect someone for something imaginary?

But none of that addresses the fact that at some point bad people should not be respected at all. Hence the question exactly how much shit do you let in the wine?

For goodness sakes if you don't believe me go read what the Indians say about him, but don't keep defending someone with false information. Hell, get his son's bio, even. You'll learn anything he claimed to be doing for India was for him. He set India back in its aims because his loyalty was to the British Empire first, not to India. And the Indians don't even use his principles, he is revered, but not followed.

You're obviously looking for a fight and I'm not interested.  I don't care.  If I misspoke, then I misspoke.  I even stated that I didn't know a lot about Ghandi, I never said I cared to know more.  My point to the OP was that no one deserves 100% respect or ridicule.  Sorry, but I don't want to argue with you about this, especially when you seem so desperate for an argument that you're willing to make strawmen out of what I'm saying.  

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

Nope, I don't like this statement at all. I respect things George Washington did and things he said, but there are things he did and said that I don't agree with. So in using your example I can separate the shit from the wine. While I agree that Gandhi wasn't a very good man, it doesn't mean that everything he did was bad, his example for fighting oppression by letting the oppressors be aggressive on people not doing anything wrong was genius and still works. If we couldn't separate the shit from the wine, no one would drink any wine because there's always shit. Because any person other than you (sometimes even you), will do something that you don't agree with.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"You're obviously looking for a fight and I'm not interested.  I don't care.  If I misspoke, then I misspoke.  I even stated that I didn't know a lot about Ghandi, I never said I cared to know more.  My point to the OP was that no one deserves 100% respect or ridicule.  Sorry, but I don't want to argue with you about this, especially when you seem so desperate for an argument that you're willing to make strawmen out of what I'm saying.  

Desperate for an argument? On a forum where the topic at hand is the one I'm referring to? Boy, that's a new copout for me, I haven't heard that one before.

There is no strawman here. I was perfectly willing to discuss both your willingness to accept a bit of shit in the wine or the topic of Gandhi, either one was fine. Now, I have to wonder what the point of being on a discussion forum is if you don't wish to discuss? Why respond at all?

Oh, and for the benefit of future newcomers you should realize text does not show tone of voice. "Looking for a fight" is not something you should assume about people who are writing on a discussion forum.

Geez, passive-aggressive much?

Quote from: "Davin"his example for fighting oppression by letting the oppressors be aggressive on people not doing anything wrong was genius and still works.

*facepalm* So even atheists believe in the imaginary. It wasn't genius and it never worked. The British Empire fell, Johnson signed the civil rights laws- no matter the non-violent crusader you discuss their actions are not the cause of success. Non violent passivity does not work and is nothing to be commended.

 Again - I'm not going to fight with you.

Edited because of double post!  So, not to waste the space, here's something cute -

[spoiler:k86dk9jj](https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Fkitten_on_laptop.jpg&hash=404e92f625ac13d9fe76045805632183a396a033)

[/spoiler:k86dk9jj]

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"

Quote from: "Davin"his example for fighting oppression by letting the oppressors be aggressive on people not doing anything wrong was genius and still works.

*facepalm* So even atheists believe in the imaginary. It wasn't genius and it never worked. The British Empire fell, Johnson signed the civil rights laws- no matter the non-violent crusader you discuss their actions are not the cause of success. Non violent passivity does not work and is nothing to be commended.

*facepalm* so even atheists rely on the same dishonest and fallacious argument tactics that young earth creationists use. I suppose the nonviolent Civil Disobedience organized by MLK Jr. didn't work either, it just so happened that America happened to change soon after. I'm sure the non-violent civil disobedience conducted by women's rights groups didn't do anything either, it's just America just happened to change right after.

Here are a few things you should avoid that I've already noticed you doing:
Acting like you're an expert over anyone who disagrees with you.
Use fallacies to support your arguments.
Be pretty damned rude for no reason other than other people have a different conclusion than thou.

Just studying something more than someone else, doesn't automatically make you more right; you still need to make a rational argument supported by evidence. The argument "you need to study subject X more" is the same as "it's X because I've been studying it for 20 years." Sorry, it's not X just because you've studied it more, you still need a rational argument and data to back it up.

All I know about Ghandi is what I've seen in a few newsreels, a tiny few blurbs in modern high school world history books, and from the Ben Kingsley movie. None of those sources give me the confidence to express a firm opinion, as none are inherently and completely reliable.

So are we saying that we have to choose respect or ridicule? One OR the other? Not a good pair of choices. Can't make one or the other. The general history seems to indicate he did do good for India, but we seem to have a member who disagrees (dogismycopilot).

So I have to ask, what is the most reliable source of info on Ghandi? Is there a biography that is accurate and complete? Or a series of works that should be studied?

Let's cover those before going too far into the thread.

All men are flawed.  The OP is a false dichotomy, because, in my experience, most men deserve a roughly equal measure of both respect and ridicule.

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Not only did Gandhi do nothing good, even if he had that is no reason to overlook the bad, especially for reasons as stupid as "time and culture." Which by the way is your excuse for him, not his. He'd stand by the things we consider bad which would include killing his wife. So I again ask exactly how much shit do you let in the wine before you stop drinking it? Do we also consider Jeffrey Dahmer not such a bad guy if he donated to charity? How bad is too bad before you admit they are bad?

And if that was considered rude, I'd hate to see what would happen if I were to be myself here.   Personally, I consider it rude to have an opinion on someone when you admit you know little about him.

Oh, and Mother Teresa was a bitch too. That's a sacred cow that needs slaughtering.

~ WTF? He didn't kill his wife, she died by his side in a prison...
~ He may have been guilty of stereotyping minorities, but not hating them.  He was a man who practiced total non violence.  He said not even to hate the tyrants oppressing his people, I find it hard to believe he had an irrational hatred of black people, (or other minorities).
~ He wasn't anti women's rights! He personally taught his wife to read and right, despite his "Time and Culture" saying women shouldn't be educated.
~ MOTHER TERESA!?! I'm sorry, but if you think Mother Teresa was a bitch, I'm not even going to argue with you.  You're either a major dick, or an ignorant moron. (Probably both...)

The point of this wasn't to call Gandhi's Character into question.  He was religious (We're a Forum of Happy Atheists), So we Atheists, who mostly think religion is ridiculous, are liable to be ridiculing Gandhi.  He famously said all religions are true, we say no religions are true, should Atheists think Gandhi was just as ignorant as any brainwashed religious believer?

He did great things for his country, he fought tyranny and oppression with nonviolence.  The man was better than MLK.  Gandhi was a man of Post-Conventional morality, and he changed the world.  To me, that means he deserves extreme respect.  Gandhi was more enlightened on the concept of religion than any Atheist I've ever met, and a revolutionary peace maker.

Actually, one of the main reasons I turned away from Christianity was the ridiculous concept that Gandhi was in Hell (he didn't accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior).  I couldn't accept that such a great man deserved to be tortured for eternity.  That's how I determined that the bible did not depict a just God.

If you think he should be ridiculed for his religious views, You're either a major dick, or an ignorant moron. (Probably both... I've come full circle!)

Quote from: "KebertX"~ MOTHER TERESA!?! I'm sorry, but if you think Mother Teresa was a bitch, I'm not even going to argue with you.  You're either a major dick, or an ignorant moron. (Probably both...)

There is a far more compelling argument to be made that M.T. was a pretty rotten human than Ghandi.  But, if we want to do that dance, a new thread would be best.  However, I don't think it's fair to say that dogsmycopilot is a major dick or an ignorant moron because she questions the common perceptions of either Ghandi or M.T.  I don't know if I'd call M.T. a bitch, but I've read enough about her to not have a terribly high opinion of the woman, personally.

Quote from: "KebertX"The point of this wasn't to call Gandhi's Character into question.  He was religious (We're a Forum of Happy Atheists), So we Atheists, who mostly think religion is ridiculous, are liable to be ridiculing Gandhi.  He famously said all religions are true, we say no religions are true, should Atheists think Gandhi was just as ignorant as any brainwashed religious believer?

Simply because someone is religious doesn't mean that they are ignorant.  Also, I prefer to think for myself.  I'm sure the Official Atheist Party Line® will survive my opprobrium, though.

QuoteHe did great things for his country, he fought tyranny and oppression with nonviolence.  The man was better than MLK.  Gandhi was a man of Post-Conventional morality, and he changed the world.  To me, that means he deserves extreme respect.  Gandhi was more enlightened on the concept of religion than any Atheist I've ever met, and a revolutionary peace maker.

He also advocated doing nothing at all to combat Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" in WWII.  In case you're not familiar with this, it entailed the subjugation of entire subject peoples [see Korea]; the reduction of their comforts, and in some cases neccessities[see the Phillipines, or the Chinese "rice offensives"]; or the active murder of innocent civilians [see again China, particularly the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731].

The refusal to stand against blatant evil is in itself evil.

QuoteIf you think he should be ridiculed for his religious views, You're either a major dick, or an ignorant moron. (Probably both... I've come full circle!)

Hey, that's an interesting stratagem for fostering debate and discussion.  Where have I seen that before?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "KebertX"If you think he should be ridiculed for his religious views, You're either a major dick, or an ignorant moron. (Probably both... I've come full circle!)

Hey, that's an interesting stratagem for fostering debate and discussion.  Where have I seen that before?

Seriously, why not simply ask for the reasons behind dogsmycopilot's views?  She might know something you don't...even if you don't like how she expressed her opinion.  Knowledge is not dangerous.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "KebertX"If you think he should be ridiculed for his religious views, You're either a major dick, or an ignorant moron. (Probably both... I've come full circle!)

Hey, that's an interesting stratagem for fostering debate and discussion.  Where have I seen that before?

Seriously, why not simply ask for the reasons behind dogsmycopilot's views?  She might know something you don't...even if you don't like how she expressed her opinion.  Knowledge is not dangerous.

Because when stated in such a rude manner, I don't consider it worthy of a dignified response.  You last sentence is a non-sequitur, as my post was obviously directed at her method of disquisition and not the character of Gandhi himself.

Call me crazy, but when someone argues that dissentients are either "major dick" or "ignorant moron", the conditional ad homineim acts as an admission of an argument lacking substance.

Thump, I'm pretty sure the black jester was agreeing with you.  =D

This thread seems to have gotten people in a fightin' mood - which actually proves your point even more, Thump.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because when stated in such a rude manner, I don't consider it worthy of a dignified response. You last sentence is a non-sequitur, as my post was obviously directed at her method of disquisition and not the character of Gandhi himself.

Call me crazy, but when someone argues that dissentients are either "major dick" or "ignorant moron", the conditional ad homineim acts as an admission of an argument lacking substance.

Woah, wait, I'm confused.

I was not speaking to you, but to "KebertX."  I was under the impression that you were taking KebertX to task for his/her ad hominem attack on dogsmycopilot.  I was agreeing with you, and adding my comment that rather than attacking the character of dogsmycopilot, KebertX could simply have asked dogsmycopilot for the reason behind dogsmycopilot's vitriol, perhaps, along the way, learning some facts of which he/she (KebertX) was ignorant.  I was saying, with my last sentence, that KebertX should not be afraid to learn something potentially disconcerting about a "respected" figure, just because such information is conveyed in a tone that KebertX doesn't like.  Tone notwithstanding, dogsmycopilot might have information worth learning.  None of my post was in any way about you.

Forgive me if I wasn't clear.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Thump, I'm pretty sure the black jester was agreeing with you. =D

This thread seems to have gotten people in a fightin' mood - which actually proves your point even more, Thump.

Yep, I was, thank you pinkocommie.  Sheesh...fightin' mood indeed.  Clearly I shouldn't have walked into the middle of it...

Do I need to lock this thread so you all can have a do-over?

I read that completely wrong and apologize for doing so.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "KebertX"~ MOTHER TERESA!?! I'm sorry, but if you think Mother Teresa was a bitch, I'm not even going to argue with you.  You're either a major dick, or an ignorant moron. (Probably both...)

There is a far more compelling argument to be made that M.T. was a pretty rotten human than Ghandi.  But, if we want to do that dance, a new thread would be best.  However, I don't think it's fair to say that dogsmycopilot is a major dick or an ignorant moron because she questions the common perceptions of either Ghandi or M.T.  I don't know if I'd call M.T. a bitch, but I've read enough about her to not have a terribly high opinion of the woman, personally.

This.  Penn and Teller actually did a really good episode of Bullshit, outlining some of the shady and deplorable things MT did in her so-called charity work.

As for Ghandi, he came up a lot in many of my philosophy classes.  Nothing I've personally read about him would indicate he's the fraud dogismycopilot is claiming him to be, but I'm not comfortable making an assertion either way without looking into it more.  However I will say this:

1.) Writing an article or paper does not make one an expert on a given topic.  Informed, perhaps, but not an expert.
2.) I personally have a hard time taking someone seriously if they're being rude and antagonistic.  You may speak the truth, but if you're being an ass about it, people aren't going to be able to see past that.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"This.  Penn and Teller actually did a really good episode of Bullshit, outlining some of the shady and deplorable things MT did in her so-called charity work.

Great episode, everybody should watch it.

I just gained a lot of respect for this Forum.  You don't let people get away with illogical arguments!  "Major Dick or Ignorant Moron,"  was a pretty bad thing to say on my part. So I am officially retracting that, because people who use Ad Hominem attacks are all Major Dicks and Ignorant Morons... wait!  So, I'm sorry to anyone who I insulted with my illogical arguments, let me start over.

~

I actually read the essay dogsmycopilot put up.

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"Total Ridicule. Essay I wrote: http://mwillett.org/Politics/Gandhi.htm (http://mwillett.org/Politics/Gandhi.htm) for which I did a great amount of research. Gandhi was a deplorable person with only self centered ethics. What he supposedly did for India is a joke, he set India back decades.

I have to say, it's rather weak, and it takes a lot of things way out of context.

It says he was a proponent of the caste system, because he was born into the highest cast, but really, he was one of the formost critics of the caste system. He helped established rights for the Dalits, as equal to the Brahmins.  Furthermore, the caste system was legally abolished in the late 40's, when the constitution was remodeled: Something that would not have happened if not for Gandhi.

He was not an Imperialist, that is an obvious and direct contradiction of the impact he had on India.  He was not in favor of the British actions during the Zulu uprising.  Gandhi condemned the Imperialist actions against the Zulu uprising as a man hunt.  He said the Indian People in South Africa would do best not to obstruct the British Army, because he knew that could only result in more death.  He was a Pacifist, his mentality was not one that condoned fighting.

You construed this quote, “Let them take possession of your beautiful island with all your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls nor your minds.”  as Gandhi favoring the Nazis taking over the British.  Once again, he believed in taking a passive approach, and avoiding war.  This is very wise in many situations, but obviously not a bit of conventional wisdom that applied to WWII.  None the less, Gandhi strongly believed in nonviolence, that's what his experiences told him was right.  This means only that he was a bad military strategist, not at all a bad person.

He wasn't oppressing his son when he told him not to go to college.  He didn't want to endorse the British Education system.  It was a part of a larger cause, he was able to look past the desires of individuals close to him, in order to help the entire nation.  This was what he cared about, because he had post conventional morality.  "The boy was so uncared for no one came to his bedside as he lay dying." Really? Gandhi was in prison when his son died!  Your essay looks past this, and therefore ignores the bigger picture of what he has done.

It portrays Gandhi as a man against sexual freedom, when really, he was just against recreational sex because he felt people should overcome their baser animal urges.  He was a celibate man, who believed people should only have sex to have children (He had 4 kids).  This wasn't a desire to oppress people, but a belief that people should be in control of their primitive instincts.  Celibacy is not immoral, it's a test of your will, and although an Atheist view is against celibacy, it doesn't mean Gandhi was a bad person for having spiritual practices that you find strange.

He was against Birth Control?  Well I've never heard that, but the good people at GodSpy (You referenced them in your bibliography) make a convincing point. http://oldarchive.godspy.com/life/Gandh ... z.cfm.html (http://oldarchive.godspy.com/life/Gandhi-on-Sex-Marriage-and-Birth-Control-by-Daniel-Vitz.cfm.html)  So he wasn't the most progressive guy, I'll give you that, but once again, he wasn't against Birth Control, and Homosexuality, because he thought people should be denied civil rights and liberties, he was just against recreational sex.  He never tried to force his spiritual practices onto anyone, he just made very clear how he believed the world should behave.

Gandhi was an exceptional Human Being.  He did great things for the people of India, and no one who knows his history could possibly contest that.
~

So how's that?  Have I made up for my unforgivable Ad Hominem?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I read that completely wrong and apologize for doing so.  :D

The answer to the question posed by the OP is ridicule, as Gandhi did absolutely nothing to earn respect.

Gandhi, like, you, me, or Donald Trump, had skidmarks in his drawers.  He had good ideas, and serious failings.

Quote from: "KebertX"He was not an Imperialist, that is an obvious and direct contradiction of the impact he had on India.  He was not in favor of the British actions during the Zulu uprising.  Gandhi condemned the Imperialist actions against the Zulu uprising as a man hunt.  He said the Indian People in South Africa would do best not to obstruct the British Army, because he knew that could only result in more death.  He was a Pacifist, his mentality was not one that condoned fighting.  

Yeah, he was against birth control (no reason to capitalize that) in my book that alone makes one a bad person worthy  of condemnation. I don't think you have read much of Gandhi's own words. You have clearly applied your own wishful spin, but this was the most egregious statement. He was so not against the British he was a decorated war hero. He didn't just not obstruct the British he actively fought to uphold their bullshit. But you keep right own following the authoritarian line. Don't read any of his material or his son's biography or address why he refused those meds to his wife. No, just keep insisting that anyone with a view other than yours is "taking things out of context." You know that's the fun part about Gandhi, he was so very screwed up I didn't have to make a damn thing up or take it out of context. But I have tried to debate one like you already. You were more creative than he was with the ad hominem, but funny how that's you people's first reaction.