Does Mahatma Gandhi deserve respect or ridicule?

[pinkocommie]

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

[pinkocommie]

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

[spoiler:k86dk9jj]

[/spoiler:k86dk9jj]

[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.

[McQ]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[KebertX]

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...)

[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?

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!)

[pinkocommie]

~ 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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[The Black Jester]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[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.

[The Black Jester]

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.

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...

[Whitney]

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

I read that completely wrong and apologize for doing so.