Then stand by it. If you want to ignore the context of which those quotes were provided, then that's your prerogative.Originally Posted by jediron1
Then stand by it. If you want to ignore the context of which those quotes were provided, then that's your prerogative.Originally Posted by jediron1
The point I believe Chip was trying to make 1968 in his quote:
"The fall of the USSR and the Cuban Missile Crisis were both solved only because we let it be quite appearent that we were prepared to commit violence. Even Nuclear Violence if needed.
was that it was the threat of violence that stopped them. Not laying down and being a little momma's boy, but standing up for what is right. Reagan said: "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall". Why did that wall come down? Did it come down because we all sat around chanting and saying KUM BA YAH? Come on 1968 it came down just as Chip said the threat was there and they knew of our resolve. If you quote something be prepared to stand behind what you quote. Instead you ramble all over the place to justify what you just tried to say. Again
if you don't believe the quotes why quote them? Just for fun? That could be one reason, not a good one, but at least it's a reason.:hammer:
Speaking of rambling, what the hell are you talking about?Originally Posted by jediron1
Jediron1, I hate to say it but I think you are getting a couple of the topics going on in this thread mixed up. The quote was just an answer to Steve's question about what Gandhi thought about Hitler not necessarily stating 1968's own opinion.Originally Posted by jediron1
Jo your wrong! What I was trying to do was to get 1968 to give us his opinion on that very quote. All he has being doing is quoting this & that with no real substance.
Jo you are missing the point! If you would have gone back to my original post number 64 you would see I was trying to get 1968 to give his opinion as opposed to Gandhi's or if he ageed say so, what is so hard about that. This is what was quoted, not all but part of:" Victory attained by violence is tantamount to defeat, for it is momentary" Mahatma Gandhi
What I have been trying to see and get 1968 to post is this what he believes or just likes the quote? What is so hard about that?:hammer:
Last edited by jediron1; 11-04-2004 at 09:05 AM.
Declaring our independance was accomplished without bloodshed. It was those evil British who used violence in the attempt to continue their control of us. Defending ourselves on our own soil is definitely one of those times when violence is necessary.Originally Posted by chip anderson
:cheers:
Peace,
Spexvet
...Just ask me...
Originally Posted by jediron1There is nothing so hard about it for those with the ability to follow the thread and read what was actually written.Originally Posted by jediron1
First, start from the beginning and note that there are TWO parts to Gandhi’s quote. The first part is a question: “What Difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?” The second part is a declarative statement: “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to defeat, for it is momentary.”
Regarding the part that is a declarative statement, it was quite clear that I am not in agreement with Gandhi’s views on pacifism had you chosen to read any of the discussion between Spexvet and myself.
Regarding the part that is a question, the implicit notion in it is that the horrific results of war leave little to be idealized. You seemed to disagree with that by asserting a factual error that blatantly idealized the loss of life caused by war (i.e. “Tell that to the 55 million that died in WW11[sic] to keep feedom[sic]and democracy.”). In this particular instance, I think Gandhi’s views more accurately reflect the true nature of war than yours do; hence my previous comment: “Although I have no idea whether Gandhi perceived any difference whatsoever between the initiation of violence vs. self-defense, there is a bit of irony to be found in that you have alluded to a statistic to which his question begs an answer. Only a very small portion of that 55 million died ‘to keep freedom and democracy’. The vast majority of them died for other causes... or just plain died.”
1968 said:
There is nothing so hard about it for those with the ability to follow the thread and read what was actually written.
Again your sarcasm begets you. And I will not respond to your egotistical rantings of a man
follow inthe steps of Poe. The Raven calls, can you hear, never nevermore.:(
That's hilarious! I haven't laughed that hard in a while. Thanks! :DOriginally Posted by jediron1
Have not a clue why your laughing but so be it.:hammer:
I was in Yorkshire, England, visiting a friend of my Mum's, and we were just havng a cup of tea, before getting ready for an early night. I remember sitting by the fire, with cup in hand, listening to the radio, and looking around at this old lady's home, full of a heavy red fabric, can't remember the name of it, and all her antemacassars (spelling - another Brit will know what I mean!), and we all burst into tears.........
Making an eye in the Medical Arts Building, I only burst into tears when I found out Lyndon Johnson was not killed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks