14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat mutiny of 1946-47??
It's somewhat off-topic; but the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions.
If anything, the Indian Army served with distinction on the Allied side in WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army#World_War_II
Are you getting your facts straight?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderGandhi never said they would be efficient -- he said they would be effective and still retain a moral core.
I don't mean to denigrate Gandhi or the idea of nonviolent resistance to oppression; I've had dealing with Quakers who are utterly devoted to such ideals. I do not think, however, that these ideas are efficient when facing a certain level of oppression or a certain level of ruthlessness to maintain the status quo.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThe point is that, if you allow slavery, people could be (legally) coereced into selling themselves into slavery because of, say, adverse financial burdens, and then woulkd have a difficult time getting out of it. Under what conditions do you think allowing slavery would lead to a freer society generally?
[/i][b]Why single me out in this discussion?
Okay, at one level, I plead guilty as charged. At another level, my examples were aimed at particular possibilites (and, in some cases historical actualities) that represent religious “persecution” (please note the scare quotes there), rather than broad querstions like murder.
You have spoken about w e, without the words “under God,” would somehow disrespect your religious freedoms?[/b]
...
That was only the case because women were disenfranchised from the process, simply because they were women. Giving them the vote “opened” up the lines, so to speak.
I think you're missing the wood for the trees with these two illustrations. The point on fascist parties (before you digressed to slavery) was to show that even democracies have "dogma" that are not up for debate. The universal suffrage point was brought up to show that merely the fact that something crosses "more" lines is insufficient to make it better (presumably off-ing the Jews crossed "more" lines in pre-WWII Europe than letting them remain, for instance. Also, "opening up" lines is hardly a factor -- you could always open more lines by giving children and chimpanzees votes.)
I would not preclude them fromparticipation in the democratic proceess. (Note No.1’s point in his post on this.)
AFAICS, even if they were to explicitly condone violence, current US law would not prevent them from participation in the democratic process. Is that something you would like to change, if you could?
Depends here whether you’re talking about public sector or private sector. I’d have to know what specifically you’re talking about.
Does it matter which sector? Should a Catholic, or a Jew be told by the Government that it will not employ him unless he agrees to commit actions that are against the tenets of his religion/conscience?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAre you an idiot?? The war was over in 1945! Read a history book!
What mutiny of 1946-47??
If anything, the Indian Army served with distinction on the Allied side in WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army#World_War_II
Are you getting your facts straight?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderEfficient - Action that achieves its goals with the minimum possible cost (or not significantly different).
Please inform me as to the difference between "efficient" and "effective" in the case being discussed. I don't waste my time with such trifles and you are a liar to suggest otherwise.
Effective - Action that achieves its goals.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI repeat, what's your evidence for the following assertion:
Are you an idiot?? The war was over in 1945! Read a history book!
"... the mutiny of large parts of the Indian armed forces in 1946-47 and the threat of open armed rebellion probably had a lot more to do with the English leaving India than Gandhi's actions"
Further, where was the threat of "open armed rebellion"?
I could ask you to read a history book as well.