Heyo
Veteran Member
Again changing the subject? You'll have to work on your discussion style.Meanwhile black on black killings are conveniently ignored.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Again changing the subject? You'll have to work on your discussion style.Meanwhile black on black killings are conveniently ignored.
Did the Right need to use force?Maybe the police should have been ordered to “take the knee” and show their submission to avoid a confrontation as they did with BLM.
Those that went to do what the police are paid to do, protect property, were met by police in riot gear. Not with police dancing in the streets and taking the knee as we have seen at other left-wing protests.
That seems to be the way it works these days. Different rules for different factions.
Anyway, do you have to be far-right to do what you pay your inept and ineffective police force to do?
They have only been charged after the protests. George Floyd was only the straw that broke the camels back. Police killing people scot-free has been systemic for decades. Without comprehensive reforms it is only a question of time when the next George Floyd, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor gets killed.
My main mentor is Gandhi, so I'll say yes.Are your teachers morraly an example to you?
Gandhi had proved that nonviolent protest could be immensely successful.My main mentor is Gandhi, so I'll say yes.
Gandhi's own words:Gandhi had proved that nonviolent protest could be immensely successful.
He would reprimand these looter, arsonists in the USA today.
Wow,Gandhi's own words:
"I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. "
"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence."
Perhaps we should also mention that Gandhi was an anarchist who advocated the overthrow of all centralized and violence-based government and a return to self-governing village communes.
Says the person who admitted that they posted a story with the deliberate intent to deceive.Wow,
I learned as a young man that if someone gives you only half the truth, they are deceiving liars
And elsewhere.Gandhi had proved that nonviolent protest could be immensely successful.
He would reprimand these looter, arsonists in the USA today.
Absolutely correct, although, personally, I prefer to say he was for local sovereignty only.Perhaps we should also mention that Gandhi was an anarchist who advocated the overthrow of all centralized and violence-based government and a return to self-governing village communes.
Actually he did with three of his fasts. Even the movie "Gandhi" accurately shows that.During Gandhi's independence campaigns in India, people never stopped rioting violently against British rule. It was just that the focus of global media was on the brutal treatment of civilians at the hands of the colonial government, not the violence of protesters.
Gandhi said he was not a "pacifist", but was an activist, but he certainly did not intend to "inspire people to loot and riot". There were times he stopped his campaign when that started happening.Here's why people think of Gandhi as a pacifist rather than a rabble rouser who inspired people to loot and riot:
Or if we tell the story from the other end, people in India rioted violently at least three times while he was engaging in political campaigns.Actually he did with three of his fasts. Even the movie "Gandhi" accurately shows that.
Yes, but he never faulted people for rising up, to my knowledge, just for the negative consequences of it.Gandhi said he was not a "pacifist", but was an activist, but he certainly did not intend to "inspire people to loot and riot". There were times he stopped his campaign when that started happening.
One cannot help bring about change by ignoring the problems. Here in the States, our "Founding Fathers" well knew that, and they even used violent methods, which I don't advocate btw.
Trump used the right words early on in his presidency to the tune of,why?
Do you believe you have the right to loot, burn, murder because someone thousands of miles away murdered someone else, and you dont like it?
I think people acting this way are mentally impared!
Any judge will tell you that "intent" is crucially important. Gandhi did not use violence or encourage his followers to use violence.Or if we tell the story from the other end, people in India rioted violently at least three times while he was engaging in political campaigns.
Depends what you mean by "rising up".Yes, but he never faulted people for rising up, to my knowledge, just for the negative consequences of it.
False again.I also do not recall him ever objecting to looting or other forms of violence against private property. What he objected to was violence against people.
His intent was to have the British stop their oppression of the masses, which even the British later apologized for. In the UK, he became a hero to so many working class people who felt that he stood up for them as well as the oppressed in South Africa and India.From what I know of Gandhi, he seemed to be aware of that. If you look at his campaigns, they are almost invariably designed from the ground up to provoke the British colonial power into open displays of violence.
Do you believe Jesus was also guilty of that? After all, he did provoke both the Jewish leaders and the Romans, and we well know what happened next.So calling Gandhi's tactic nonviolence is only partially true.
Again, false. Police brutality by some cops encouraged the formation of BLM and the demonstrations, most of which were peaceful. But, as I said previously, I certainly do not sanction the use of violence by either the protesters or the police or anyone else.This is what I see as the issue in American politics. It's not so much that people are "looting" or being "violent" - for the most part, the violence seems to be one-sided much like in Gandhi's situation.
Flippen Brilliant mate!Any judge will tell you that "intent" is crucially important. Gandhi did not use violence or encourage his followers to use violence.
Depends what you mean by "rising up".
False again.
His intent was to have the British stop their oppression of the masses, which even the British later apologized for. In the UK, he became a hero to so many working class people who felt that he stood up for them as well as the oppressed in South Africa and India.
Do you believe Jesus was also guilty of that? After all, he did provoke both the Jewish leaders and the Romans, and we well know what happened next.
Great leaders will often challenge the status quo, but since we're all creatures of habit, change often comes with some turmoil. To put it another way, there's almost always a price to pay for change.
Again, false. Police brutality by some cops encouraged the formation of BLM and the demonstrations, most of which were peaceful. But, as I said previously, I certainly do not sanction the use of violence by either the protesters or the police or anyone else.
To put it another way, you're blaming the wrong people.
Nuff said; at least by me.
Resisting the British colonial power, protesting openly in the streets, smashing salt refineries, that kind of stuff.Any judge will tell you that "intent" is crucially important. Gandhi did not use violence or encourage his followers to use violence.
Depends what you mean by "rising up".
At the time of his arrest, Jesus was a known religious terrorist who had committed massive property damage and had deliberately harmed peaceful and legitimate businessmen. During said arrest, his followers engaged in violence against agents of the legitimate government of Judea.Do you believe Jesus was also guilty of that? After all, he did provoke both the Jewish leaders and the Romans, and we well know what happened next.
On a personal note, I find your attachment to "great leaders" uncomfortable. It dismisses the thousands of people who rose up, and still rise up, to risk their lives facing the violent powers of the state, and it cheapens their sacrifice if we cling to "great leaders" who will somehow magically solve all our problems at no cost to ourselves.Great leaders will often challenge the status quo, but since we're all creatures of habit, change often comes with some turmoil. To put it another way, there's almost always a price to pay for change.
Based on the above, you totally appear to have no clue where I'm coming from as the above is a complete non-sequitur. It seems you'd much rather argue than actually read what I've written and actually try and digest it. I have no interest in discussing this or anything else with you when you pull disingenuous stunts like the above, as you have misportrayed what I said and what Gandhi did and why he did it. Utterly disgusting.On a personal note, I find your attachment to "great leaders" uncomfortable. It dismisses the thousands of people who rose up, and still rise up, to risk their lives facing the violent powers of the state, and it cheapens their sacrifice if we cling to "great leaders" who will somehow magically solve all our problems at no cost to ourselves.
What you so cutely and vaguely call "turmoil" is the blood, sweat and tears of thousands or even millions of people beaten, stabbed or shot by those who claim to defend them, in the name of regimes that prefer to sacrifice their lives over introducing even the most miniscule changes in how to do things.