The Student Room Group

"It is better to be violent..." Ghandi.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by IndianDancer
what is your source?



Non-Violence in Peace and War (1948).
Reply 21
Original post by Schemilix
I'm pretty sure the path of ahimsa was the entire point of Ghandi's crusade. This all seems dubious.


Look here: Non-Violence in Peace and War (1948).
Original post by AdzD
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. - here he is saying if one cannot do something or is scared to do it then he should not hide behind the idea of non-violence to excuse his not doing anything.

Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent - here he is saying you can get a violent man to accept non-violent tactics to achieve the same goal but you could never stir a coward into action regardless.

@ Nixon's back - you just conceded that violence is sometimes the answer, no its not the answer to every conflict but to others it is.


yes but how is he covering up his own cowardice by saying that?
Reply 23
"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." - Ghandi.
Reply 24
Original post by Robbie c
"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." - Ghandi.


That is a case of a struggle when you want to win but you can also lose.. :wink:

The quote I cited is far more general than yours.
Reply 25
Original post by IndianDancer
yes but how is he covering up his own cowardice by saying that?


basically by saying, 'oh im not doing anything because i dont believe in violence' but really its because he is to scared to step up.

the impotent also wouldn't be someone participating in non-violent tactics like civil disobedience either.
Original post by SoulfulBoy
Non-Violence in Peace and War (1948).


ok so this is what i understood from his quote:

its better to be violent while being brave and standing up for your beliefs than to say "oh no i don't believe in violence", when in reality you would have no problem with violence, its just that you are a pussy.

so its:

violent man vs scared liar

is it easier to cure violent tendencies or is it easier to cure cowardice?

i think it would be easier to get someone to be non-violent than to get someone to be courageous. i think courage is something you have or don't have.
Original post by AdzD
basically by saying, 'oh im not doing anything because i dont believe in violence' but really its because he is to scared to step up.

the impotent also wouldn't be someone participating in non-violent tactics like civil disobedience either.


but he did step up though. lol
Reply 28
Original post by IndianDancer
but he did step up though. lol


its not in reference to Gandhi, Gandhi was saying that about others lol.
Original post by AdzD
its not in reference to Gandhi, Gandhi was saying that about others lol.


Oh god! I completely misunderstood your first post on this thread. I guess we're both saying the same thing LOL I'm sorry I negged you :frown:
Reply 30
Original post by IndianDancer
Oh god! I completely misunderstood your first post on this thread. I guess we're both saying the same thing LOL I'm sorry I negged you :frown:


You negged me :0 tbf, i dont even understand this neg malarky so it's ite.
Original post by AdzD
You negged me :0 tbf, i dont even understand this neg malarky so it's ite.


:biggrin:
Reply 32
Would be interesting to know if he was talking about a certain set of coditions or thought he'd come out with a general golden rule, does it really sum up the entirity of his thoughts on violence?
Also raises questions such as how do you decide when someone's really impotent.
Internet quote mining isn't necessarily particularly enlightening tbh.
Reply 33
Original post by Steevee
The same kind of obsolete, hippy rubbish he came out with a lot of the time.

He was a nice man, sure enough, he had some nice ideas. But he was neither a realist nor a pragmatist, and as such anything he says must be taken with a mountain of salt.


I don't have enough salt! could I use sugar instead?
Reply 34
Original post by Steevee
The same kind of obsolete, hippy rubbish he came out with a lot of the time.

He was a nice man, sure enough, he had some nice ideas. But he was neither a realist nor a pragmatist, and as such anything he says must be taken with a mountain of salt.


He wanted Indian independece. He got Indian independence. Pretty realistic imo.
Original post by Qwertyuip
He wanted Indian independece. He got Indian independence. Pretty realistic imo.


exactly
Reply 36
what about these?

Appeal to authority much?
Reply 38
violent
Gandhi was a strong nationalist (with views which would be censored in the UK of today), not the hippy, pin-up boy lefties like to portray him as being.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending