Debate Mansion

   

The Real Debate! (Page 16)

Post Reply New Post

Page 16 of 23

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 8:09am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Resurrected.

Other than a few crackpot theories and conjecturing to the hilt, there's nothing the Gandhi detractors have produced so far.

Case dismissed!
Not so soon, K ! Do give them a chance !  Inspite of some members as well as the Mods assurance regarding freedom of expression on DM , I feel there are some who are still hesitating to put forth their views. It would be better to voice it out here , have a healthy discussion  and  try and think objectively if those were based on logic , misrepresentations or emotions.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

zorrroreturn_to_hades

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "The Real Debate! (Page 16)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

K.Consciousness

Senior Member

Joined: 16 November 2010

Posts: 403

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 10:54am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

DemonStarblue-ice

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 11:19am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Resurrected.

Originally posted by angie.4u

Originally posted by K.Resurrected.

Other than a few crackpot theories and conjecturing to the hilt, there's nothing the Gandhi detractors have produced so far.

Case dismissed!
Not so soon, K ! Do give them a chance !  Inspite of some members as well as the Mods assurance regarding freedom of expression on DM , I feel there are some who are still hesitating to put forth their views. It would be better to voice it out here , have a healthy discussion  and  try and think objectively if those were based on logic , misrepresentations or emotions.



A statement such as "Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowing the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev?" has the underlying assumption that Gandhi did indeed have such a pact and the only question that remains to be asked there is whether or not Gandhi was right in what he did. That is a conspiracy theory which is not substantiated by historians.

A statement such as "Gandhi's vision was too myopic and idealistic" is a personal opinion not backed by reason.

A statement such as "He could have stopped the assassination of Sukhdev, Rajguru and Bhagat singh" is a fallacy of composition. It assumes that a) Gandhi did indeed have the power to do so b) he did not try hard.

There are exceptions to free speech protection. Obscenity, defamation, incitement are a few such exceptions. When you are talking about the father of the nation, a man held in high esteem by millions for all the right reasons, you have to tread carefully with you free speech banner. A debate is not possible with those people who have already made up their minds, have come to irrelevant conclusions via argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are here only to besmirch a man loved and respected by many.  

The detractors of Gandhi remain silent so perhaps theres nothing more from their side.
 The partition and Bhagat Singh angle has already been addressed. No counter arguments from their side so far.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

blue-ice

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20282

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 11:58am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Resurrected.


A statement such as "Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowing the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev?" has the underlying assumption that Gandhi did indeed have such a pact and the only question that remains to be asked there is whether or not Gandhi was right in what he did. That is a conspiracy theory which is not substantiated by historians.


The Gandhi-Irwin pact did exist and is historical fact. In the Pact Gandhi would discontinue the civil disobedience movement and in return the British government would release political prisoners. Yes Gandhi did request Bhagat Singh and others to be released. However, since the British government found them guilty of violence that was taken off the table. There were several other compromises.

So considering that Gandhi did sign this pact it is completely open to analysis if he was right in doing so. We can consider both perspectives
a)  Perhaps he had done his absolute best in negotiations and did what was best in negotiations. He resulted in the most moral and just outcome possible.
b) Perhaps he was too eager for compromise and resolution that he let some national heroes hang, when he could have negotiated against it and he was immoral in doing so.

Instead of dismissing every opposing view as some conspiracy theory or crackpot theory of some sort, you could actually debate to show why (a) is more reasonable than (b).

Originally posted by K.Resurrected.

A statement such as "Gandhi's vision was too myopic and idealistic" is a personal opinion not backed by reason.


Thank you for stating the obvious. That sentence began with "I think". There was no attempt to pass it off as fact. However, I can explain the reasoning behind me forming such opinions.

Satyagraha and non-violence are very idealistic concepts and difficult to apply in the long run. There have been only two successful non-violent movements in history, the Indian freedom movement led by Gandhi and then the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King. Jr. However, neither movements were in isolation and independent, they ran parallel to more explicit struggles. I think there comes a time when even the most non violent and pacifist of people has to take a hard stand against injustice. Sometimes you simply cannot fight with words or inaction, but a stance has to be taken with forceful action.

Peace and compromise are also idealistic. Some demands, some expectations, some wants are wrong and founded on wrong misguided principles. The demand for a separate Pakistan, the separation of our people based on religion is an abhorrent idea. For some reason despite considering these abhorrent ideas, Gandhi preferred to try and compromise with these divisive factions rather than force them to be one. I feel in the long run that has negatively affected both our nations and we live in a schism that never should have been.

I have admitted that these are what if scenarios and that I don't know if outcomes would have been positive had Gandhi changed his stances and actions on some things. Its an interpretation of history and I never attempted to present them as facts or truths of history. However, I don't think it is completely unreasonable to have these perceptions.

If you have a problem with how I perceive history, then too bad for you.

Originally posted by K.Resurrected.

A statement such as "He could have stopped the assassination of Sukhdev, Rajguru and Bhagat singh" is a fallacy of composition. It assumes that a) Gandhi did indeed have the power to do so b) he did not try hard.


Well it is not an unfair assumption. Gandhi is probably one of the most influential leader of that era. He could captivate the masses instantaneously, drive them to action and British leaders were constantly trying to counter him or compromise with him. He may not have had the power to pardon or release prisoners, but it won't be outrageous to assume that he wielded the powers of influence and it won't be outrageous to hope that he utilized it more often. It goes back to my earlier point he either did the best he could, or he stopped short. We won't know the absolute facts, but if you believe he did everything in his means to right the nation and its people, then present the argument why you feel it must be that way.

Originally posted by K.Resurrected.

There are exceptions to free speech protection. Obscenity, defamation, incitement are a few such exceptions.


There has been absolutely nothing obscene or defamatory stated. No one has denied Gandhi the role he played in history. Its merely a question of did he do enough, could he have done more and do we potentially overlook some of his mistakes. You choose to take these as obscenities, defamation and get incited. 

Originally posted by K.Resurrected.

When you are talking about the father of the nation, a man held in high esteem by millions for all the right reasons, you have to tread carefully with you free speech banner. A debate is not possible with those people who have already made up their minds, have come to irrelevant conclusions via argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are here only to besmirch a man loved and respected by many.  


Yes, it is very difficult to debate with people who have made up their minds. Especially when people have made up their minds that they are right and all those who contradict their righteous opinions or think differently are nothing but ignorant, disrespectful, idiots who are making up bullshit.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

DemonStarsouro

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 12:32pm | IP Logged

Some findings on Confirmation Bias-

 "The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions."

Confirmation bias is seeing the world through a filter, thinking selectively.

The real trouble begins when confirmation bias distorts your active pursuit of facts. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn't, you hate them.

Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Valdis Krebs at orgnet.com analyzed purchasing trends on Amazon.People who already supported Obama were the same people buying books which painted him in a positive light. People who already disliked Obama were the ones buying books painting him in a negative light. People rarely seek books which challenge their notions of how things are or should be. Just like with pundits, people weren't buying books for the information, they were buying them for the confirmation.

Krebs has researched purchasing trends on Amazon and the clustering habits of people on social networks for years, and his research shows what psychological research into confirmation bias predicts: you want to be right about how you see the world, so you seek out information which confirms your beliefs and avoid contradictory evidence and opinions.

Half-a-century of research has placed confirmation bias among the most dependable of mental stumbling blocks.

Journalists looking to tell a certain story must avoid the tendency to ignore evidence to the contrary; scientists looking to prove a hypothesis must avoid designing experiments with little wiggle room for alternate outcomes.

Without confirmation bias, conspiracy theories would fall apart. Did we really put a man on the moon? If you are looking for proof we didn't, you can find it.

In science, you move closer to the truth by seeking evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the same method should inform our opinions as well.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

DemonStarzorrro

K.Consciousness

Senior Member

Joined: 16 November 2010

Posts: 403

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 12:58pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

DemonStarblue-ice

-Aarya-

Goldie

-Aarya-

Joined: 02 November 2010

Posts: 1613

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 1:24pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Resurrected.


A statement such as "Was Gandhi right in going with his Pact with Lord Irwin and allowing the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev?" has the underlying assumption that Gandhi did indeed have such a pact and the only question that remains to be asked there is whether or not Gandhi was right in what he did. That is a conspiracy theory which is not substantiated by historians.

A statement such as "Gandhi's vision was too myopic and idealistic" is a personal opinion not backed by reason.

A statement such as "He could have stopped the assassination of Sukhdev, Rajguru and Bhagat singh" is a fallacy of composition. It assumes that a) Gandhi did indeed have the power to do so b) he did not try hard.

There are exceptions to free speech protection. Obscenity, defamation, incitement are a few such exceptions. When you are talking about the father of the nation, a man held in high esteem by millions for all the right reasons, you have to tread carefully with you free speech banner. A debate is not possible with those people who have already made up their minds, have come to irrelevant conclusions via argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are here only to besmirch a man loved and respected by many.  


This debate is based on personal opinions, as everyone has a right to their opinion: I respect and welcome all. Tongue

What did Gandhi leave behind except for a name! How many political leaders follow in his footsteps. His myth on abandoned nonviolent actions, and today India has the 4th largest armed force in the world. India is following in the foot steps of western countries by building economy on large scale industries on agriculture land where 80% of the mass population is still lives.

There is a thin line between whose footstep do  you follow vs just naming an individual to be a saint.




Edited by night13 - 26 May 2011 at 1:25pm

K.Consciousness

Senior Member

Joined: 16 November 2010

Posts: 403

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 1:38pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

blue-ice

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
The Cyber Culture Discussion/Debate

2

return_to_hades 15 1375 01 July 2010 at 4:39pm
By the_Naked_face
Debate Contest (COMPLETED)

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 32 33

return_to_hades 256 12112 28 June 2010 at 8:13am
By return_to_hades
Debate Contest Winners

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18 19

return_to_hades 149 8849 23 June 2010 at 9:41pm
By krystal_watz
Mahabharat Analysis and Debate

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 67 68

..RamKiJanaki.. 538 43176 22 June 2010 at 1:45pm
By Aanandaa
Debate Contest: What Would You Do? (DM-REMIX)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

return_to_hades 66 4796 18 June 2010 at 6:35pm
By *Woh Ajnabee*

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.