The Real Debate! - Page 10

This content was originally posted by: return_to_hades

We were just talking about you elsewhere.

Nice of you to pop in.

Yes, I noticed after my hyper-turtle decided to track me down and notify me of this mischief on facebook. I was just complaining to him that he was remembering me as your fan (instead of for my own views), though he put it in past tense...am still your fan, and mostly 'cause I can relate to your thoughts. So, it is like I am just being a fan of myself. 😆

Thanks for the "awesome" comments, you and Woh. 😳😃

This content was originally posted by: persistence

Yes, I noticed after my hyper-turtle decided to track me down and notify me of this mischief on facebook. I was just complaining to him that he was remembering me as your fan (instead of for my own views), though he put it in past tense...am still your fan, and mostly 'cause I can relate to your thoughts. So, it is like I am just being a fan of myself. 😆

Thanks for the "awesome" comments, you and Woh. 😳😃

Its flattering to have fans. 😳  Even if its some twisted form of narcissism. 😆 Likewise, I'm a fan too and miss having you around on DM.

Good he tracked you down.🤗 I was getting nostalgic about the time in Ayodhya thread where I had the hyper-turtle spinning more in a tizzy with that one post. 😆

How have you been these days?

This content was originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

Perhaps "The Real Debate", even if as an introspection, should be about "what have you done for your country?!", instead of being an armchair critic and niggling on the decisions taken (in the past) by a great leader and a freedom fighter, who actually sacrificed his life fighting for the betterment of the country. Perhaps, one shouldn't be obtusely oblivious to the reality that while all major decisions potentially affecting millions tend to have wide-reaching ramifications, even bearing upon the future generations, it is not humanly possible to foresee all the corollaries unless one is a soothsayer.

The thing with Gandhi is that you can sling mud all you want and hope some of it sticks. Who knows, it might, if history books (or even the internet for that matter) are rewritten with half truths and hearsays. Based on what I read, in my opinion, Gandhi is indeed a national treasure; his non-cooperative non-violence, satyagraha philosophy bordered on pure brilliance; and I believe his heart actually beat for India, much more than any of us can lay claim to.

Since you are talking in hindsight anyway, may be you can opine on how it would be different if the partition had NOT happened. But I still see no purpose in such a speculative exercise. What 's done is done.

What' s done is done, and nothing can be done to undo what is already done.  The point of this debate was to get a different pov on Gandhi vs Godse.  

The answer is already in your question! 😛


Edited by night13 - 12 years ago

This content was originally posted by: return_to_hades

Actually making assassination a crime no matter what is the most pragmatic solution. Citizen justice is more idealistic in concept.

 

Allowing for pardon based on victim creates too much chaos and confusion for proper execution of the law

-          Too many citizen vigilantes will feel they can murder people based on perceived crimes

-          The average citizen is not well versed to distinguish capital offense

-          Due process is prolonged and made ineffectual as verdict and direction in trials get tied to verdict and direction in others making for a procedural mess

As far as I know it's already a crime. I'm talking about something different. Say a very powerful person is also guilty of heinous crimes. He will also have the means to cover his tracks well which will make it difficult to prove his crimes and he will have powerful connections which will make it even more difficult to get proofs against him or to get people to testify against him. Moreover, he will have a huge fan following which will make any opposition to him extremely hazardous. In such a scenario is it practical to still go ahead and lodge a case in the courts of a country whose government and judiciary are practically under his command? I don't think so. Sometimes it's not only easier but better to cut a Gordian knot than trying to untie it.

This content was originally posted by: persistence

Ok, haven't read thru the entire thread, but got to say the following is debatable:

[quote]Its history and nothing is going to change the fact.[/quote]

people write history; different versions can and do exist. No such thing as a "fact"...just a reality/perception. Not that this is an ontological debate. :)

As long as you don't ask me to show proof: existence of GOD!  I rather this debate falls under the category of perception. 😉
ps. Isn't perception everything!
Edited by night13 - 12 years ago

This content was originally posted by: souro

As far as I know it's already a crime. I'm talking about something different. Say a very powerful person is also guilty of heinous crimes. He will also have the means to cover his tracks well which will make it difficult to prove his crimes and he will have powerful connections which will make it even more difficult to get proofs against him or to get people to testify against him. Moreover, he will have a huge fan following which will make any opposition to him extremely hazardous. In such a scenario is it practical to still go ahead and lodge a case in the courts of a country whose government and judiciary are practically under his command? I don't think so. Sometimes it's not only easier but better to cut a Gordian knot than trying to untie it.

Your scenario sounds like the last episode of Chicago Code. The evil dude did end up in jail in the end. :)

This content was originally posted by: night13

As long as you don't ask me to show proof: existence of GOD!  I rather this debate falls under the category of perception. 😉
ps. Isn't perception everything!

Why would I? You are not an evolutionist and I am not an intelligent design theorist! 😊We are only asking: What is truth/reality? In my worldview, everything is perception. A positivist/post-positivist might disagree!

Persy

This content was originally posted by: persistence

Your scenario sounds like the last episode of Chicago Code. The evil dude did end up in jail in the end. :)

Never even heard of it before this. I guess if you have taken time out to follow it, it must've been interesting.

Anyways 'powerful and corrupt' is not a rare combination. And we all know how difficult it can be to bring them to justice. That's my whole point.

Souro – your proposition would justify assassination in the eyes of someone who views it as the end of power and corruption and not necessarily acquit someone. It would need proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person assassinated was guilty of crimes. It does not make sense to make a loophole to a murder law for such a narrow scenario (narrow in the sense that it is virtually impossible to prove)

 

In the case of almost every trial there are people completely convinced of the opposite to what the decision is.

 

That being said what you propose is that Gandhi was guilty of capital offenses. I'd disagree with that. I think his intentions was good and he did wish to serve honestly, but his vision was too myopic and idealistic. Hypothetically, if you were to try Gandhi today, what charges would you bring across him and what sort of proofs do you believe you could present?

This content was originally posted by: K.Resurrected.

Perhaps "The Real Debate", even if as an introspection, should be about "what have you done for your country?!", instead of being an armchair critic and niggling on the decisions taken (in the past) by a great leader and a freedom fighter, who actually sacrificed his life fighting for the betterment of the country.

now wouldn't that be the real debate😆